AnimationNation Forum

AnimationNation


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» AnimationNation   » General Discussion   » MEET THE ROBINSONS * * * reviews & spoilers (Page 1)

 
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 
Author Topic: MEET THE ROBINSONS * * * reviews & spoilers
blue eyes
Member
Member # 259

Icon 3 posted      Profile for blue eyes           Edit/Delete Post 
BLUE EYES MOVIE REVIEW :

Disney's ' MEET the ROBINSONS '

{ I was a guest at the cast screening }

Positive:
___________________________________________

STORY:

It has emotion. You do feel for the main character at times. Disney has set up the emotional connection with the main character at the beginning.
Unlike CARS, where the main character was self centered and unlikeable, this movies character just wants to know why his mother left him as a baby.
Can't get too much emotional than that, maybe only if Lewis was a bit younger and cuter he could make you feel even more for him.
{ imagine if a thumper character was a orphan.... awwwww.... now that would HOOK an audience [Wink] }

By the end, the happy ending makes you feel fullfilled.... it has all the needed ingredients for a Disney family movie.
I would think families will leave the theatre feeling ok that they just spent the $ 50.00 or so for the 1.5 hours of entertainment for the kids. The adults will be entertained enough to not have them complain as they drive home.

ART DIRECTION:

Beautiful work by the 2 art directors and crew.
Amazing colors and the way they lit the seq to only add so much more emotion to the different moments of the movie.
I must say... the art direction is really what stood out in this movie.
It really is the strongest part of this movie.
Congratulations to this group of artists.
Your talents very much showed on screen.

ANIMATION:

Some great acting at times.
The { evil } Bowler Hat character was so fun to watch. Complete goof.
The hat was very cool the way he was thought out and animated.
The main kid Lewis had some nice thoughful scenes.
____________________________________________
____________________________________________

Negatives:

I will wait to comment on any of the negatives.
That is the easy part of reviews.

____________________________________________
____________________________________________

All in all, Disney has made an emotional family film. Adults and kids should be entertained.

Report card :

STORY: C+
ART DIRECTION: A
ANIMATION: B
LAYOUT: B
CHARACTER DESIGN: C+

OVERALL: B

IP: Logged
old_blue
Member
Member # 3117

Icon 1 posted      Profile for old_blue   Email old_blue         Edit/Delete Post 
Not many reviews yet on RottenTomatoes...heres what we got so far.

http://www.totalfilm.com/cinema_reviews/films_out_this_week/meet_the_robinsons


http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/review.asp?FID=133838


http://www.urbancinefile.com.au/home/view.asp?a=12929&s=Reviews

IP: Logged
blue eyes
Member
Member # 259

Icon 1 posted      Profile for blue eyes           Edit/Delete Post 
MOVIE REVIEW > LA TIMES
Though impressive, the 3-D retro-futurist look and time-travel plot feel almost old-fashioned.

By Dennis Lim, Special to The Times

It's hard to think of "Meet the Robinsons," the new sub-Pixar animated film from Disney, as much more than a stopgap measure until this summer's "Ratatouille." Loosely based on "A Day With Wilbur Robinson," a 1992 children's book by Michael Joyce, it's a breezy knock-off of "The Jetsons," souped up with a time-travel twist and a mostly superfluous 3-D gimmick. (The film is being released in both standard and digital 3-D versions, the 600 screens nationwide being the widest opening ever for a 3-D movie.)

Raised in an orphanage, bespectacled science nerd and boy inventor Lewis (voiced by Daniel Hansen) has terrible luck with prospective parents, who tend to be put off by his messily malfunctioning gadgets. The 12-year-old sets to work on a memory device that he hopes will help him track down his birth mother. But his obsession with the past unexpectedly catapults him into the future: He hitches a ride in the time machine of a mysterious teenager named Wilbur Robinson and winds up in the year 2037.

By all appearances, it seems as if Lewis has traveled not through time but down the rabbit hole and into an absurdist wonderland. Wilbur's eccentric extended family lives on a sprawling estate where a chorus of tuxedoed singing frogs serves as the in-house entertainment, and the domestic help includes a purple octopus and a C-3PO-ish robot. (Tom Selleck and Adam West are among the actors who provide voices for the family members.)

While Wilbur tries to keep the other Robinsons from finding out that his new friend is from a different era, Lewis is convinced he's found the perfect adoptive family.

The boys are also pursued, for initially obscure reasons, by a moustache-twirling baddie, known as Bowler Hat Guy and voiced by the film's director, Stephen J. Anderson. (The character was reportedly a late addition, one of several changes imposed on the film by executive producer John Lasseter, director of "Toy Story" and "Cars" and Disney's chief creative officer of animation since the company's acquisition of Pixar last year.)

As tends to be the case, the 3-D process is simply an excuse to have characters and objects lunge in the general direction of the viewer. (It's best showcased in a dinosaur chase sequence and a food fight involving a "meatball cannon.") In other words, the stereoscopic effect, achieved through state-of-the-art digital technology, is used in no more modern a fashion than it was in the golden age of 3-D: the 1950s.

Which is perhaps in keeping with the overall retro-futurist vibe. (The geometric, Art Deco cityscape is the most impressive visual element here.) The animators also mix in high-toned references to surrealist art, with direct nods to René Magritte in the form of a flying bowler hat and an elaborate topiary garden.

The screenplay, credited to seven writers, ties itself into knots when Lewis discovers the identity of the Robinson patriarch. Grown-ups, if not their kids, will notice a milder variation on the Oedipal complications of "Back to the Future," in which Michael J. Fox must fend off the advances of his mother. The usual time-travel dilemmas also ensue: if Bowler Hat Guy, who has stolen a time machine, changes the course of history for his own selfish purposes, the entire Robinson clan, not to mention much of the human race, could cease to exist.

Zippy if forgettable, "Meet the Robinsons" keeps the tone mildly tongue-in-cheek and ends on a dutifully inspirational note. The oft-repeated motto, lifted from the wisdom of Uncle Walt, is "Keep moving forward" — advice that this basically old-fashioned film seems content to ignore.

"Meet the Robinsons." MPAA rating: G. Running time: 1 hour, 42 minutes. In general release.

IP: Logged
Methuselah
IE # 148
Member # 401

Icon 8 posted      Profile for Methuselah   Email Methuselah         Edit/Delete Post 
From Variety:

quote:
Screenplay, John Bernstein, Michelle Spitz, Don Hall, Nathan Greno, Aurian Redson, Joe Mateo, Anderson, based on the book "A Day With Wilbur Robinson" by William Joyce
I believe that five(at least)of the "seven writers" that both the above review and a similarly negative one in the New York Times mentions are in fact the director and his story crew. So much for recognition, good or bad, for artists.

BTW, The NY review by A.O. Scott was really a pointlessly bitter sounding slam. A lot of (dumb) snark but very unclear on exactly why the film is so-called "cobbled together junk" and/or "the worst Disney feature in quite some time". Those are huge claims, and his short review doesn't back any of it up.
At all. But I guess his informed opinion is enough. Except not. [unimpressed]

IP: Logged
Eric Hedman
IE # 84
Member # 2453

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Eric Hedman   Author's Homepage   Email Eric Hedman         Edit/Delete Post 
Meth,....I love you. [Smile]

--------------------
http://www.radiodismuke.com
20's-30's music

Come see my Second Life Stuff
http://slurl.com/secondlife/Chilispoon/128/80/39

IP: Logged
Greg B
IE # 118
Member # 886

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Greg B   Author's Homepage   Email Greg B         Edit/Delete Post 
This is gonna be one of those, "you like it or you don't" movies.

I have to see it twice just cause it's in 3D. I'm going to go when the theatre is packed with screaming kids and haggled parents. I want to see popcorn and soda strewn from the wurlitzer to the rafters.

I wanna see chaos on a kindergarten level.

I wanna see kids spitting up on their parents and baby bottles hurled at dancers in costume.

I want whining, crying, laughing, giggling and a half dozen " Mommy what's the monster doing? " comments.

On this one I'm not going for the story, I'm going for the movie experience. Last time I was at the El Capitan Phyllis Diller was standing in line! I turned around and stared and she just looked at me and I had to give her a big smile and bow.

You can't beat a movie that Phyllis Diller would stand in line for.

I figure if I get there early enough and get a yellow seat in the back I can witness all the carnage and mayhem in all it's glory.

--------------------
http://www.boonestoons.com
http://www.spacefool.com

IP: Logged
Greg B
IE # 118
Member # 886

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Greg B   Author's Homepage   Email Greg B         Edit/Delete Post 
Say! Not bad! MTR took in $7 million plus on Friday! Considering it's up against the new Will Farrel comedy that ain't bad at all!

At a minimum MTR will haul in over $20 mill this weekend. Can't wait to see it. Any toys out yet? I stopped by the Disney store next to the El Capitan but they had minimal toys. Is there a super cool Disney store in Los Angeles that's not on the Disney lot or at Anahiem?

--------------------
http://www.boonestoons.com
http://www.spacefool.com

IP: Logged
ApeLad
IE # 231
Member # 3186

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ApeLad   Email ApeLad         Edit/Delete Post 
Here are my thoughts on the film. I'll start with the positive:
First off congratulations to everyone who worked on it, and for getting me and my kids excited about it. I don't regret paying full price on a Friday night for it.
It looks beautiful. Bright and crystal clear and futuristic.
There were some really nice character designs. Especially the coach's face. Very funny and clever. Also, the skin didn't have that weird thick translucent plastic look that the humans in the Ratatouille trailer have going on.
The vehicles and architecture were gorgeous too.
The ending really tied things together in a very satisfying way. And the quote was a very nice touch. Big things are on the way from Disney.
The not so positive:
(Feel free to stop reading now, and keep in mind the information below is only my opinion, however uninformed):
For the future, it sure looked familiar. The future city looked like Krypton of the 80's Superman comics, with a little New New York from Futurama thrown in. Mass transit tubes shouldn't be used without a nod to Matt Groening. Also, why is the future city in the middle of nowhere, with all the rolling grassy hills and such? Where are we?
The "alternate" future looks like Star Wars episode 3. Not much originality in the look of the future. It could have been pushed much further.
Back to character design- why was the coach's body all balloony? His joints and overall shape were pretty mushy and amateur looking.
As for the story, I'm not sure why exactly we should be so concerned about the kid. He tells Wilbur Robinson something like "you don't know what I've been through back there", referring to his real life in the past. The audience doesn't quite either. In fact, it seems life was pretty good for him in the orphanage. Access to lots of technology, an enormous bedroom and a friend living with him in a big city with a clean public school. Seems alright to me. Sure he doesn't have parents, but he has satisfactory surrogates and stable surroundings, which is a lot more than some kids.
The lead up to the last half hour was frenetic and all over the place, story wise. Lots of stuff coming and going only to disappear into the background minutes later. For instance, once the T-Rex is hatless, he's wallpaper.
As for the big reveals concerning people's identity, not one of them came as a surprise.
And then Bowler Hat Guy (aka Jim Carey in Lemony Snicket) just sort of wanders off at the end, and we are eventually left to puzzle it out if he ever will really exist in the first place.
Feel free to hack away at what a lot of you will see as negativism on my part, but I felt compelled to share my thougts after all the build up here.
Again, I don't regret going, and I congratulate everyone involved.

IP: Logged
ApeLad
IE # 231
Member # 3186

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ApeLad   Email ApeLad         Edit/Delete Post 
One more thing: give me a movie about those frogs. They were awesome.
IP: Logged
Mel Allen Sink
IE # 236
Member # 3123

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mel Allen Sink   Author's Homepage   Email Mel Allen Sink         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm mostly going to see it for the retro future groove.

And to lesser extent check it out for the sweater-girl with the Ed Grimly hair-do. I dig curvaceous gamines. (Actually, I'm weirdly wired enough to love 'em butch and busty, but the rare curvaceous gamine is the closest that somebody as wholesome and mainstream as Disney will come).

--------------------
http://melallensink.blogspot.com

IP: Logged
oogieboogie
IE # 265
Member # 2706

Icon 1 posted      Profile for oogieboogie           Edit/Delete Post 
My review...

Tons of nice modeling. Big cityscape, lots of characters. No noticible problems with the clothing. Bright colors. Liked the translucent ears, and Lewis' hair. Excellent texturing.

I liked it until they got to the future. That 10 minutes was horrendously overpacked. I couldn't wait for it to stop. It was seriously overdone. And then it started again at the end with the whole Terminator ending, which actually seemed pretty scary - turned one of my kids off.

Bowler guy was pretty weak, imo. Obviouly the enemy was the hat, but his goofiness the whole time started to get a little weird. The reveal wasn't a surprise, but it was odd the way they did all that exposition to explain everything that happened. Also, I didn't really understand the point of him trying to steal and sell the invention anyway. What was he going to accomplish as a 35 yo loser in the past with money?

And where did all these other people in the household come from? Are they all adopted? I couldn't follow that.

All I can think of when I see Grandpa is the grandpa from Rolly Pollie Ollie. I was also expecting more from the frogs, but they didn't really do anything. The frogs in Flushed were much better.

The 3d was excellent though. The castle open, very nice. The rain in the first scene almost caught me. The 3d credits for the 3d team was a nice touch.

Overall, B- . I wouldn't see it again, and I probably wouldn't get the dvd.

IP: Logged
eboles
IE # 266
Member # 917

Icon 1 posted      Profile for eboles   Email eboles         Edit/Delete Post 
Caught it today, I had a lot of reservations going into film(mostly based on the trailer), but ultimately I wound up liking it a lot, and I have never seen kids as enthralled as the 2 kids down the row from me, who literally spent the entire movie leaning forward in their seats and exchanging "Wow!"s.

The movie took a while to grow on me. I didn't much care for the kid, I found his roommate a much more interesting character. The trip to the future was totally crazy, just one thing after another, and I found myself expecting the whole movie to have the same kind of flaw as Alice in Wonderland: just one zany thing after another, with no apparent rhyme nor reason. I just figured I might as well sit back and enjoy it.

But it did manage to get better from that point on, though I did anticipate quite a number of the plot twists, but was taken completely by surprise with some of the other twists. It started coming together and feeling like a really solid piece of work. There were 2 big unanswered questions left by the end of the film, and I think that was deliberate.

Between the old Mickey Mouse short shown before the film and the new Disney animation studios logo, and the quote at the end, you could really get a sense of the change of attitude that's come with the new management. It's starting to feel like Disney again.

IP: Logged
Matt Wilson
IE # 139
Member # 1520

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Matt Wilson   Author's Homepage   Email Matt Wilson         Edit/Delete Post 
The film's title confuses me. It's not "Meet the Robinsons" so much as "Wave Briefly to the Robinsons as They Whoosh By You On a Bullet Train".

I left the theater not sure if I had seen a complete film. You don't really get to know ANY of the Robinsons, even Wilbur. The film was too focused on getting you from point A to point D as fast as possible. There was just too much dialogue, and too much exposition, in place of character development and comic delivery.

And the pace at which they scream through the script indicated, to me, that they weren't confident in the story or the characters. The Alice in Wonderland likeness is apt... only if the entire film is about the Mad Hatter.

The animation though was really really nice, and Bowler Hat Guy's animation was fantastic. But it can't save the film itself. It needs another 20 minutes in there. Way, way, way, way too hurried.

IP: Logged
knowledge
IE # 258
Member # 462

Icon 1 posted      Profile for knowledge   Email knowledge         Edit/Delete Post 
I liked the roomate, the animation of Wilbur, the landscapes, the spaceships and bubble travel and alot of lewis's animation. I liked that he helped goober change his fate at the baseball game. Liked the new mickey mouse/disney logo at the front.

I didn't particularly like the bowler hat guy (especially since his design did not go with his young design), or the introduction of the entire wacky family (save their paintings, with the appearance of Tom Selleck). Wish we could have had a better resolve with the mother leaving him, and not just the Tigger movie explanation of "We are your family".

IP: Logged
Greg B
IE # 118
Member # 886

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Greg B   Author's Homepage   Email Greg B         Edit/Delete Post 
Hey Matt Wilson! Cool website! I might have a job for ya!

Anyhow, regarding MTR, the bottom line is it made a respectable $25 million at the box office this weekend as I had predicted.

It has to gain momentum this month because with the three monster blockbusters coming out in May it'll die on the vine if it doesn't make it's money in the next 4 weeks. It could top off at $60-$70 million domestically.

How many CG movies have come out so far this year?

--------------------
http://www.boonestoons.com
http://www.spacefool.com

IP: Logged
Matt Wilson
IE # 139
Member # 1520

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Matt Wilson   Author's Homepage   Email Matt Wilson         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm actually waist deep in work right now, sorry.

As for the opening numbers, they're good but I worry about how they'll be received, since it's a Disney flick. With Disney shareholders it's never enough. The Incredibles was the #1 selling DVD in 2005(?) and they were still angry!

I also got to see the film in digital 3D and it's a much nicer experience than 3D from a regular projector. I don't know if I buy it as anything more than a desperation tactic, but I will say this: Watching animated features on anything other than digital projectors is criminal. The visual difference is striking. The clarity and detail is so immensely improved that I'm starting to consider the advantages of Bluray and what that will bring to the home market.

IP: Logged
SoleilSmile
IE # 120
Member # 1483

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SoleilSmile   Author's Homepage   Email SoleilSmile         Edit/Delete Post 
Just got back from the theatre---and I liked it! Yes, it borrowed heavily from Back to the Future... but it worked! As far as anything else I was going to say, Eboles hit it right on the head with his review.

So yeah..like he said.


Hehhehehehe

P.S.
One pet peeve that did bug me. The frogs were out of time to their music at times. I hate that. Don't do it again! Stay on beat garsh darn it!

--------------------
HipChick Comics and Animatress Blog

www.hipchickcomics.com
http://www.animatress.blogspot.com/

IP: Logged
eboles
IE # 266
Member # 917

Icon 1 posted      Profile for eboles   Email eboles         Edit/Delete Post 
...kewl, always a pleasant surprise when my take on things makes sense to other people.

Another thing that struck me about Meet the Robinsons, and I know it's not the greatest ever and has gotten a lot of negative reviews, but I'm always impressed when you're following a story ... and it just seems like they are writing themselves into a corner with all this crazy stuff they're throwing out there, and just when it seems like they're miles past the point of no return, they somehow manage to pull it back into the world of sanity, and it turns out there was this internal logic to it all along. Not that there wasn't a little craziness for craziness sake(nothing wrong with that) as well.

It's been mentioned in the reviews, and a lot of posts on this thread already, just how much this film borrows from, or is similar to other works, and in some ways it really is crammed with clichés. Futurama, The Jetsons, Back to the Future, Chicken Little, The Incredibles, the Wednesday Addams clone, the coach character, the orphan-in-search-of-a-family routine. The whole boy genius/inventor thing and the moustache-twirling bad guy have probably all been done to death. So that's another thing that sort of impressed me about Meet the Robinsons. It piled cliché upon cliché and still wound up feeling somewhat fresh and original.

So I can pretty much understand a lot of the criticism that gets levelled at it. It was all those things, and it has all those faults. You probably need a lot of sugar and caffeine in your system to get the most out of it, but it worked for me.

IP: Logged
Greg B
IE # 118
Member # 886

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Greg B   Author's Homepage   Email Greg B         Edit/Delete Post 
Just got back from the El-Capitan.

Meet The Robinsons is okay.

The 3D was brilliant but not necessary for the story. The story had a high kinetic level that was a bit too much. I could see the plot twists and revelations coming a country mile. It was fun however to see how they were resolved.

There was a Chip n' Dale short in 3D before the movie and the audience laughed more at that short than they did the feature.

However, I had one big giant laugh during MTR that makes it memorable, the villain's revelation/monologue scene. I knew it was coming but the way it was done was so hilarious we all broke out laughing with me leading the charge. After that it redeemed itself in that I kept falling asleep up to the T Rex scene and then the revelation/monologue scene on top of that. Those scenes woke me up and the rest was obvious. The meet the real mother scene had lots of suspense but I knew where it was going.

All in all a beautiful picture to look at but it just didn't rock the house like I expected. I'll definitely get it for my DVD collection and look for what toys are available.

I have to admit again, the revelation/monologue scene was a pure scream. Made it all worth it.

The movie appeared as though so many people wanted to say something at some time and some things touched upon didn't get to where they had intended and others did. Then I saw it had more than half a dozen writers and that's always a scary sign.

There was a longer Ratatouille trailer and it explained the plot more. Just thrilling to watch and anticipating a great film and I hope it has a love story to it.

So in wrapping MTR was very ambitious and I expected too much but it doesn't mean the movie wasn't beautiful to watch and the character animation a short, just very uneven in some ways. I still can't recall who was who in that family. Things moved around at such a pace that it got confusing and boring. It was like I was watching a tutorial on how fast can someone animate a character.

I'm hoping the DVD will have lots of behind the scenes stuff.

--------------------
http://www.boonestoons.com
http://www.spacefool.com

IP: Logged
Squash Banana
Member
Member # 2700

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Squash Banana   Email Squash Banana         Edit/Delete Post 
First things first: ERIC, I saw your name in the credits and I totally geeked out! I was afraid it was going to go by too fast and that I would miss it. Anywho, Congratulations to everybody involved...heck of a film you all made! [Smile]

The Bowler Hat Guy completely lived up to the hype. I loved everything about him: his design, his animation, his voice acting.... I love that, for once, it looks like the rigging team went to the animators and said, "What do you need to make this character ACT the way you envision him doing?" and the animators said "Well, you know, we'd love to have his cheek stretch way the heck out there so that Wilbur can grab it at the end..." and the riggers said "DONE!" Ah, I love when modeling and rigging is done to serve the animation and not the other way around. In short, an awesomazingfantabulousWOWZOMG-andsoforth character. I'm going to study him like a fiend when the DVD comes out.

Outside of that, beautiful art direction, sweet story and characters. I can't really say anything that hasn't already been said with regard to the pacing....the scene in which we actually met the Robinsons was, as one friend put it, "manic." That whole scene needed a serious dose of Ritalin. At what point did we determine that zany = comedy? What happened to the beats required for comic timing? Anyone else notice that 3D kids movies all seem to be in a race these days?

Even so, this movie gives me great hope for the imminent revival of the Disney glory. Congrats again to all the artists!

IP: Logged
Pixel Pusher
Member
Member # 1558

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Pixel Pusher   Email Pixel Pusher         Edit/Delete Post 
I liked the movie over all. The ending was great!
I was one of the people who didn't like the trailer.
As a side note I thought the trailer for "Blades"
was great and movie was terrible. So trailers suck
unless your talking about Zodiac, that was right on
with a great trailer and movie.

My point, if you didn't like the trailer for "Robinsons" see the movie and you should like it.

I really liked Lewis and the emotions he evoked.
He was great. The frogs were OK but the over all
story was cool.

Good job to all who worked on it:)

p.s. Was Grandpa supposed to be like Frank Thomas?

IP: Logged
Eric Hedman
IE # 84
Member # 2453

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Eric Hedman   Author's Homepage   Email Eric Hedman         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Then I saw it had more than half a dozen writers and that's always a scary sign
So, you don't like it when Story Artists are credited as writers?

Well, that's a switch.

These people make and remake the movie over and over and over and over. I imagine it's just easier to give credit where it's do. Look at the art book. You can see how diverse in style and humor they all were. And where they seem to al come together. A pretty good book BTW, well, compared with the last couple. I like the Atlantis Illustrated Script and the Treasure Planet Art books.... But the Bovine Goddess and the Chicken Little books could have been WAAAAYYY better.

Thanks Squashey!
I will thank you for the other 8 Assistants.
They were also from diverse backgrounds and places, but they all came in in Awe of the people we were working with, and we all finished the process better than we started.

--------------------
http://www.radiodismuke.com
20's-30's music

Come see my Second Life Stuff
http://slurl.com/secondlife/Chilispoon/128/80/39

IP: Logged
knowledge
IE # 258
Member # 462

Icon 1 posted      Profile for knowledge   Email knowledge         Edit/Delete Post 
Wow, Eric, I didn't know that they gave the story crew credits as writers - this is an industry first I take it! This would actually get them residuals wouldn't it?? I hope this trend continues!
IP: Logged
Mr. Fun
IE # 63
Member # 352

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mr. Fun           Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, I'm impressed. This was a first as far as I can tell.

In all my years at Disney I've never seen story guys credited as writers. Of course, the exception would be guys like Bill Peet, Joe Grant and dare I say -- Chris Sanders?

We are writers, of course. But in recent years story artists have been marginalized by studio managers in favor of hack sit com writers.

Nice to see the story team of MTR get some respect.

IP: Logged
Methuselah
IE # 148
Member # 401

Icon 6 posted      Profile for Methuselah   Email Methuselah         Edit/Delete Post 
While the screenplay credit is exceptional for Disney FA, Pixar has routinely given those story artists(Joe Ranft, Stanton, etc.)who had a majority input into their "scripts" screenplay credit-which of course they should get.
(I could be wrong, but IIRC).

IP: Logged
Greg B
IE # 118
Member # 886

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Greg B   Author's Homepage   Email Greg B         Edit/Delete Post 
Well pardon my confusion Mr. Fun, but 'story' staff actually 'write' stuff? Did they write for this movie MTR or did they just give out ideas that someone else wrote down?

Maybe Hedman can elaborate as to what the story guys did this time around and why they were given writing credits. If it's a first that's fine. This movie didn't warrant any major writing kudos from me yet. I've learned one needs to watch these animated flicks several times and let them simmer a spell as with animation you can add and do things you cannot possibly do with live action.

The movie is okay. It's predictable. My reaction and the audience's reaction were exactly the same. 98% of the movie elicited no laughs or oohs and aahhs until the T Rex showed up and when Bowler Hat Guy went into his revelation/monologue. I expected the frogs to have garnered more laughs but we didn't get that at the theatre. A few lines from the frogs nailed a giggle or two but that's it. I was expecting more from reading responses on this board.

Too many cooks spoil the broth.

--------------------
http://www.boonestoons.com
http://www.spacefool.com

IP: Logged
Steve G
IE # 12
Member # 169

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve G   Author's Homepage   Email Steve G         Edit/Delete Post 
Maybe I'm wrong (and hopefully Kevin can clarify/elaborate on this), but I think it has less to do with the studio's marginalizing the story artists, but more to do with the writer's guild and their issues.

--------------------
http://stevenegordon.blogspot.com
http://stevenegordon.com

IP: Logged
Mr. Fun
IE # 63
Member # 352

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mr. Fun           Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, I beg to differ.

Story artists at Disney were indeed marginalized during the previous management. Although I agree the WGA has always considered us "less" than writers. This even included my time scripting for Saturday Morning Television.

Story artists have always "written" the movies at Disney. The arrival of Eisner and Katzenberg in the eighties changed that because it seemed they couldn't understand storyboards. Therefore they needed "real" writers.

Makes you wonder how Disney was able to script all those classic films without "real" writers, doesn't it?

IP: Logged
Greg B
IE # 118
Member # 886

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Greg B   Author's Homepage   Email Greg B         Edit/Delete Post 
Bottom line is these people either sat down with pen and paper in hand or knuckles hittin' the keyboard to 'write' something, preferably sentences and dialogue with punctuation.

A pal of mine who sat on the Writer's Guild in animation told me how they used to write tv shows. He said they'd all sit around tossing ideas around and the secretaries would write them down. When I said to him that ain't writing, he said, "That's how they write in Hollywood baby!".

--------------------
http://www.boonestoons.com
http://www.spacefool.com

IP: Logged
eboles
IE # 266
Member # 917

Icon 1 posted      Profile for eboles   Email eboles         Edit/Delete Post 
I also caught Eric's name in the credits. Ironically if you'd got a full animator credit it would have been harder to spot.
IP: Logged
Eric Hedman
IE # 84
Member # 2453

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Eric Hedman   Author's Homepage   Email Eric Hedman         Edit/Delete Post 
Hedman, eh....well, I do use my full name.

Anywho.

If you watch any old commentary from PIXAR you will see how things are "pitched". There maybe be writers in the room. But essentially, the scripting takes place in tandem with and trying to keep up with the story sketch process.

The key here is that the words are said, out loud, but less to tittilate a group of fellow writers, hopefully, but more to hear them spoken.

Scratch dialog for voice talent may even change the script and illuminate a side of the characters personality that would not have existed otherwise.

There are plenty of instances in live action studio work where a exec will feel something isn't jokey enough and they will pass something off to a joke guy/gal, and something doesn't seem sincere, so they will pass it off to a sincerity guy/gal...and you will get seven to 12 writers credits. shoved later into the roll of credits.

BUT, in this case, the story artists are credited I think because they kicked some serious butt, and to align to the new way of doing things.

It is a fun movie. With repeat viewing it feels less rollercoastery. But I think it is less a consequence of there being something deficient, than having so much going on.

I think it's nifty how some folks who are looking to justify their feelings in a review latch on to something that looks like trouble.

A few of these folks who wrote poopooing, "it's a C" reviews also adored Antz when it came out. There were some good parts in Antz...but I would prefer to see Annie Hall again, vs Woody as an Ant.

I am happy that animated movies can be G rated movies and be exciting for all ages and that animation houses with a history of appealing broadly can maintain that without having to foster Lust or Avarice at their heart to motivate a villain to treachery. In the world it usually takes simple misguided perception, greed with denial, or tribal indoctrination to make a villain

I love that this movie has been reviewed so wildly and differently. It kinda stimulates me to want to see it again and again and see what I've missed.

There is one scene in particular where in rough edits an utterance was dropped at the end of a shot and I got used to silence there.
And now that it is in the can, the sound is complete and it kicked me square in the tuckus....in a good way. [Smile]

I am a natural cheerleader for people who are craft oriented and sincere.
I am a passable animator on some things, not broken rigs yet....yikes....
But I am dragging my sorry butt toward being a better animator and story artist/storyteller....
...and well there is not a note of winking at the camera anywhere in this movie....well maybe one place, but...still. the sincerity has never been lacking.....for me anyway.

--------------------
http://www.radiodismuke.com
20's-30's music

Come see my Second Life Stuff
http://slurl.com/secondlife/Chilispoon/128/80/39

IP: Logged
Mr. Fun
IE # 63
Member # 352

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mr. Fun           Edit/Delete Post 
Hey, Greg B!

Have you watched "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip?" That's pretty much the way network television works. Especially shows that do sketch comedy. I've been on the writing staffs of two such shows.

Our producer was usually the Head Writer, and the rest of us pretty much threw ideas around. Each show went through multiple changes before going on the air, of course.

Actually, I loved the writing pace of television. (live stuff, not animation) because it was so energized. Feature films, (especially animated films) move too darn slow. Your kids can grow up while you're working on a movie.

IP: Logged
Greg B
IE # 118
Member # 886

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Greg B   Author's Homepage   Email Greg B         Edit/Delete Post 
Well that explains alot!

Bottom line for me is at the El Capitan they ran that Chip n Dale 3D short directed by Bill Hannah??? just before the feature MTR. I kid not, the Chip n Dale short got more laughs, oohs and ahhs in a few short minutes than MTR got the entire hour and a half. Although MTR got the raging laugh when Bowler Hat Guy went into his monologue, MTR didn't compare to the laughs and shouts the short got.

It was the pratfalls, slapstick humor that won over Chip n Dale. Also, there were more murmurs and suspense filled oohs and ahhs during the short.

That totally bowled me over. Here a cartoon over 50 years old got more laughs than the new fangled 3D/CG computer whooziwatsis movie. The kinders just loved that Chip n Dale short and so did the grownups!

I didn't know Bill Hannah worked for Disney. You can tell by how brilliant the execution of this cartoon short was.

--------------------
http://www.boonestoons.com
http://www.spacefool.com

IP: Logged
EustaceScrubb
IE # 37
Member # 862

Icon 1 posted      Profile for EustaceScrubb           Edit/Delete Post 
Jack Hannah , not Bill Hanna.

Jack Hannah info.

IP: Logged
EustaceScrubb
IE # 37
Member # 862

Icon 1 posted      Profile for EustaceScrubb           Edit/Delete Post 
By the way, the Chip 'n' Dale short is
"Working For Peanuts".

1953, directed by Jack Hannah.

Nick George story
Roy Williams story

Clarence Nash ... Donald Duck (voice) (uncredited)

Walt Disney .... producer

Oliver Wallace .... music

Eyvind Earle .... background artist

Yale Gracey .... layout artist

Volus Jones .... animator
Bill Justice .... animator
George Kreisl .... animator
Dan MacManus .... effects animator


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046560/

IP: Logged
Greg B
IE # 118
Member # 886

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Greg B   Author's Homepage   Email Greg B         Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks for clearing that up Eustace. I had on those big ass 3D glasses and read it wrong. Couldn't even read the credits to the feature nor the big Walt quote at the end.

--------------------
http://www.boonestoons.com
http://www.spacefool.com

IP: Logged
Mr. Fun
IE # 63
Member # 352

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mr. Fun           Edit/Delete Post 
This cartoon holds a special place in my heart.

During our first week at the Walt Disney Studio back in 1956, Johnny Bond burst into our offices and said, "get upstairs! We've got a cartoon to show you young guys."

That cartoon was "Working for Peanuts," and I still remember sitting in projection room 3-11 with the rest of my apprentice inbetweener colleagues, still amazed we were working for Disney.

IP: Logged
knowledge
IE # 258
Member # 462

Icon 1 posted      Profile for knowledge   Email knowledge         Edit/Delete Post 
I feel robbed! They didn't show any shorts with the viewing I saw here overseas. Jack's shorts were very funny! Loved his Humphrey the Bear shorts.
IP: Logged
SoleilSmile
IE # 120
Member # 1483

Icon 11 posted      Profile for SoleilSmile   Author's Homepage   Email SoleilSmile         Edit/Delete Post 
Was MTR supposed to be super back to back funny?
I thought I was supposed to identify with Louis and root for him to overcome his problem throughout the film.
What got me into his situation was: Who wouldn't want a geek for a son? Geeks are pretty much non-problem teens compared to hip kids---the Columbine sick-o excepted.

I was VERy happy to see Louis get two scientists for parents. Some of us kid geniuses get ex-hipchicks for parents who want to stick us in perfumed dresses and make up all the time to win hip friends and influence people we have no interest socializing with. I practically cried when Louis’ adopted parents bought the light house!

In terms of funny…
MY favorite funny line:
"Remember I AM your father.

That was great.

To conclude, I guess I really identified with Louis, because I was a girl genius and all of friends were boy geniuses (plus one other girl). And I am happy to see a big expensive movie made to celebrate us!

YAY!

--------------------
HipChick Comics and Animatress Blog

www.hipchickcomics.com
http://www.animatress.blogspot.com/

IP: Logged
Methuselah
IE # 148
Member # 401

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Methuselah   Email Methuselah         Edit/Delete Post 
Greg B, if "tossing out ideas and dialogue" isn't "writing", then NO movie--animated or live action--is "written". Film aren't novels or even plays--they're visual stories.
Writing a film is conceiving action AND dialogue. Story artists ALL do that, on features.

Most animated features are made that way. There are some exceptions where an individual writes a script that is closely followed at first but even those are usually deconstructed and the story crew rewrites and re-thinks the scenes. Many times. If someone didn't like Meet the Robinsons it isn't because of too many cooks in the story department. Too many things that didn't jell, maybe-but that isn't because of the number of people.

That the writing is scribbled on a piece of paper tacked under a panel is totally immaterial--so is whether a PA writes from dictation: it's still REAL writing. FYI, many famous screenwriters of the golden age wrote not by sitting in front of a typewriter but by talking out the film aloud to a partner or to a secretary taking their words down.

IP: Logged



This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Animation Nation

Animation Nation © 1999-2012

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0