Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FitchInks t1_j913742 wrote

Reply to comment by Typical_Balance3892 in TIL that "Lilo & Stitch" (2002) used exclusively watercolor backgrounds, since Disney, after some failures, was investing in other projects. This was later called a "hand drawn miracle". by starring2

Afaik Treasure Planet underperformed, because of bad marketing. Which is sad because it is a beautiful movie.

42

Hinbo t1_j91d26b wrote

It had to compete with Lord of the Rings and another blockbuster hit that I'm forgetting, on opening weekend.

25

Vainpaix t1_j92wq31 wrote

Disney murdered Treasure Planet - the two animators/directors who made the Disney Renaissance of the 90s a thing continually asked Disney's CEO for years for a chance to reimagine Treasure Island, only to be told to do movie after movie they didn't really wanna make, eventually though they got the greenlight. By the time the movie was ready however said CEO was gone and a new board of directors had taken charge, and they didn't care that Treasure Planet was a passion project by their best staff, instead only caring it had went over budget and been delayed, so they gave it a bad release date, a low advertising budget, spoiled the end of the movie in said low budget ads, and also hammered it in in said ads that the movie would be on DVD within a short amount of time, in effect dissuading theaterviewing.

9

Perpetual_Doubt t1_j91pjmg wrote

I personally think having a random mix of human and anthropomorphic characters is a mistake. Choose a lane.

−12

[deleted] t1_j91q02z wrote

I think this is an arbitrary criticism that has no meaningful or empirical reason to be

15

Perpetual_Doubt t1_j91quwh wrote

It may appear arbitrary, but note that such a mix is highly unusual. I can think of no other example. I cannot think what artistic contribution it can provide, and makes the pitching of the movie more difficult.

−11

[deleted] t1_j91rabh wrote

That still makes your criticism completely arbitrary with no empirical reasoning behind it. And you're completely wrong. Plenty of media with a mix of human and non human characters. Stupid criticism just complaining for the sake of it.

8

Perpetual_Doubt t1_j92fzkp wrote

>And you're completely wrong.

Not only am I not wrong, we are talking about a film which by any estimation was a box office bomb.

However this mix of styles is characteristic of the film in general, which mixes 3d and 2d animation, and 18th century technology and futuristic.

To my surprise reviews of the film were not particularly positive (69% nice on Rotten Tomatoes). To quote Robert Ebert

>I am not concerned about technical matters. I do not question why space ships of the future would look like sailing ships of the past. I can believe they could be powered by both rockets and solar winds. It does not bother me that deep space turns out to be breathable. I do not wonder why swashbuckling is still in style, in an era of ray guns and laser beams. I accept all of that. It's just that I wonder why I have to. Why not make an animated version of the classic Treasure Island ?

On the whole he gave the film a thumbs up, but he questioned the overall motives for these clashing decisions. Ultimately people's tolerance mileage is going to vary for its various flights of fancy. For me, it's seeing that the deuteragonist is a doctor who happens to be a bipedal dog whom all the characters pretend is not a dog. For others it might be using an 18th century galleon as a faster than light vessel.

−1

OskaMeijer t1_j92ub9p wrote

>I can think of no other example.

Alice in Wonderland, Shrek, Beauty and the Beast, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Space Jam, Jungle Book, Snow White, so many more. Movies mixing people with anthropomorphic characters and having them interact is in no way rare.

8

Perpetual_Doubt t1_j92vu2z wrote

The Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland or Donkey in Shrek, are a cat and donkey respectively. Never mind their fantastical setting, if you had Donkey walking on two legs and declaring he was an engineer I would raise an eyebrow.

Same deal with the Jungle Book, if Bagheera had a doctorate and a snazzy waistcoat it would be... odd. Not saying you can't do it, but you'd usually want to have a good reason. Who Framed Roger Rabbit has a good reason - the distinction between humans and toons is the entire premise of the movie.

It's like Ebert said... it's not that you can't suspend disbelief, but what's the reason for?

−1

OskaMeijer t1_j934l7x wrote

>The Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland or Donkey in Shrek, are a cat and donkey respectively. Never mind their fantastical setting, if you had Donkey walking on two legs and declaring he was an engineer I would raise an eyebrow.

Alice in wonderland has the rabbit that sits at a table and drinks tea and other things. Shrek has Puss in Boots, gingerbread man, honestly a ton. You say it is rare but it really isn't.

6

marbledaedra t1_j933rzy wrote

>I cannot think what artistic contribution it can provide

It's interesting, it's a unique take on the original story, it stirs up the imagination... not everybody would agree, of course, but those are some possible things.

Also, something you're not mentioning is that the characters are literally aliens. Fictional aliens may take visual inspiration from real creatures, even if they're sapient. Halo is another example where this occurs.

3