tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14812333.post2560378449050110491..comments2023-11-05T02:01:53.847-06:00Comments on Antagony & Ecstasy: DISNEY ANIMATION: WANT TO TOUCH THINGS I DON'T FEELTimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09491952893581644049noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14812333.post-26447171710195556002013-09-03T21:15:34.418-05:002013-09-03T21:15:34.418-05:00@Jim Miles:
You forget the one thing that elevates...@Jim Miles:<br />You forget the one thing that elevates this movie above all those you mentioned, and perhaps even the brilliant successes of "Snow White" and "Dumbo" and "The Little Mermaid!" The thing lifting this feature into a most rarified standing, not only amongst animated features but the entire filmmaking canon, a work of sublime beauty that will be spoken of for generations! You forget...<i>fart aliens.</i><br /><br /><br />Seriously, though, I watched it with an open mind, and I tied to like it, but it just never came together. I almost--almost!--liked the setting; adding some dash of fantasy to a swashbuckling adventure plot could've worked well if they had built it on a solid aesthetic. Make it steampunk and keep the fantastical machinery, commit to the sci-fi angle and keep the aliens and spaceships and supernovae--hell, drop the teenage audience focus and make it another fantastical talking-animal feature, and you could've made a world consistent enough to earn the suspension of disbelief, and use that as a springboard into whatever ridiculous gimmicks you wanted. But instead, you end up with a mishmash of the three that fails to keep a viewer interested when the plot sags (i.e., whenver John isn't around), and raises all sorts of distracting niggling questions (in addition to the ones in the review, I found myself wondering why John needed to go below deck to retrieve his spyglass when he had a hi-def automatic-zoom robot eye, and how a poor lowlife buccaneer like him ends up with a piece of heavy weaponry in his Swiss-Army-arm, but only uses it once, to bust down a door).<br /><br />And what the hell was B.E.N. there for? I admit that I haven't read the source material--did Robert Louis Stevenson inserted an unpleasant screaming shitty comic-relief character two-thirds of the way through the story who serves almost no narrative function yet still gets treated like a hero in the original story?<br /><br />The one thing I felt that actually worked--and again, I don't know how much credit goes to Stevenson's original--was John, who effectively steals every scene he's in, both as a hellacious treasure-minded freebooter and as a hardened old man softening up as he takes a wayward soul under his wing. He's also one of the few characters I can think of in the Disney canon who can't be classified as a straightforward good guy/bad guy, mentoring the protagonist at one point, and plotting to kill him at another to keep his own dream alive (only Kaa comes close to playing both sides for his own means, and I think that was more of a product of an aimless script than of characterization) and he actually brings some welcome emotional complexity into another "surly teenager is The Chosen One" narrative. Unfortunately, when he's not on screen, it's either sulking Jim, well-worn slapstick, or awkwardly composited hand-drawn/CGI shots that are probably supposed to be breathtaking but instead look like properties ripped from the old PC game <i>Myst</i>.<br /><br /><br />All in all, it sounds a bit like everyone's other favorite Disney fiasco, <i>John Carter</i>: a director (or directors) clings tightly to a pet project for a decade, finally earns the stamp of approval, proceeds to get drunk on possibilities, comes up with a movie with an unappealingly generic name that scratches his/their ridiculously specific itch but fails to appeal to anyone else at all, and winds up costing the company somewhere north of $100mil.JDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11924843083559656074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14812333.post-86789298248390412012013-08-04T01:12:56.846-05:002013-08-04T01:12:56.846-05:00I have to say that I disagree with your review in ...I have to say that I disagree with your review in about every way. I think TREASURE PLANET is a masterpiece. Like box office bombs FANTASIA, BAMBI, and ALICE IN WONDERLAND, TREASURE PLANET will survive to be appreciated in the future.<br /><br />At this time in Disney history, the studio was trying to expand its outlook. The biggest sins of TREASURE PLANET and ATLANTIS (which is also very enjoyable, if not perfect) were to not present animation stories that fell into the realm of what people expected from a "cartoon." Jim Mileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10032343418483055301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14812333.post-37485978650070344452010-03-06T17:30:09.056-06:002010-03-06T17:30:09.056-06:00Tim, you are absolutely correct in every critique ...Tim, you are absolutely correct in every critique you brought forth.<br />But for some reason, I enjoyed this movie. Not loved, certainly, but I did like this movie more than any other Disney picture in the 00's (except maybe Stitch).<br /><br />I certainly didn't find anything appealing in Princess and the Frog. Or any other Princess movie from Disney's canon.The.Watcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06746957245529915320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14812333.post-67596516811714061982010-01-15T14:56:46.160-06:002010-01-15T14:56:46.160-06:00One thing to add on Treasure Planet’s lack of comm...One thing to add on Treasure Planet’s lack of commercial success – it was released about the same time as The Santa Clause 2, another Disney film, and although I have no idea if they were actually competing for the same marketing dollars, the sense I got at the time was that Disney threw everything it had at Santa Clause and next to nothing at Treasure Planet. Nobody saw it because nobody knew about it.<br /><br />Normally I’d agree about the importance of universe-building in sci fi but I don’t think that this movie is particularly guilty of it. I think the “etherium” concept was clear enough even without having a name to attach to it. I had a much tougher time accepting the physics of Jim’s rocket-powered hoverboard.<br /><br />Overall I liked it.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02045565869882473057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14812333.post-43239035430293326842009-12-14T08:49:31.370-06:002009-12-14T08:49:31.370-06:00I guess I'm a simpleton but I find it mind-bog...I guess I'm a simpleton but I find it mind-boggling (in a good funny way) that you would ask yourself so many questions about the universe the movie presents and how it works. Well, I guess I may do it with other movies were something stands-out and bothers me but it doesn't happen here.<br /><br />All in all, after so much disparaging, I think this is a fairly positive review. You say the story is fairly well adapted and it kind of works emotionally. That would be the bottom line of any movie for me.<br /><br />You fault the movie for being science-fiction and then not making any sense out of its science, but I believe this movie is not really sci-fi, it's not about science, the story is that of the book (altered and so on, but so to speak). I believe he ships in the movie sail through space instead of through the sea just to give the visuals a spin. To make it look "cool". I think there's nothing else to it, and it's true the sci-fi context really doesn't interplay with the story, and I understand the problem in that, but don't care much. I just enjoy the visuals for what they are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14812333.post-64303266861480200552009-12-13T21:41:25.087-06:002009-12-13T21:41:25.087-06:00I watched this movie at the behest of previously-m...I watched this movie at the behest of previously-mentioned female steampunk friends, and good lord would I never do it again. The most enjoyable parts of viewing it (for me, at least), was going "a ha!" at various lit nerd recognising the plot of the source material moments, and making fun of Jim's hair.Meganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14872907965389104215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14812333.post-10445983273513102662009-12-10T21:52:05.320-06:002009-12-10T21:52:05.320-06:00Holy shit, this sounds like exactly the sort of in...Holy shit, this sounds like exactly the sort of indefensible garbage that I love without reservation, but always defend from a critical platform. Like The Spirit. I'm going to have to watch this.Oliverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04435787187358268362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14812333.post-35532875255931521692009-12-10T10:57:42.846-06:002009-12-10T10:57:42.846-06:00[Begin Geeky Speculation]
It's always been pa...[Begin Geeky Speculation]<br /><br />It's always been painfully apparent to this Dungeons & Dragons geek that Treasure Planet borrows much of its fantasy-cum-science-fiction rules and aesthetic from the Spelljammer campaign setting, which boiled down to the superficially loathsome high concept of "Dungeons & Dragon: IN SPACE!" In actuality, Spelljammer was a highly enjoyable, fairly original universe, with a robust swashbuckling tone to it. The "galleon sailing through outer space" visual was a staple of Spelljammer. It worked because within the context of the setting's hefty product line, the authors actually provided some, you know, justification for this visual. They developed an elaborate "fantasy physics" for their setting, based on a combination of Aristotelian and medieval cosmology, and thought carefully about how Middle Age cultures with access to magic would change when exposed to inter-planetary travel. It wasn't exactly *thoughtful*, but you could tell that some thought had been put into it.<br /><br />The point being, I guess, that there is the nugget of an interesting science fiction setting here, but that an animated feature film is a terrible, terrible medium for conveying it, particularly when one has to shoehorn in excruciating comedy relief, pop songs, and other garbage.<br /><br />[End Geeky Speculation]The Caustic Ignostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08573539801150336099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14812333.post-981912342410312802009-12-10T10:21:46.562-06:002009-12-10T10:21:46.562-06:00When they decided to wrap things up by blowing up ...When they decided to wrap things up by blowing up the damn planet, that's when you know that they had other priorities in mind than paying full tribute to Stevenson.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09491952893581644049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14812333.post-66212073835412458942009-12-10T10:12:37.961-06:002009-12-10T10:12:37.961-06:00I have to admit, the premise behind Treasure Plane...I have to admit, the premise behind <i>Treasure Planet</i> worked really well for me. Stevenson's book was always one of my favorite growing up and there's nothing in cinema I love more than <i>Star Wars</i>.<br /><br />Long story short, this movie did not work. I'm glad for your review because you helped me identify a few of the things I couldn't put my finger on but knew I disliked. It's just such a disappointment because I think the concept could almost work. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, most of the good qualities of Stevenson's work were tossed aside for slap-stick gags and big explosions. <br /><br />...and why oh why were the spaceships old-style galleons?!Rob Nivenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14485496971433728722noreply@blogger.com