'Robinsons' is first test of Lasseter at Disney

[YoHo]

$25 million opening weekend. A little better (inflation adjusted) than Brother Bear and Treasure Planet. A good step up from Home on the Range. Much worse than Chicken Little. Might struggle to do $100 million domestically. If we were arguing two years ago whether Chicken Little was a failure at $130 million, this shouldn't be much of an argument.

Too bad. In my opinion, only Lilo and Stitch was better amongst the eight 21st Century Disney Animated Features.

This doesn't say much.
Personally, I liked Brother Bear. It wasn't great, and it wasn't new or unique, but I liked it. This, I just have no desire to see.

 

[raidermatt]

From what I read before it was released, $25 million is roughly what they expected. They hoped it would bring in $30 million. This was referred to as "modest expectations".


I honestly haven't seen anything in the previews to make me want to see Robinsons. Nothing gives me any kind of real indication as to what the movie is really about. A T-Rex joke which reminded me of Toy Story, and somebody who looks like a CGI version of Joan Cusack acting spazmatic. This doesn't exactly have me chompin' at the bit.

 

[ASilmser]

I just saw the movie, and I thought it was very good. I am a big fan of the William Joyce book "A Day With Wilbur Robinson", and I would recommend reading that book before seeing the movie. Some of the over the top characters and situations come directly from the books and the Artwork of William Joyce. The weakest part had to be the evil "bad guy" character. He was not scary or funny, although it seemed they were trying to make him both. He just looked like an idiotic purple pie man with bad teeth.

I think it is a clever attempt. Was it a classic? Is it a success? Who knows, but the animation was very good, the story was was creative, original, entertaining for my whole family, and worth the seven bucks. I don't think we should ask anything more of Walt Disney Animation. We should not expect every film to be a blockbuster or a classic. If we do, are we any better than the corporate heads who ruined WD animation in the first place?

In short, the movie accomplishes the goals that they should be setting forth for their movies--creative setting, endearing characters, excellent story, family focus.

Keep doing this, and the money will come.

 

[EUROPACL]

I don't think we should ask anything more of Walt Disney Animation. We should not expect every film to be a blockbuster or a classic. If we do, are we any better than the corporate heads who ruined WD animation in the first place?

WOW....just WOW!

 

[YoHo]

well, since I didn't cut the budgets on those films, fire/drive out the competant people and generally make the entire place a terrible anticreative pit of dispair, yeah, I'd say I'm still better then them.

Also, personally, I don't expect everything they make to be the next Lion King, I do however request that everything they make have SOME sort of artistic merit. To be made with heart and soul.

 

[ASilmser]

Also, personally, I don't expect everything they make to be the next Lion King, I do however request that everything they make have SOME sort of artistic merit. To be made with heart and soul.

I guess that's what I was trying to say in my last post. I think there WAS some artistic merit in this movie. They attempted to do something different, creative, and interesting. It had heart. Will the public take to it? I don't know. Am I glad they tried it? yes.

If I have my history right, Sleeping Beauty was originally a box office disappointment--but artistically and creatively, it is one of the most beautiful animated features I know of. PLEASE don't get me wrong, I don't think MTR in any way was attempting to push the boundaries like SB did, but I can still appreciate it for the artistic stretch that it was.

 

[ASilmser]

WOW....just WOW!

Now that I see my quote standing alone, It may have been poorly written

I think maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't mean that WDW animation should be creating the same old recycled stuff that we have been seeing lately.

I meant that by focusing on quality, originality, story, creativity, and universal appeal, heart and soal (as stated by yoho), the box office results will come. Of course we should be holding Disney to a higher standard.

Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but the tone of this thread seemed to be focusing on the box office results for the weekend: almost as a test (or a confirmation of someone's opinion) for whether the movie was good or not. I just wanted to point out that when we focus on box office results rather than merit we might be making a mistake. Some really fine movies did not do so well at the box office.

 

[raidermatt]

If they really did take some artistic stretches, and also tried to make a movie with a solid story and "Disney heart", then whoever designed the marketing plan should be fired, because they didn't convey any of that in the marketing. It was marketed as another collection of one-liners and pop-culture references.

We should not expect every film to be a blockbuster or a classic. If we do, are we any better than the corporate heads who ruined WD animation in the first place?

Depends on what we mean by "expect". If expect means deliver it or we'll consider the entire creative process a failure, then no, that should not be expected. But if expect means that's our goal, our target, our success criteria, then yes, it very well should be expected. The corporate heads you mentioned took the former of course, and virtually destroyed the department.

You're right that of course you won't have a box office hit with every single release, but if you do it right you will succeed more often than you fail, and that's not what DFA does.

But hey, if you're right and this really is a step in the right direction, good for them. It would be a sign that Pixar's way is rubbing off on Disney, and not vice-versa.

 

[girt25]

We (2 adults) saw it this weekend and thought it was phenomenal. some of the middle parts were a bit outrageous but very entertaining nonetheless. There was plenty of laughs for both kids and adults. I thought a lot of the jokes were really cleverly done and better suited for adults who don't want to be hit in the face with purely physical comedy. anyways it had me laughing the whole way through.

I don't think the movie was marketed very well thou. I consider myself a disney fan and when my wife told me we were going to see the new disney movie a couple of weeks ago.. i thought she was talking about Ratatouille.

 

[YoHo]

If I have my history right, Sleeping Beauty was originally a box office disappointment--but artistically and creatively, it is one of the most beautiful animated features I know of. PLEASE don't get me wrong, I don't think MTR in any way was attempting to push the boundaries like SB did, but I can still appreciate it for the artistic stretch that it was.

There's a fundamental difference between how Sleeping Beauty was made and how Meet the Robinsons was made. An entirely different corporate culture. Perhaps there were individuals at Disney, involved with Robinsons that were attempting to create something of artistic merit, but they are in the minority, surrounded by mindless middle management and upper management that has no experience making movies.

I thought Emperor's new groove was amusing and funny too, It's never going to age like sleeping beauty.

 

[ASilmser]

Depends on what we mean by "expect". If expect means deliver it or we'll consider the entire creative process a failure, then no, that should not be expected. But if expect means that's our goal, our target, our success criteria, then yes, it very well should be expected. The corporate heads you mentioned took the former of course, and virtually destroyed the department.

You're right that of course you won't have a box office hit with every single release, but if you do it right you will succeed more often than you fail, and that's not what DFA does.

But hey, if you're right and this really is a step in the right direction, good for them. It would be a sign that Pixar's way is rubbing off on Disney, and not vice-versa.

You are absolutely right. I think management threw away the baby with the bath water with Disney Feature animation. I also think MTR is a step in the right direction, more pixar than DFA. I, too, think it was poorly marketed. You said it much better than I did. It will be interesting to see the results NEXT weekend, after the word-of-mouth gets out. It really shouldn't do that poorly--There's not really any G-rated stuff out there right now.

 

[JustBob]

I'm back looking at the boards after a long hiatus (more than a year). This discussion is why I like these boards. Intelligent comments on both sides.

My two cents...
Went to see the 3D version of the show on Monday. I loved it. Technically the 3D enhanced the experience while not being a total gimmick like one would expect at one of the theme park shows (which I also love.) The 3D was basically another tool in the animator's tool box (like CGI or the multiplane camera) so I'm all for it. If we saw a film that merely capitalized on the multiplane camera and was image after image of that kind of shot just for the sake of enjoying that technology then we would all be bored.

So, is there a story of merit to go with the technology? YES! Maybe it's where I'm at as a parent right now, but the celebration of failure and the encouragement to keep moving forward meant a lot to this dad of a struggling high school graduate who is trying to figure out what he wants to do with his life.

Yes, the middle section (second act?) gets quite random and a bit hard to follow - it's as though the story folks were on the "caffeine patch" as well. But it all comes back together after a variety of misadventures. A family applauding failure? YES! How beautiful to have a movie that has a scene like that.

I was not a fan of "Home on the Range" - what a disappointing final film from WDFA. Brother Bear, though visually beautiful, was bogged down with a lethargic story and the atrocious Phil Collins songs. Chicken Little just did not move me even a little - I never got involved with the characters. MTR clicked for me.

By the way - did anyone see a trailer for yet ANOTHER penguin movie prior to MTR? Aaaauughh!

I'm over the CGI animalcentric thing. At least as it refers to anything with the word "hedge", "wild" or "Madagascar" in the title. Now Parisian rats? Those I'll give a try...