Tim Burton and Shane Acker's "9"

Post by **Dan** » September 16th, 2009, 2:49 am

Well, the film's budget is $33 million. By the end of Sunday, the film made $15 million on his opening week domestically. It was number two in the box office. I'd say the film has a good chance at having a moderate box office success.

Post by **Ben** » September 16th, 2009, 9:32 am

"Adult animation" seems to be the new ticket for the studios. What with Disney's Double Dares You announcement and more like this to come, a new remake of Night Of The Living Dead, to be created completely in CGI, has just been announced.

It'll be interesting to see if the audience can relate to films like that. Sure, it's all make up and effects anyway in a live-action film, but you still know they're real actors. Watching a load of CGI tear each other to bits really isn't that interesting, or particularly new...

Post by **EricJ** » September 16th, 2009, 12:20 pm

Ben wrote:"Adult animation" seems to be the new ticket for the studios.

Although am I the only one that finds 9's ads, blasting heavy metal music with "This isn't your little brother's animation anymore!" somewhat, um...condescending, even playing to a Selick-obsessed Tim-boi pandering escape route?
(And yes, Ben, "condescending" even by my standards.)

Yes, don'tcha hate all those singing bunnies and flowers in animation lately, and didn't that Wall-E and Up just feel like Care Bears all over again?

Why do we have to have all that Saturday morning crap like Kung Fu Panda and Monsters vs. Aliens, anyway?

It'll be interesting to see if the audience can relate to films like that. Sure, it's all make up and effects anyway in a live-action film, but you still know they're real actors. Watching a load of CGI tear each other to bits really isn't that interesting, or particularly new...

But it is cheap, being taken from public-domain material.
(And no, that "Night of the Living Dead 3D" wasn't Romero either.)

Post by **Dacey** » September 16th, 2009, 1:34 pm

"9" may be "adult" animation, but honestly me and my brother were wondering exactly what it was that pushed this movie to PG-13 level. Seriously, the PG-rated "Titan A.E." was much more violent than this.

That's not to say that it's not a great film for adult fans of animation, because it is. I'm just saying that older kids at least will probably be able to enjoy it as well.

Post by **Dan** » September 16th, 2009, 2:58 pm

How the MPAA rates movies has always been an issue of controversy. Think about The Hunchback of Notre Dame. That was clearly not a G-Rated film and yet the MPAA rated it as such. In regards to animation, they always think it's kiddie fare and thus never really give it a second thought to what the proper rating should be.

Post by **OriginalGagBonkers** » September 17th, 2009, 6:43 am

I saw this movie on Tuesday with my older brother, to be honest it was great. For once a CG animated film that I can enjoy{and possibly Astro Boy as well maybe.} But I am glad that this movie is PG13, with this being in number 2 at the box office we might see some studios greenlighting more serious animated projects. Other then that Night of the living dead in full CG? I would pay to see that one since I love horror

. Say ben do u have a source for that?

And Wendy....I get your point in someway. Although for a Disney movie I am, or was suprised Disney got away with a G rating on Hunchback. It should be like either PG or {possibly by today's standards} PG13. Sometimes I think MPAA makes big deals out of nothing and just slaps on the rating they come to mind.