Meet the Robinsons

[goofystitch]

An excerpt from Boxofficemojo:

Meet the Robinsons launched at $25.1 million on 4,400 screens at 3,413 theaters, which included digital 3-D presentations on 587 screens at 484 locations. Though distributor Buena Vista didn't have a precise breakout, the 3-D presentations grossed twice as much on average as the regular version. The computer-animated comedy's debut was solid by the recently lowered standards of the genre, but it was significantly less than Chicken Little and Robots among similar movies.

"It's right on the expectation level [of $25 to $28 million]," said Chuck Viane, Buena Vista's president of distribution. "And of course we're playing into the Easter holiday which begins Monday and by Friday 80 percent of kids will be out of school." Buena Vista's polling indicated that the audience was 78 percent families and 53 percent female, while the CinemaScore was "A-."

Meet the Robinsons's manic ads sold the comedy, centering on gags involving a Tyrannosaurus Rex, singing frogs and a hyper lady with caffeine patches, but not the story, which could only be gleamed from the trailer.

$25.1 million is a bit dissapointing, but hopefully the large number of families on Spring break will give it solid attendance during the week and this upcoming weekend.

[akhenaten]

not dissapointing on its part but largely due to the overflooding of CG movies last year...some with poor quality that contributed to the audience's skepticism plus a not so appealing trailer and plain looking posters....hopefully word of mouth will carry it through.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

That's frankly just pathetic!

I'm not saying it should beat Shrek 2 or Finding Nemo at the box office(though I personally would love to see a superior movie top those piles of crap) but the fact something so awful looking like Blades of Glory can beat it opening weekend proves the audiences sadly contains some idiots.

[gardener14]

Isn't $25 million a particularly bad opening weekend in light of the fact that two thirds of the audience paid a premium to see it (in 3D)? Or, by comparrison, it makes the opening of other cgi films even better.

I think MTR would have had far greater appeal if the trailers had focused on Lewis and shown a more appealing side of the movie instead of confusing people with a hodge podge of characters and only the zany side of the story. It wouldn't have improved the movie, but it would probably have gotten more people in the door if there was a character in the film with whom they expected to relate.

I think it helped CL and Cars that people knew going in who the main character was even if they only had a visual identity and a brief hint of the story. The only thing I knew about the story of MTR was that an orphan kid was trying to find his family, and I only knew this because I read it on a fan website, not from the previews.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

the reason im liking it more than the rob thomas song in the end is because it recalls the 60's kind of music that would appeal to all kinds of age and it is to me a new disney classic and its an ORIGINAL disney song (i hope im right on this) and shouldnt get old quickly.unlike other CG movies that uses famous songs that has been used in many other movies. and the whole disney animated feature not using original songs just devaluates it from a 'classic' status. lilo and stitch notwithstanding. the comparison is chicken little with songs by spice girls and whatnot.

Well, in Chicken Little, the songs like Spice Girls were character-development, which is much better than say how Dreamworks does it at least. Aside from that, the songs were original.

I do agree with "Another Believer" though. I've been listening to it several times on my iPod, and it's really good. One of the best Disney songs of recent years. Maybe not extremely memorable, but a good song.

I would've liked to at least hear the rendition of "There's a Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow" on at least the credits though, but hey, it's on the soundtrack.

On the plus side in terms of critics, Richard Roeper and his guest critic(forgot her name) gave it "Two Thumbs Up". Since those are "everybody's favorite critics"(well, not without Roger) I'm glad Roeper at least seemed to really like it. Hopefully, reviews like "it's just for kids", (yet they loved the terrible Finding Nemo) or "the animation is bad" (when, it I thought it raised the bar and that the human designs by far beat The Incredibles) will get ignored.

Well, here's hoping with good word-of-mouth and spring break for several, it has really good legs. At least we can boycott Shrek the Third.

[gardener14]

Isn't $25 million an especially poor opening weekend in light of the fact that two thirds of the audience paid a premium to see it (in 3D)? Or conversely, it makes the opening of other cgi films look even better.

I think MTR would have had a far broader appeal if the trailers had focused on Lewis and shown a more appealing side of the movie instead of confusing people with a hodge podge of characters and only the zany side of the story. It wouldn't have improved the movie, but it would probably have gotten more people in the door if there was a character in the film with whom they expected to relate from seeing the trailers.

I think it helped CL and Cars that people knew going in who the main character was even if they only had a visual identity and a brief hint of the story. The only thing I knew about the story of MTR was that an orphan kid was trying to find his family, and I only knew that because I read it on a fan website, not from the previews.


This is the review that most accurately reflects how I felt upon seeing MTR. http://boxofficemojo.com/reviews/?id=2282&p=.htm

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

This is the review that most accurately reflects how I felt upon seeing MTR. http://boxofficemojo.com/reviews/?id=2282&p=.htm

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I'm glad to say I at least agree with you on Chicken Little.

As far as your comment you posted twice, it's interesting, but probably the biggest factor is that it was released in March while CL and Cars were released during movies' most popular seasons.

Doesn't explain the huge success of both Ice Ages though.

[magicalwands]

Hopefully, reviews like "it's just for kids", (yet they lovef the terrible Finding Nemo) or "the animation is bad" (when, it I thought it raised the bar and that the human designs by far beat The Incredibles) will get ignored.

No, The Incredibles' animation is far superior than MTR's. The physics in MTR don't even make sense. For example, when the Bowler Hat Guy drops the scanner and the guy goes flying across the table? Surely it didn't cause that much momentum. Disney still has a lot to learn about 3d animation. This isn't 2d folks, it's 3d, so don't incorporate 2d elements.

And you got to stop talking crap about Finding Nemo. We know you hate Finding Nemo, we get it. There's no need to state it in every post! Oh and by the way, I love how millions and millions of people just adore Finding Nemo and you just can't get it through your thick head that maybe it is a good film.

[MadonnasManOne]

And you got to stop talking crap about Finding Nemo. We know you hate Finding Nemo, we get it. There's no need to state it in every post! Oh and by the way, I love how millions and millions of people just adore Finding Nemo and you just can't get it through your thick head that maybe it is a good film.

I agree, magicalwands. Finding Nemo is a very good film, and is worthy of the success and praise it receives. The thing is, if Finding Nemo was a film Disney actually made, and got the acclaim for, then Timon/Pumbaa fan would be singing a different tune. Because it's from Pixar, it's crap.

[SpringHeelJack]

The physics in MTR don't even make sense. For example, when the Bowler Hat Guy drops the scanner and the guy goes flying across the table? Surely it didn't cause that much momentum. Disney still has a lot to learn about 3d animation. This isn't 2d folks, it's 3d, so don't incorporate 2d elements.

I'm really not clear what you mean by this. There's not really a different set of rules for 2D and 3D animation. If they want to use 3D the same way they do 2D, more power to them, IMO.

[corrwill]

Yup just saw it again today for the second time. For some reason the ending is much more touching the second time around, I had a small tear this time. I did notice something though durring the base ball game, one of the billboards behind Goob is The Jungle Book and the Other is Toy Story (2, I think. it was Jessie and Bullseye) Do you think this is a metaphor of Walt Disney and Pixar coming together (JBook was Walts last movie and TStory was Pixar's first movie) You can see it a bit in the Rob Thomas "Little Wonders Music Video HERE:

http://www.totaleclips.com/Player/Bounc ... ndorid=600

Over all good movie. Anything that gives me a nice warm feeling in the end is great.

FAV QUOTE FROM THE MOVIE: (close but not perfect )
"I got it I'll blow up the building! Yes, Yes! Oh wait, no, no then he'll be dead. Oh, I know I'll turn him into a duck, YES! No wait...I don't know how to do that. And, I don't really need a duck."

[goofystitch]

I agree with Spring Heel Jack. I know I saw some form of featurette for "Chicken Little," either on DVD or the internet, about how WDFA purposely tried to incorporate the feel of squash and stretch that is typically associated with 2D animation. The scene they displayed as an example was when Chicken Little is flung into the window during dodgeball and his whole body flattens as he hits the window. I personally like that they are incorporating these elements into CG animation. It creeps me out when animation gets too real. For example, when I went and saw "Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within" in theaters with my dad, he didn't realize it was animated until half way through and that kind of irked me. If you are going to strive for complete realism, why not skip the astronomical budget and just hire actors and really film it?

magicalwands wrote:

No, The Incredibles' animation is far superior than MTR's. The physics in MTR don't even make sense. For example, when the Bowler Hat Guy drops the scanner and the guy goes flying across the table? Surely it didn't cause that much momentum. Disney still has a lot to learn about 3d animation. This isn't 2d folks, it's 3d, so don't incorporate 2d elements.

Why not incorporate 2D techniques into CG animation? Afterall, it's still animation. I agree that the animation in "The Incredibles" was better than "Meet the Robinsons." Pixar typically raises the bar with each subsequent film, but Pixar doesn't exactly use realistic physics in their films either. The man flying across the table in MTR was a gag. It obviously could never really happen given the wight of a human in comparison to the weight of the machine, but it's funny to see a short chubby CEO being dragged across an overly long glass table with a scowl on his face. I laughed. In "The Incredibles." a little boy could not continuously run across water, no matter how fast he can run. When you skip a stone, it doesn't stay level on the surface of the water. It bounces until it looses momentum. If Dash's feet had been in the water, as opposed to on it, and he was more swimming than running, than maybe it would be physically possible, but it just isn't the way it was done. Part of the beauty of animation is that you don't have to adhere to the natural laws of our world. So instead of overanalyzing everything, just sit back and enjoy it.

[xxhplinkxx]

So uh... not to interrupt, but can someone answer my question, please?

[BrandonH]

So exactly how 3D is the 3D version? Cause if it's a Nightmare Before Christmas kinda thing, I'd rather just watch it normally...

The 3-D is done pretty much in the same manner as it was for Chicken Little. The effect is that you feel more immersed in the visuals. I think there was only one instance where something appeared to fly out at the audience, and it was supposed to be slightly startling in the 2D version as well.

Overall, I enjoyed MTR, but it did not blow me away. The characters, visual design, and humor are all great, and the story is touching, but the integration of the humor with the more serious elements felt a little unbalanced. I give it 4 out of 5 stars.[/i]

[xxhplinkxx]

Thank you very much.

[Eeyore]

Ok, saw the film in 3D yesterday in Kentucky. Enjoyed it very much.

Have to agree the middle is a mess. Love the beginning and end, but the whole family thing in the middle just seemed like filler for time, and excuses to throw some 3D stuff at you.

Never saw Chicken Little, nothing to compare there for me.

The pre-film was an old Donald Chip and Dale "Working for Peanuts" or something like that. Also in 3D, that was cool.

Cost was $19 for two of us. Ouch.

Love the animated Disney opening logo in 3D. Exquisite.

[Jules]

Why are people suddenly saying that the CG animation in MTR is not as good as Pixar's? I, for one, think that the animation is on par with that of Pixar and practically the best CG animation I've seen, along with Pixar's.

If the animation isn't as good as what Pixar does, I think it is at least better than that of the Dreamworks features. DW's animation is good aswell, but it just doesn't feel as polished as the stuff emanating from Pixar, or now - WDFA (or WDAS).

[Jules]

Oh ... BTW:

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... y-mtr.aspx

Enjoy.

[dvdjunkie]

CRITICS BE DAMNED!!!!!!!!!!!



MEET THE ROBINSON'S IS GREAT!!!!!


I know that many of you have been waiting to read what I thought of MTR, and I have been busy since seeing this very funny film. We are not blessed with a theater that shows 3-D so I saw the regular version with the Donald, Mickey and Goofy short "Boat Builders" in front of the movie.

First let me say, that my three oldest grandkids, who tagged along with grandpa for this adventure, were enthralled with the movie from the very first scenes. I went in with little expectations and was pleasantly surprised at how inventive this movie really was.

While I will agree with some, that the middle twenty minutes was muddled with very confusing things, I will grade this movie a very high grade because it was a vast improvement over "Chicken Little" and "The Wild" and I will go see this movie at least twice more before it leaves the big screen.

MTR is definitely at the top of the list of 'Must Haves' for my DVD collection. A great big thumbs up from me to Disney for not disappointing us with this film. The characters, and the animation were top notch, and I will give it a strong 3.5/5 and highly recommend it to all my friends.

[goofystitch]

Julian Carter wrote:

Why are people suddenly saying that the CG animation in MTR is not as good as Pixar's?

On second thought, it is pretty hard to compare the two. No studio has ever made a film that looks like "Meet The Robinsons." It has a very fresh style and cool color scheme. My personal schema about Pixar is that they raise the bar for animation, though. I think it's just because in every Pixar film, I feel like I'm seeing something that hasn't been done before. It's probably how audiences reacted the first time they saw Disney Dust in "Cinderella." And judging by the "Ratatouille" trailors, it appears to be no exception. So I think that as long as Pixar is being as innovative as they are, they will remain the best in the business in my mind. I'm not saying MTR wasn't innovative, but there wasn't a lot that made me go "wow, I've never seen that before."

And I feel that the animation in MTR was a lot better than Dreamworks' output. I like several Dreamworks animated films, but the animation is typically average. I found MTR to be above average.