This. And the marketing did nothing to make it look anyhting other than cheap and lazy. Until the Zemeckis thread showed up here, I had no idea Disney was even behind it. The title and the images made me think of those cheap, shitty CG films from no-name studios, such as Planet 51 and Hoodwinked. I had no idea that a major studio was involved. I imagine other people felt the same way and just had no interest in seeing it.
I joked with my little nephew that the title of the movie should've been Mars Kidnaps Moms, though I highly doubt a different title would've saved the film.
What I don't understand, above all else, is why people who are clearly not part of the demographic that the movie is aimed at, criticize it as if it was and then seem happy for the failure of a movie not directed at them. In a way, it's kinda like the 40 year old dudes who complain about Twilight and don't understand why anyone would see it. The demographic the movie was aimed towards is too young to decide "I hate 3D I hope this fails". They were old enough to decide, however, "This doesn't look interesting, mom and dad, please don't take me to see this". And, frankly, mom and dad were fine with that decision.
This was produced by Zemeckis, whose plans for another 3D mocap movie have been scuttled. Suppose the old man still has a good live-action movie or two for adults left in him, and this helps spur him to make it.
Because if anything, it shows the trends of what would follow if a certain movie were successful, just like Avatar was successful with tons of 3D movies following it. It's less about criticizing the movie itself and more about criticizing the practice. It's no-means the first mo-cap movie, and I'm sure it won't be the last either, but you can only imagine if this were successful, that floods of other mo-capped movies would follow in its footsteps, and not necessarily by Zemeckis either, but by others who are just interested in making money and following the trend. These are the movies that give them a license to print money. Some technologies are nice and all, but some are mis-used. Thankfully though, some technologies look better on paper than they do on the screen and end up being abandoned practices, like the rotoscoping that Christopher mentioned in another thread.
From what I’ve read about this film so far, they would have had more success remaking Mars Needs Women. Or The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies, for that matter.
When is Zemeckis going to stop doing these crappy CGI kiddie movies and go back to doing grown up movies?
I didn't know it until this thread. And I'm a Disneyphile. So in addition to the crappy title and dead-eyed previews, add poor marketing to my list.
Then why didn't this start with Polar Express in 2004 which WAS successful? Your logic doesn't seem to apply to this type of film-making. So far, it's only been a small handful jumping on (what was once) a successful way of making movies, at least financially. The way I see it (and see too many things these days) is "adults" commenting negatively on movies not aimed at them, and this is just part of that trend. Chipmunks were part of that ("the horror! I hope this bombs!"), and it's starting with the Smurfs. Sure, maybe the movies are bad for adults AND for kids. But why do we have to ranting and raving when the kids should be the ones deciding what they want (so long as it's harmless fun and entertaining to them, of course)
I think it's been established that the kids did decide. That's why it tanked. And what's so wrong with adults who are animation aficionados expressing an opinion about trends in that genre? Because, believe it or not, adults do go to animated films without kids.
People are so desperate to declare the "death of 3D" that they'll light on something like this. 3D is here for quite a while, guys.
Believe it or not, adults also watch Barney, Teletubbies and new Sesame Street episodes on TV I'm sure. Doesn't mean the show was designed for them. Just because it's animated doesn't mean it's for the animation aficionados, though. That's an elitist and selfish way to think. Just like "Twilight" isn't for the horror aficionados and "The Adventures of Elmo in Grouchland" isn't for musical aficionados, some forms of media skew young and that in and of itself isn't wrong. But saying "I'm glad that tanked, it looked horrible" is odd because to most functional adults, YEAH, it's not necessarily meant to look appealing!
If it makes studios more circumspect about which films they distribute in 3D, I am all for that. The people who think this is going to "kill" 3D are smoking something, though.
Indeed... It is the same as expecting color films to have died after a major color film bombed. The studios will keep pushing 3D - because in the age of HD home entertainment, that is the big distinguishing element. They want to push technologies that make theater going stand out. (Sure there are HD 3D sets that sell well, but they do not offer the same 3D quality)
Beats me. Maybe because the technology isn't easily available or is too expensive for everyone to be doing it. The kind that Zemeckis uses seems to be more precise than the average kind, allowing for greater detail as it was a new method used. Takes time for studios to be able to catch up. It's like expecting all 3D movies to be on the same level as Avatar, and seeing that James Cameron developed a whole new system, it's not unfair to think that it will takes years for studios to catch up to the point where we see more 3D movies from other studios at that level. Or maybe Zemeckis doesn't want anyone else using his methods. It's a bit like painters leaving their mark by painting something unique. Maybe he feels he should be the only one to use the "uncanny valley" style. And you've got to admit that when seeing these, you know that due its distinctive look that it had to be Zemeckis. I thought it was pretty sound logic btw.
I wasn't really responding to your post directly, but more to the general sentiment about 3D. As for motion capture, I certainly agree that the merits of the technique are debatable in a movie like this, but again, I don't think that this movie will be seen as an important test case, simply because it has so many other glaring problems.
Disney saw the train wreck coming a year and put in the bare minimum to launch the movie. So they cut back on ads. I saw several ads... wish I didn't.
I saw the ads for this movie. They seemed to be rather plentiful, or perhaps I just had the right channel on at the right time. In any event the movie did look a tad on the intriguing side, but it's nothing I'd run out and spend my money on to see in theaters (I didn't even realize it was in 3D, another reason I wouldn't have rushed out to see it).