The Iron Giant-1999
- Thread starter RobertScorpio
- Start date
Wow. I know that it's my second favorite book right after Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Third favorite is a book that I believe is called "A giant chicken in Hoboken".
Neither of these books have been done justice in movie/cartoon wise.
Anyway, back on topic, The Iron Giant failed miserably because it was a non cgi animation, and non cgi animation is pretty much dead now. You guys remember how badly "treasure planet" failed? even though that WAS a Disney movie.
Err, as the thread title says, The Iron Giant came out in 1999, the same year as Disney's traditionally animated Tarzan, which was very successful at the box office, outgrossing the two previous Disney films, Mulan and Hercules. If there has been a slump in 2D animated films, it came after The Iron Giant and would thus not be a factor in its lack of box-office success. The film did poorly because its marketing was mishandled; Warner Bros. just didn't have the kind of experience that Disney had at marketing a film of this type.
And non-CG animation is nowhere near dead. Remember Chicken Run, Wallace and Gromit, Corpse Bride, Howl's Moving Castle, The Triplets of Belleville, and The Simpsons Movie? Not to mention other anime films and the dozens of 2D-animated direct-to-video features that come out every year.
^^^ The first 3 you mentioned were claymation, and not really standard "paper drawn cartoons" The Simpsons movie was successful due to their popularity "despite" the fact that it was a "paper drawn" cartoon.
But you're right, I don't remember seeing any marketing whatsoever for The Iron Giant.
But you're right, I don't remember seeing any marketing whatsoever for The Iron Giant.
It was ok. It would have been better had it had more to do with Ted Hughes book, which is was supposedly based on.
First of all, Claymation is not a generic term for all stop-motion animation, but a copyright of the Will Vinton studios, I believe. Corpse Bride's figures were not made of plasticine clay, but were complex articulated puppets with some brilliant innovations in facial articulation, using intricate clockwork "muscles" under a flexible skin.
Second, the point is that they weren't computer-animated, and thus do count as refutations of the claim that non-computer animation is "dead." (Although Corpse Bride did use computers in an innovative way, not replacing but supplementing hand animation; by shooting with digital still cameras, the animators could instantly review and edit a scene while they were creating it, allowing them to create smoother, more effective animated motion by hand than ever before.)
Also, it's a mistake to assume that 2D animation doesn't involve computers. These days, only the initial animation drawings are on paper; instead of being traced in ink onto cels, hand-painted, and photographed over painted backgrounds, they're now scanned into a computer, digitally inked and painted, and digitally composited into a scene which is often 3D-rendered. The Simpsons Movie also made extensive use of 3D cel-shaded animation for vehicles, objects, and sets, and digital compositing for large crowds, in the same way that Futurama does (and directed by the same man, Scott Vanzo). The distinction between 2D and 3D animation is no longer a difference of technology, merely a difference of artistic style. And stylistic preferences vary over time. 3D animation is fashionable these days, and it will always be one option, but 2D is still a viable art form, still quite popular on television and home video, and you never know when it will have a resurgence on the big screen. I believe Pixar's John Lasseter is developing or producing a new 2D-animated feature right now.
GalaxyX;1788771 Anyway said:
yeah I love this movie, I saw it twice at the theater. 
It could almost be set in the same universe as the Incredibles. The human character designs look very similar.
It could almost be set in the same universe as the Incredibles. The human character designs look very similar.Ditto. I own this movie and I always get teary when I watch it. Yeah, I admit it.
The Iron Giant is one of my favorite animated movies. There is one part in it that really bugs me though. Toward the end when the two kids fall off the building and the iron giant catches them. I realize it's an animated movie aimed at kids, but I think even kids are going to realize that falling from a multistory building onto a giant metal hand isn't going to be any better than landing on cement.
I just think they could have come up with a better way of showing the giants heroic spirit, like, I don't know, stopping a nuclear bomb from landing on the town.
I just think they could have come up with a better way of showing the giants heroic spirit, like, I don't know, stopping a nuclear bomb from landing on the town.
Agreed. Bird is a genius, and I love the Iron Giant!
I remember reading the book at first school, we even did a scene out of the book as a play of some sort; I'm sure the Holywoodised version is severely diluted. I remember that he only found one of his ears when he was rebuilding himself at the beginning and that at the end he endures intense heat and his other ear starts to melt.
That's not really a fair or valid way of characterizing it. The book/poem is only a couple of dozen pages long, maybe only enough for a one-reel cartoon short if it were faithfully adapted. The movie is inspired by the book and adopts a few broad elements, but it's a very different entity, not diluted or "Hollywoodized," just taking the same foundations and building a new and distinct story on them, a story that's better suited to a movie, with more fully drawn characters and a more personal focus. It's a brilliant piece of filmmaking.
I still get teary when I watch this movie. I agree it was poorly marketed when it came out. My friends and I were telling everyone we could to see when it came out and the response was "The iron what?"
it is a must see for anyone, especially for people who think oh it is just for boys or it is sci-fi, it transcends genre like all masterpieces do. It legacy in current Pixar work is clear.
it is a must see for anyone, especially for people who think oh it is just for boys or it is sci-fi, it transcends genre like all masterpieces do. It legacy in current Pixar work is clear.
I'm late to the thread, but add my voice to the chorus who loved the movie and cried at the end. Brad Bird can do no wrong!
Wow. That plot... sounds really crappy. I can only assume it was written much better than it sounds.
Even if so, I think I would still prefer the movie's ending, with the Giant taking the hero's path of saving humanity from a problem they created after being more than a little openly hostile to him.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Similar threads
