Iron Giant movie?

[RobertScorpio]

While waiting to use the restroom last week at COMIC-CON, I had a brief conversaton with someone about if they would ever do a IRON GIANT movie. The animated movie, I think, is one of the best animated movies of all time. But it didn't do well because of studio issues, and i think was lost in the mix.

Would a real movie go over? Or would it be labeled a Transformers wanna be? And if they did make it, who would you cast in the leads and, more important, who would be the best director?

Rob

 

[Skywalker]

Would a real movie go over?

The Iron Giant wasn't a real movie?

 

[Harvey]

I believe the term he's looking for is "live action," instead of animation as the earlier film was. But the thing is, that film, though I've only seen it once (in the theatre) struck me as perfect. I don't see any reason to revisit it in live action, or any other form.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Absolutely no need to do a live action version. The film is simply perfect as it is now.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I think it would lose a lot of its charm if it were live action.

 

[Skywalker]

Agreed, agreed, and agreed.

 

[firehawk12]

Yeah, I'm not sure what it would gain as a "live action" movie. You'd also have to go through the trouble of finding a kid that could actually act.

 

[Christopher]

Animation is just as "real" as any other storytelling medium. It was the right medium for this story. There's no way live action could improve on Brad Bird's creation.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Absolutely no need to do a live action version. The film is simply perfect as it is now.

My brother in law said the same thing when they announced the Lord of the Ring movies...Not being a LOTR fan like he is? The cartoon version was pretty weak and the movies were awesome.

Rob

Agreed, agreed, and agreed.

Well...the reason they should do it is because it flopped. Hardly anyone saw it besides genre fans like us..that is why they should do it.

Rob

Animation is just as "real" as any other storytelling medium. It was the right medium for this story. There's no way live action could improve on Brad Bird's creation.

Ummm..yes they could. LOTR movies were far superior to the animated efforts of the past, which many thought were perfect too. So, I kindly disagree with this line of thinking...

Rob

 

[JustKate]

With all due respect to your brother-in-law, Rob, he's the first LOTR fan I know of who thought those animated movies were "perfect." They were fine, we LOTR fans definitely could have done worse, and they definitely had their good moments, but perfect? Nope.

The live-action movies aren't perfect either, of course, but I agree that they are nonetheless awesome, and I think they come closer to catching the spirit of the books than the animated movies did.

I think it's possible that animation fans (a category I don't really fit into) were more impressed with the animated LOTR movies than LOTR fans were (a category I definitely fit into), because of the interesting and innovative animation techniques. But maybe that's just me.

I was particularly disappointed with the depiction of the hobbits in the animated movies - I mean, they used all these cool techniques for the battle scenes and so on, but the hobbits almost could have been drawn by Disney. That was a huge disappointment for me. Doing wizards and orcs well is important, of course, but so is doing the hobbits well.

But the Iron Giant really was perfect. Yeah, it didn't do great business, but that was because of bungled marketing. A new version might be marketed better, but then again, it might be bungled, too. You just never know.

By the way, Wiki quotes director Brad Bird as saying there's an "outside chance" that a limited theatrical rerelease will be planned for sometime in 2009, to mark the film's tenth anniversary. Wouldn't that be cool?

 

[barnaclelapse]

I always get a kick out of telling people that it was based on a book written by Sylvia Plath's husband.

It really was a beautiful little movie. I'm not sure I'd like to see them go back to it under a live-action setting, but I suppose it could be done and done well with the right people involved.

 

[Christopher]

Absolutely no need to do a live action version. The film is simply perfect as it is now.

My brother in law said the same thing when they announced the Lord of the Ring movies...Not being a LOTR fan like he is? The cartoon version was pretty weak and the movies were awesome.

Will you STOP using the word "movie" as though it excludes animated films?! Animated movies are movies just as much as live-action ones are. Your terminology is ignorant, wrong, and grossly insulting to an entire medium of creative expression.

Animation is just as "real" as any other storytelling medium. It was the right medium for this story. There's no way live action could improve on Brad Bird's creation.

Ummm..yes they could. LOTR movies were far superior to the animated efforts of the past, which many thought were perfect too. So, I kindly disagree with this line of thinking...

That's a totally ridiculous argument. It's absurd to judge the comparative worth of two entire genres based on a single example of each. It's absurd to make any generalizations based on a single instance.

The animated LOTR films didn't suck because they were animated, they sucked because they were badly done. The live-action LOTR films weren't good because they were live-action; look at how many truly awful live-action films are made any year. They were good because they were made by a talented team of filmmakers who put their best work into it.

Try comparing the animated Batman: Mask of the Phantasm to the live-action Batman and Robin. Try comparing the animated Justice League/Justice League Unlimited television series to the failed live-action JLA pilot from the '80s. There's no question that the animated versions are far superior to the live-action ones. It's not the format that determines their quality, it's the care, intelligence, and skill that goes into their execution.

When you dismiss animation as a legitimate medium -- when you refuse even to acknowledge that an animated film qualifies as a movie -- you're not just insulting animation, you're insulting animators. You're saying that the hundreds of people who devote years of their lives to working hard to make these films happen -- and creating good animation is very hard, time-consuming work -- are irrelevant, that their efforts don't even count as moviemaking. The Iron Giant was made with immense skill, love, care, and commitment and a great deal of hard work. It deserves better. The people who made it deserve better.

 

[paudemge]

Well, Iron Giant is my favorite Vin Diesel movie.
But because it is animated some people dismiss it. I've tried to get some friends to watch it, i say it is like ET, but ET is a 50' tall robot that can kick the crap out of the army.

 

[Neroon]

Absolutely no need to do a live action version. The film is simply perfect as it is now.

My brother in law said the same thing when they announced the Lord of the Ring movies...Not being a LOTR fan like he is? The cartoon version was pretty weak and the movies were awesome.
(etc.....)

Rob, I'm chalking it up to a momentary lapse of reason for you, but remember that there is an Edit button and a Multi-quote feature, making posting consecutive posts such as you did unnecessary. I have merged your three posts into one.

 

[S. Gomez]

Absolutely no need to do a live action version. The film is simply perfect as it is now.

My brother in law said the same thing when they announced the Lord of the Ring movies...Not being a LOTR fan like he is? The cartoon version was pretty weak and the movies were awesome.

Will you STOP using the word "movie" as though it excludes animated films?! Animated movies are movies just as much as live-action ones are. Your terminology is ignorant, wrong, and grossly insulting to an entire medium of creative expression.

Animation is just as "real" as any other storytelling medium. It was the right medium for this story. There's no way live action could improve on Brad Bird's creation.

Ummm..yes they could. LOTR movies were far superior to the animated efforts of the past, which many thought were perfect too. So, I kindly disagree with this line of thinking...

That's a totally ridiculous argument. It's absurd to judge the comparative worth of two entire genres based on a single example of each. It's absurd to make any generalizations based on a single instance.

The animated LOTR films didn't suck because they were animated, they sucked because they were badly done. The live-action LOTR films weren't good because they were live-action; look at how many truly awful live-action films are made any year. They were good because they were made by a talented team of filmmakers who put their best work into it.

Try comparing the animated Batman: Mask of the Phantasm to the live-action Batman and Robin. Try comparing the animated Justice League/Justice League Unlimited television series to the failed live-action JLA pilot from the '80s. There's no question that the animated versions are far superior to the live-action ones. It's not the format that determines their quality, it's the care, intelligence, and skill that goes into their execution.

When you dismiss animation as a legitimate medium -- when you refuse even to acknowledge that an animated film qualifies as a movie -- you're not just insulting animation, you're insulting animators. You're saying that the hundreds of people who devote years of their lives to working hard to make these films happen -- and creating good animation is very hard, time-consuming work -- are irrelevant, that their efforts don't even count as moviemaking. The Iron Giant was made with immense skill, love, care, and commitment and a great deal of hard work. It deserves better. The people who made it deserve better.

QFT

 

[Brikar99]

I love "The Iron Giant". It's one of my favorite MOVIES.

 

[RoJoHen]

I've never seen the "The Iron Giant." Now I feel like I should.

 

[Joy]

A theatrical re-release would be far better than remaking it as a live action movie.

Hopefully "Princess and the Frog" will do well in really re-igniting the general public's passion for animated feature films. I want to see more 2d animation!!!

Joy

 

[Ptrope]

[W]ho would you cast in the leads and, more important, who would be the best director?

Rob

I'm thinking Jennifer Aniston as "Annie,", Harry Connick Jr. as "Dean," Christopher McDonald as "Kent Mansley" and Vin Diesel as the voice of the Iron Giant. No suggestion for Hogarth, at the moment - maybe the kid from iCarly. As for the director, how about Brad Bird?

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Agreed, agreed, and agreed.

Well...the reason they should do it is because it flopped. Hardly anyone saw it besides genre fans like us..that is why they should do it.

It may have flopped commercially, but it was a huge critical success.