Final Fantasy: Spirits Within - Officially a flop? (1 Viewer)

[DaveF]

quote: The villain was the reasonable one while the "good guys" were clearly insane.[/quote]
That just goes to show just what I was pointing out. You saw the general's side, and understood the heroes from his perspective. I (and others), however, saw the heroes as rational and the general acting irrationally, blinded by his own anger and grief. I think that illustrates the fairly complex characters (for this sort of movie).
(Or, as I wrote originally)
Hmm... I thought the good guys were shown to be wholly rational. Standard military attacks only exacerbated things; the "spirits" and "bio-etheric" energy had proven real and extremely useful; and Dr. Aki showed that the aliens could be contained by the "spirits." To provide contrast, the general was blind to any alternative to violence, ignoring its continued ineffectiveness; he justified sacrificing the many for persuing his own agenda.
It's not great literature, but more complex than pretty much every U.S. action movie from the past 20 years.
[Edited last by DaveF on October 04, 2001 at 02:33 PM]

 

[Morgan Jolley]

The film was very Japanese. That accounts for the "complexity" and the themes.
I don't see why people thought it sucked. Without considering the visual beauty, even though it is the BEST looking CGI anything ever made, the story was still pretty good.
If Pixar has such good writers, then why are the movies so bad? Childish films can be good, but they aren't exactly doing anything new and the movies aren't that good. I can only take so much unoriginal Disney...and when it becomes CGI...
Monsters Inc. looks good because its not stereotypical Disney and it looks funny. I wonder how long it is before Disney includes nudity, swears, or gratuitous violence in their films...
Back to topic, TSW was an official flop. A lot of the money used went to a studio for making the film, so they could probably make a better looking and longer film in less time than it took to make TSW and for less. They will probably just use the studio for the games now.

 

[Jason Seaver]

If Pixar has such good writers, then why are the movies so bad?

::Jay's head explodes::

 

[DaveF]

Quote:

I'm hoping not for a long time. There is a misconception that violence, nudity, and profanity indicates maturity, when it's usually the opposite. It takes maturity and wisdom to effectively communicate without indulging in baser methods needlessly.
Sorry if I come across as too strong, but I love children's literature, and the few equivalent films. I think they have a lot to teach about "mature" content and how to really "move" your audience.
Hmm... how to make this relate to FF:TSW This is one way that FF:TSW falters compared to other movies. The writing was sloppy; the words weren't chosen carefully. the story, while interesting, didn't fully communicate the universal themes it contained, ignored others, and was too heavy handed with its half-baked spirituality.

 

[DaveF]

::Jay's head explodes::

Here, let me help you clean up the mess.

 

[Richard Kim]

I'm sorry Morgan, but Square only wishes it could make films like Pixar. Toy Story 2, while a "kiddie" movie on the surface, deals with very mature themes such as facing one's own mortality and the loss of innocence in the process of growing up. TS2 will stand the test of time for future audiences, unlike the dull, pretentious and badly written FF.

 

[Edwin-S]

I have to agree with DaveF. I do not consider Pixar's "Toy Story" and "Toy Story 2" to be childish. I consider these films to be general films which are designed to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, with out insulting their intelligence. I frankly think that it is much harder to write a story that appeals to many different age groups, with differing levels of comprehension. In relative terms, I think it would be much easier for a writer to craft a story narrowly aimed at a specific target audience, therefore, Pixar's writers are actually very good writers because their stories succeed in "speaking" to a lot of people at varying levels of maturity.
"Final Fantasy" was not all that bad and visually it was stunning in a lot of scenes, however, the characters lacked a certain "humanity". The characters from the "Toy Story" movies were not "realistic" looking but the emotions that they portrayed and the expressions they exhibited made them seem more "human" and believable than the "photorealistic" characters of "Final Fantasy". I still think that "Final Fantasy" is actually better storywise than movies like "Armageddon" and "Independence day". At least it didn't make me want to vomit like the afforementioned two movies did.
------------------

 

[TheoGB]

It wasn't just that the dialogue was bad, it was really ripping off movies like Aliens. That level of unoriginal writing is just terrible. It shows how secondary it was. Regardless of the plot your have to present it well in clever ways. Read Stephen King's On Writing for more info but as an example he takes H.P. Lovecraft. The man could write incredibly descriptive and chilling prose but could he do dialogue? Nope. Now in his case he worked with it but when you're doing an action movie dialogue is PARAMOUNT. It is one of the things, maybe the only thing that really makes Star Wars still enjoyable today ('cause the effects sure as hell aren't that impressive by todays standards).
IMHO.
Theo
------------------
My band is @ http://www.mokita.net

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I think Toy Story 1 and 2 were good movies, but I would not consider them to be that good. Tarzan was a pretty good movie, but I hate it. Why? First of all, you can talk to children in a movie, but its near impossible for Disney not to talk down to them. Granted, violence and nudity don't mean maturity, but they do mean realism. The characters in Toy Story were animated (as in their characters' personalities) and were happy, sad, loud, etc. In Final Fantasy, the characters were supposed to all be depressed. How do you think the characters in Toy Story would act if half of their world was destroyed and they were fighting for the survival of all the living toys when everything is preventing them from being able to do so? Of course the characters in TSW felt inhuman, they were realistic. What was the last movie that you saw with characters who experienced emotions other than happiness, sadness (and not "Woody is kidnapped, we're sad"), and fear? Final Fantasy's characters seemed unreal also because they are unreal. They LOOKED and SOUNDED real, but they weren't. Also, the ending to Final Fantasy beat out the ending of every movie I saw this year except for Memento and Tomb Raider (I was happy it was over).
The story in Final Fantasy was great. It might have had its own pace, but the movie wasn't an action movie. It wasn't a drama, either. It was a Sci-Fi Fantasy. They advertised it as an action movie because people would rather see an action movie.
As for it not being original, what was the last 100% original movie you saw?
I said that I was looking forward to Monsters Inc. and I still am. Its original, funny, and it looks to have good stars. What can go wrong? If it is too childish, then I will probably hate it. People complain about childish TV shows and videogames, but not movies. I don't get that.
Give me Final Fantasy over anything by Pixar any day.
I will admit that FF had some bad writing and voice acting in some parts. Other than that, it was really good. Certainly great for a videogame based movie.

 

[DaveF]

What was the last movie that you saw with characters who experienced emotions other than happiness, sadness ..., and fear?

Toy Story: Woody and Buzz are trapped in Sid's bedroom. Buzz's perception of himself as superhero is destroyed, and he is in shock. Woody, in the milk crate, goes from anger to depression to hope.
Toy Story 2: Woody learning the history of "Woody's Roundup" shows dawning elation. His struggle about going to the museum or returning home is realistic. And let's not forget the poignant "When She Loved Me" sequence, concluding with the heartbroken Jessie.
Most Disney animations have reasonable depictions of emotions: Simba's shock and horror at Mufasa being killed in the Stampede; Quasimodo's elation at Topsy Turvy Day and subsequent dejection; The opening sequence in Tarzan showing how his parents are killed and then his reaction later when he learns about his past. They are not complex, but they are realistic.
But I'm not here to bury FF. Some parts felt flat, emotionally. But other aspects felt realistically subdued. My opinion: Final Fantasy is a decent movie with some depth, subtleties, and nuances, but it isn't that masterpiece that I believe Toy Story 2 is.
This is not to take away from others' appreciation. We all respond to movies differently and the themes that resonate in our souls can change over the years. I wish that more people could enjoy the beauty and unique aspects of FF:TSW, so that Square would return to make another such film. Even if it's not great, I'm glad they did it and I saw it.

 

[teapot2001]

Morgan, as much as I agree with you on Final Fantasy, I agree with everyone else on the Disney and Pixar movies. I've seen a lot characters experiencing a great deal of sadness, most recently in Toy Story 2 when we see Jessie's flashback sequence.
~T

 

[James D S]

If Pixar has such good writers, then why are the movies so bad?

That HAD to be written just to get a response. If it isn't, then it's proof that not all opinions are good ones.
Anyway, it's good to see that Square took a hit for making this movie. Hopefully it will deter other studios from pouring money into visuals with no regard for securing and developing a quality script. Unlike videogames, a field in which SquareSoft has proven time and time again they know what they're doing, movies have to have more than just "good graphics" if they are going to appeal and turn over such an expensive investment. Lesson learned...

 

[teapot2001]

Anyway, it's good to see that Square took a hit for making this movie. Hopefully it will deter other studios from pouring money into visuals with no regard for securing and developing a quality script. Unlike videogames, a field in which SquareSoft has proven time and time again they know what they're doing, movies have to have more than just "good graphics" if they are going to appeal and turn over such an expensive investment. Lesson learned...

The Final Fantasy videogames do have more than just "good graphics." They are known for their characters and stories. Also one of the screenwriters, Jeff Vintar, said that much of the familiar American dialogue that people have problems with are not due to the writers of the script, but are attributed to the voice director.
~T

 

[Gary King]

How do you think the characters in Toy Story would act if half of their world was destroyed and they were fighting for the survival of all the living toys when everything is preventing them from being able to do so?

I don't know... you might get something like the fantastic Neverending Story, Star Wars, Terminator, or The Fifth Element. Destruction of the world is hardly a unique plot device.

 

[James D S]

quote: The Final Fantasy videogames do have more than just "good graphics."[/quote]

There are other video games besides Final Fantasy...
[Edited last by James D S on October 05, 2001 at 06:28 PM]

 

[DaveF]

of course, if it weren't for my encyclopedaeic knowledge of anime (which includes such fundamental concepts as red=bad, blue=good), I'm not sure I'd have known what they were talking about, either.

Gary, that explains much of why FF didn't do well.
1) FF was anime, not action, and Americans didn't expect that and didn't 'get' it.
2) Square failed to account for our non-understanding of anime conventions.
I've seen only three anime (Akira, Princess Mononoke, Ghost in the Shell). Enough for me to appreciate and enjoy the style of FF, but not enough to know that "blue = good".
As for FF to be a lesson that eye-candy lesson ought not be made - ha! For each lesson for that, there's an M:I2 to show that eye-candy is all you need to succeed. (And the plot of FF was far better than M:I2 but M:I2 had Tom Cruise and John Woo)

 

[teapot2001]

quote: There are other video games besides Final Fantasy... [/quote]
Yes there are...

quote: of course, if it weren't for my encyclopedaeic knowledge of anime (which includes such fundamental concepts as red=bad, blue=good)[/quote]
I interpreted red as anger and violence and blue as peace and faith.
~T
[Edited last by Thi Them on October 05, 2001 at 07:05 PM]

 

[BrianB]

1) FF was anime, not action, and Americans didn't expect that and didn't 'get' it.

That explanation doesn't account for it doing poorly in Japan where the 'normals' of anime are most definitely accepted & known.
------------------
Nothing In Particular

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Let me start off with this: had The Matrix been made without the visual flair, would it be as good? I think absolutely not. That said, I don't think that TSW's visual flair should EVER be used to say that the film was pure eye-candy.
The FF movie had more to it than eye candy. It had depth. Not many films do. Toy Story didn't have depth or motivation for the characters. The only motivation in either film was a combo of friendship and redemption. TSW has way more motivational concepts (love, redemption, fear, anger, hatred, revenge, friendship, etc.) and they all were shown a little more subtlely. Humans don't show emotion to everyone they see, so it would make sense if you can't obviously see emotion in the characters in TSW. The characters in Toy Story expressed EVERYTHING way too bluntly and it got annoying. I admit that TS 1 and 2 were great movies, but compared to TSW in every way, I think TSW was better.
Also, I'm sick and tired of childish movies. Yes, they can be good, but I just hate sitting through songs and musical interludes unless they are masterfully written into a film for a dramatic purpose (TS2 used this very well with the whole Jessie sequence).
I don't hate Pixar or their films, I just hate the fact that they were aimed so much at everybody and require no thought whatsoever. Having at least on plot point require thought would have been an improvement.
Gary-
About there not being any background info in TSW, you didn't need it. They explain everything that happened that led up to their current situation and the rest can be assumed. TS didn't exactly establish that the toys lived in a child's room, but we can accurately assume that. Given an iota of thought and a little attention, you can see a LOT in TSW.
And yes, the thing about its great ending was a testament to the lack of good films this year. It was also a testament to the ending compared to the ending of Memento (which was GREAT).

 

[DaveF]

That explanation doesn't account for it doing poorly in Japan where the 'normals' of anime are most definitely accepted & known.

Nope. And the anime reason isn't the only reason it did poorly in the US. It lacked star power (why M:I2 did well), and the writing was clunky and felt like translated japanese game manuals at times (Armageddon has well delivered lines by a good cast).
But a big thing was the story was not very US-friendly. So, you've got a monster-budget movie with a niche market. Had this been a $20m movie, it would have done great. Note that that the previous mega-cgi movie, Dinosaur, was complete pulp. This was the epitome of 'kiddy' movie that Morgan berates. And I agree, Dinosaur was average, in a bad way (heck, I didn't even like the animation. Things didn't move right, imo). Whereas FF at least tried to tell a nuanced story.
Another problem is that 'cartoons' are still not widely accepted in America as 'adult' films. The Toy Stories, Shrek, Prince of Egypt have improved this. But 'cartoons' that purposefully exclude the children's market (as FF did), don't do well.
It was average, in a good way. A bit like A.I. -- it reached beyond its grasp, but at least it reached. Dinosaur just pandered to four-year olds.
And look which one made the money.