Meet The Robinsons

[ShyViolet]

I also agree on the name. We hardly get to meet the Robinsons so why that title?

Totally agree James. The true focus was on Louis' story (and Goob's as well.)
Wish the title had reflected them in some way...that's why I still totally prefer the "A Day with Wilbur Robinson" title because it's closer to Louis, not the whole "madcap-freaky family of the future" thing they were pushing in the trailers.

[ShyViolet]

ANNOYING article!!!!!


(via TAG)


I don't know if anyone here has heard, but unfortunately animation has always entertained kids, not adults. But with serious and mature CGI films like "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" lots more adults are going to actually start liking animation for the first time ever!!

http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... edium.html









(Oops, I meant to put this in the "films of 2007" thread. )


(BTW no offense if you liked TMNT. I haven't seen it yet myself...so I should talk. But it drives me, as I'm sure everyone else here, crazy when people make pronouncements like this. )

[ShyViolet]

Grandpa Bud doesn't recognize Lewis as a younger version of his adopted son, because Wilbur placed the 'fruitbowl-hat' on his head .. covering up his distinctive hairstyle (which, as Wilbur had mentioned, was a 'dead give-away'.

Surely, Grandpa could have recognized young Lewis, just from his voice or behavior (or even the fact that his name was "Lewis"), but he is a bit pre-occupied with finding his teeth .. he also seems to let his mind 'wander' (as may be consistent with his advanced age) .. and lastly, he has no reason to 'suspect' any such thing of Lewis; since no-one in the family, except Wilbur and Carl, even knows about the stolen/damaged time machines.

Note that Grandpa Bud is just as horrified as the other Robinsons, when Wilbur knocks Lewis' hat off later in the film.

Ah, thanks Drew! I thought about Grandpa's "age" as well and thought it might be attributed to that....

The fruitbowl hat, too, would explain things, at least kind of.

Also, I was SO choked up when Louis met Cornelius that I didn't really think of this, but technically, as Doc Brown warned Marty, "meeting yourself" face to face could have a catastrophic effect on time itself. I still loved it, but I do wish that the whole "forbidden" aspect of that could have been addressed, at least with more than a Tom Sellick joke....

[ShyViolet]

And before the film came out he was getting lots of praise for being a "classic oily British villain" (not an actual quote, but I know I saw those words being used) like Terry-Thomas, or someone in that vein, and no-one picked up on it then.

I'd love to see a classic Disney villain again...unfortunately, although BHG was a step in the right direction, I wouldn't consider him that. He wasn't frightening at all....maybe intimidating in some parts, but not frightening. Mostly funny....how can you be afraid of a villain with unicorn organizer?? (There are some scary parts with Doris however. )


Ursula is EVIL and scary in some parts, though funny in others. Jafar I consider partially comic relief--very funny in some parts--but quite scary in others as well!! Ditto Scar.....Ah, Disney villains!!!

And Gaston? As JK said at the time: he's a "son-of-a-b****". No two ways about THAT.

I hope we see Disney villains like this again.


PS: I wish so badly that Roger Ebert, who's always been aware of the importance of Disney villains, was reviewing films right now. He did one or two here and there, but he's still recovering from cancer surgery....he says he feels better every day and has every intention of going back to work as a film critic.

I really hope he comes back soon, especially with all these new animated films coming out!! We need a sane voice in the madness !! Ebert is one of the few good critics out there...


http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage

[Daniel]

What about Lady Tremaine? Now she's scary! She always gives me the shivers when I watch the original!

Disney did an outstanding job on preserving her character in Cinderella III.

[ShyViolet]

No, she is scary...no argument there.


But, no matter how good it was...Cindy III wasn't in theaters, unfortunately.
It just seems like both Pixar, Disney and even other studios such as DW are just afraid of showing genuine "evil" characters in their films.... (that Real Estate lady in OTH was a total--you know what I mean. But never felt all that "evil" just "mean", you know?)

Doris was very cool though, even though she didn't talk.

I guess a silent character like that is proof positive that a film like WALE-E has a shot!


(Still--I do have a question about WAL-E as well....is there a villain there?
Also, in Ratatouille: who is the villain? Is is that Chef Louie guy? I'm just honestly wondering is all.)

[Daniel]

But, no matter how good it was...Cindy III wasn't in theaters, unfortunately.

Well, not in "regular" theaters. It was however, in some theaters for a Disney VIP event. Lucky them!

Btw, true story, I actually got to see The Lion King II in theaters! Can you say, wow?

[Jeroen]

I saw Lion King II in theatres as well.
To celebrate the premiere of the (back then) VHS, some cinemas showed it for one day.

[Meg]

I don't know if anyone here has heard, but unfortunately animation has always entertained kids, not adults. But with serious and mature CGI films like "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" lots more adults are going to actually start liking animation for the first time ever!!

http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... edium.html

Y'know, I actually agree with Kevin. Whether animation fans like us acknowledge it or not, animated films ARE regarded by MOST people as 'kiddie fair' (at least in America, anyway.)

I don't like it, but it's the truth. Hopefully that will change - I really, really, REALLY want to see more animated films with higher ratings, to earn the medium more respect than anything else.

[ShyViolet]

It's true, but I just don't like how he acts like he's the ONLY one who's ever tried to "bridge the gap" between adult and kid entertainment--Pixar, DreamWorks and Disney do it all the time.

Like he's the "Neil Armstrong" of making animated epics fit for adults/kids? Has he ever heard of Miyazaki? Something tells me he hasn't.

And is TMNT really that "adult"? It looks like a fun film with some cool character moments/drama, but seems somewhat child-orientated as well. (sorry, haven't seen it, just my impressions. )



The 1990 TMNT (live-action) at least from my vantage point of having seen it a lot, seems scarier and more violent than Kevin's version. There was some really intense stuff there, the violence for one, (Shredder having cut part of Splinter's ear off years ago) and the whole thing with young runaways getting involved in the Shredder/Foot clan....


Does the 2007 film have anything like this?


( The 1990 film was an intense story that had some violence in it as well, not just an "action film" with Jim Henson SFX and a few random fight sequences.)




*****************************************************

I really, really, REALLY want to see more animated films with higher ratings, to earn the medium more respect than anything else.

I get your points Meg, but I have a concern...does more animated films with PG-13 ratings, R ratings (or even NC-17) really make them more "adult"? (Or better yet: mature?)

IMHO it's all about the essence of the story, and whether or not those ratings are part and partial to making it a better one, or just a way of pandering to adult consumers?

Look at Anime, it's got a ton of violence/sex in (much) of it, even if not all.

I know a lot of people feel that that quality makes Anime in general more sophisticated than American fare like Shrek, Toy Story, Over the Hedge, Finding Nemo, Incredibles, Ratatouille, etc....I don't agree, however. (Or Disney's Little Mermaid, Aladdin, etc...)

IMHO those Pixar/DreamWorks/Disney titles are more mature than (the majority of) Anime, because of the resonant quality of their stories. They all stress personal responsibility, love for others and seeing beyond someone's exterior.

And they don't have to have nudity or over-the-top violence to get the point across.

[YCougar]

*deep breath* Hoooookay. Here I go.

I get what Kevin's saying... the people at the blog misinterpreted him as saying CGI was a kiddie medium, while as Meg pointed out, he's ony observing that annoying preconception that's still mired in the general public's eyes.

And I don't think he sees himself as a "pioneer" necessarily, just one that's helping break down that wall. I don't want to see R-rated films (CGI or live-action) anyway... but he's just excited that animated films could start to get similar treatment to live-action is all.

That said, TMNT itself was kinda split. They were obligated to deliver a PG, plus there's a general misconception that Turtles are purely for the under-10 crowd. So a lot of the stuff they planned (and may have even animated) had to be cut to maintain that PG. There's some goofy-silly stuff for the kids, yeah... just as there was in the 1990 movie. But at the same time, the Leo vs. Raph conflict throughout the movie was more intense than I've seen in any medium except maybe the comics... emotionally heavy. So the character relationships were geared more toward people mature enough to understand them. And the general look (lighting, textures, etc.) was much darker and grittier than you usually see in CGI movies, which was something new and fresh I appreciated.

Though it could have been much more... the monster stuff was pure fluff for the kids, but the rest had enjoyable stuff for older fans. If you don't care about TMNT or the family dynamic at all, you probably won't notice the amount of attention paid to this part of the movie and just see the monster cheesiness.

Sorry for hijacking the thread. Actually, I think I'll hide this for only the most brave of heart to tackle.

[Josh]

I get what Kevin's saying... the people at the blog misinterpreted him as saying CGI was a kiddie medium, while as Meg pointed out, he's ony observing that annoying preconception that's still mired in the general public's eyes.

And I don't think he sees himself as a "pioneer" necessarily, just one that's helping break down that wall... he's just excited that animated films could start to get similar treatment to live-action is all.

I agree with you, YCougar. I sincerely believe Kevin loves animation. I don't think he was trying to belittle it at all.

[ShyViolet]

Yeah, I'm glad you chimed in YCougar! I knew you would.


Your comments about TMNT (2007) have intrigued me into seeing the film when I can.

If you don't care about TMNT or the family dynamic at all, you probably won't notice the amount of attention paid to this part of the movie and just see the monster cheesiness.

I actually find this very cool! Makes me want to see the film more.



I'm sure that the director has a basic respect for animation, but....I just wish he had mentioned other efforts to make animation appeal "broader"--in Pixar we can see they did this with Incredibles, with Disney Treasure Planet/Atlantis, with DreamWorks, well...Shrek, POE, Spirit, Sinbad? (even if they weren't always pulled off in the ideal way they could have been.)


Also....he talks of making animated (I guess CGI only right now) films with action, horror, violence etc....and even though I appreciate that he adds "if they're done well" but violence/blood doesn't automatically make it "adult".

Incredibles was (somewhat) violent to an extent, but it was the dark themes of loneliness, inadequacy, and wanting to fully reach your potential that made the film as dark as it was...and got it that PG rating.


All I'm saying is: he might very well have produced a good effort here that's worth seeing...and I'm sure his intentions are good in wanting to broaden the appeal of animated films......but he's not the first.

[Ben]

Well...

There's "adult" and there is "mature".

[ShyViolet]

Exactly.