Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

Treasure Planet


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
9 replies to this topic

#1 of 10 steve jaros

steve jaros

    Second Unit

  • 280 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 1997

Posted July 04 2002 - 04:40 PM

Saw the trailer for this one today - *looks* fantastic, i.e., the animation. Whether the execution of the story will be well-done or not is, of course, another issue.

#2 of 10 Morgan Jolley

Morgan Jolley

    Lead Actor

  • 8,098 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 16 2000

Posted July 04 2002 - 05:38 PM

I thought it looked a lot like Titan A.E. 2, and to tell the truth, I didn't like Titan A.E.

The quality of the visuals is amazing, Disney movies are the most visually impressive animated films out there.

#3 of 10 steve jaros

steve jaros

    Second Unit

  • 280 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 1997

Posted July 04 2002 - 10:54 PM

Yes - it could be a Titan AE kind of disappointment. We know trailers can be deceiving. But this one did look visually amazing, and that's a good place to start from.

#4 of 10 BrianB

BrianB

    Producer

  • 5,211 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 29 2000

Posted July 05 2002 - 05:45 AM

The art direction in the trailer reminds me heavily of a Japanese videogame called "Skies of Arcadia" that came out two years ago.
high resolution ipod featuring dlp hd programming is the best, almost as good as playstation 2 with wega windows media on a super cd! ps2 and tivo do dolby tv with broadband hdtv!

#5 of 10 Richard WWW

Richard WWW

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 121 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 07 2002

Posted July 05 2002 - 06:32 AM

Quote:
Disney movies are the most visually impressive animated films out there.


That is mostly because Disney is the most prolific producer of animated films. Therefore, they have the biggest budgets and the most experience, they draw some of the best people, they already have a wealth of animation resources that other studios couldn't hope to match. Unfortunately, they seem to have forgotten recently that great stories are necessary for great films, not just great animation.

I think Fox's Anastasia rivaled Disney's best productions, but other than that, I can't think of any film since the mid-nineties that was anywhere in the ballpark. If you go back as far as Land Before Time, a Steven Spielberg produced project, the animation in that was embarrassingly bad, imo. The traditionally animated Dreamworks projects...Prince of Egypt and Road to El Dorado...were neither one that great. Again, my opinion. But the lack of animation contenders is really just a by-product of Disney's dominance of the field for the last 65 years, and the lack of interest of other studios over a period spanning decades to seriously challenge Disney.

Pocahantas, the Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, and Atlantis are all examples of fine animation mixed with poor storytelling, imo. The source material for Treasure Planet, though, is an English-language classic, and so I have high hopes for this film. Disney needs another winner. My feeling is that their recent projects have dwindled in quality, and I'd hate to see them botch another film. I haven't seen Lilo and Stitch, but I've heard it's decent...not as lush in its animation, but a good story, even though the advertising makes it look a little goofy (pardon the pun.)
"In some ancient cultures, bears were considered equal with men."

"This ain't no ancient culture."

"Sometimes it is."

#6 of 10 Morgan Jolley

Morgan Jolley

    Lead Actor

  • 8,098 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 16 2000

Posted July 05 2002 - 12:00 PM

Quote:
Unfortunately, they seem to have forgotten recently that great stories are necessary for great films, not just great animation

Agreed, but I tried to keep from sounding negative, so I didn't mention this.

As I see it, Disney is good at drawing. If they got some really good writers and didn't try to aim too high, they could make some amazing movies. Pretty much all of their movies are rip-offs, except for a few. Of those few, only one or two are actually good. The problem is that their original works are always filled with fantasy elements that have either already been done before or just degenerate into visual flair unaccompanied by a good story.

Treasure Planet does have a good source to work from, though I just hope they don't screw around with it.

And to tell the truth, the visuals of the film look good, but the trailer didn't get me excited for the movie.

#7 of 10 Max Leung

Max Leung

    Producer

  • 4,612 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 06 2000

Posted July 05 2002 - 03:46 PM

Quote:
I can't think of any film since the mid-nineties that was anywhere in the ballpark.

What about The Iron Giant? Posted Image
Mahatma Gandhi, as you know, walked barefoot most of the time, which produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet. He also ate very little, which made him rather frail and with his odd diet, he suffered from bad breath. This made him...a super-callused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.

Gamesh....

#8 of 10 Edwin-S

Edwin-S

    Producer

  • 5,539 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2000

Posted July 05 2002 - 05:30 PM

Pretty much all of their movies are rip-offs, except for a few. Of those few, only one or two are actually good.
------------------------------------------------------------

It would be nice to actually see some evidence to back up statements like this. What constitutes a rip-off in your book. Disney's animated movies are mostly adaptations of existing books rather than original works but they are not rip-offs. If they can be classified as rip-offs then most every film made in Hollywood is a rip-off.

One of the most controversial movies made by Disney, "The Lion King", is considered by overly rabid fans of anime to be a rip-off of "Kimba The White Lion". I have watched some of those Kimba episodes and the case for "The Lion King" being a rip-off is totally overstated. "The Lion King" makes more of a nod to Shakespeare than Tezuka's "Kimba", at least IMO. For one thing "Kimba The White Lion" has much more interaction between the animals and humans. The themes in "Kimba" seem to focus more on human impacts on Kimba's jungle home and the denizens, thereof.

"The Lion King", on the other hand, has almost zero animal-human interaction and focuses more on the rivalry within the family unit....Scar vs his brother, Scar vs Simba, etc. The movie also touches on rivalry between different animal factions, ex: "upper class" Lions vs "lower class" Hyenas. It was unfortunate that the Disney crew chose to call their main character Simba. The similarities between the two names only added to accusations of plagiarism. It is possible that a lot of people who worked on that film thought that they were paying homage to a character that influenced them in their childhoods.

I have read a lot of your posts regarding DISNEY and a lot of the time I get the impression that you don't like their movies simply because they are made by "DISNEY". I wonder if you would still have such a bad opinion of them if all of a sudden they had the name "GHIBLI" attached to them.
"You bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."

#9 of 10 Richard WWW

Richard WWW

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 121 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 07 2002

Posted July 06 2002 - 11:04 AM

I got the impression that Morgan was referring to the fact that Disney gets their stories from previously published source material. Maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway, I'd like to see Treasure Planet end up being a film that I can enjoy watching with my kids, since I have to see the damned things all a thousand times anyway, whether I like them or not.Posted Image
"In some ancient cultures, bears were considered equal with men."

"This ain't no ancient culture."

"Sometimes it is."

#10 of 10 Morgan Jolley

Morgan Jolley

    Lead Actor

  • 8,098 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 16 2000

Posted July 06 2002 - 03:50 PM

Quote:
Disney's animated movies are mostly adaptations of existing books rather than original works

This is what I mean by a rip-off. I guess adaptation would be a better term, but they change the stories as they see fit when they make them into movies.

Quote:
"The Lion King", on the other hand, has almost zero animal-human interaction and focuses more on the rivalry within the family unit....Scar vs his brother, Scar vs Simba, etc. The movie also touches on rivalry between different animal factions, ex: "upper class" Lions vs "lower class" Hyenas. It was unfortunate that the Disney crew chose to call their main character Simba. The similarities between the two names only added to accusations of plagiarism. It is possible that a lot of people who worked on that film thought that they were paying homage to a character that influenced them in their childhoods

But there are still similarities between Kimba and The Lion King, some which are just a little more than coincidence. I have nothing wrong with them using it as inspiration, so long as they acknowledge that they did.

And about the non-similarities, this would just be another example of Disney changing/bastardizing a good original story to make it better suit American audiences/children.

Maybe The Lion King is original, maybe it's a rip-off of Kimba. Even so, it's still one of the EXTREMELY FEW original movies they've made (if it even is).

Quote:
I have read a lot of your posts regarding DISNEY and a lot of the time I get the impression that you don't like their movies simply because they are made by "DISNEY". I wonder if you would still have such a bad opinion of them if all of a sudden they had the name "GHIBLI" attached to them

I don't care if it has the Disney name or not. I've just noticed a trend with their movies that I don't like.

As a matter of fact, Disney is making a videogame with Squaresoft called Kingdom Hearts. I am already in love with the game, even though it is all Disney characters. Why? Because Disney isn't actually developing the game, the storyline, etc. but rather just supplying characters and voice talents. Everything I've seen of the game is amazing, mainly because Squaresoft is doing it. If Disney was doing it, it would most likely suck.


Back to Archived Threads 2001-2004



Forum Nav Content I Follow