BOLT (formerly American Dog) Discussion
Bolt will do well over the Thanksgiving week. Thing is, Twilight is a one-gender fad, like Sex and the City, and like that film, Twilight could be a one-weekend wonder destined for a flame-out. Expect a sharp 50% - 60% drop off for the film in second weekend numbers. Meanwhile, families will turn to Bolt and Madagascar, and Bolt should hold up well over the next six days.
That said, Bolt is likely headed for a maximum gross of $135 million. These days, you take the opening weekend gross and multiply it by three for a rough idea on how a film could perform. Disney films use to have a "five factor", meaning you multiply by five, but the luster of their brand due to weak direct to video sequels and weak theatrical releases stunted that. If we give Bolt the benefit of the doubt and use the five-factor, Bolt will top out in the $130 million range.
That said, Bolt is likely headed for a maximum gross of $135 million. These days, you take the opening weekend gross and multiply it by three for a rough idea on how a film could perform. Disney films use to have a "five factor", meaning you multiply by five, but the luster of their brand due to weak direct to video sequels and weak theatrical releases stunted that. If we give Bolt the benefit of the doubt and use the five-factor, Bolt will top out in the $130 million range.
I had the pleasure of seeing Bolt twice over the weekend: once on a regular screen and once in 3D. The audiences were mostly families with kids, and I could tell that they were really connecting with the film. When Bolt first shows up on screen, you could hear a collective "Ahhh" because of his cuteness. There were many moments that provoked laughs or other reactions from the crowd.
I thoroughly enjoyed myself, and I consider Bolt one of the higher tier animated movies from Disney. The three main animals succeed in both drama and comedy, and their adventures had me grinning most of the time. Rhino the hamster gets the biggest laughs, and I would not be surprised to see him get a short on the DVD or some theme park attention. My favorite moment with him is when he gives this big motivational speech and ends it by saying that one can make the impossible possible "if...you're...awesome!"
Even in a movie with talking animals and a special-effects laden production, there are a few times when an event is so implausible or impossible that my suspension of disbelief goes out the window for a minute. The biggest of these is the climax. Every time there is so much as a candle or a Bic lighter on the set, movie studios take elaborate safety precautions, and a firefighting unit is required to be on standby on the actual set. There is no way that the company would let their child star be endangered by an improperly trained animal in that way. In reality, the show would not have resumed production without some major legal action.
I usually give movie physics a pass, but Bolt would have suffocated in that box travelling cross-country. There were no holes in it, and the little bit of air that made it through the flaps and tape would not have sustained him for long.
My last quibble is more of a question. Why does Rhino stay with Bolt, Mittens, and Penny instead of going back to Grandma Butter Beans? It did not look like he was mistreated or underfed. Would she have been too hard to find, or did he figure that she had other hamsters to keep her happy?
I saw several things in Bolt that reminded me of other movies. Whether they are ripoffs or homages depends on if you like the movie or not.
Rooftop and helicopter jump: The Matrix
Bolt and the truck running toward each other: The Matrix Revolutions (Neo and Smith)
Mittens' backstory: Toy Story 2 (Jessie)
The pigeons: Finding Nemo (similarities in attitude and movement, plus an actual name drop)
The cross-country trip and main trio: Homeward Bound movies (especially Mittens being like Sassy)
I'm sure I overlooked some, but there are plenty of Easter eggs for the movie buffs out there.
The 3D experience is okay, but I don't think it's worth going out of your way for, especially with a higher price and this economy. Chicken Little is still the most effective use of 3D that I've seen. I don't know if it's because it was the first RealD experience I had, if it was designed for the process a little more, or if those projectionists were a little bit more competent. I may wait on word of mouth on how the 3D looks for future movies.
Right now, my rating of Bolt stands at 4.5 stars out of 5, the same rating I gave Wall*E. I'd have to watch the latter again before I can say which I like better.
I thoroughly enjoyed myself, and I consider Bolt one of the higher tier animated movies from Disney. The three main animals succeed in both drama and comedy, and their adventures had me grinning most of the time. Rhino the hamster gets the biggest laughs, and I would not be surprised to see him get a short on the DVD or some theme park attention. My favorite moment with him is when he gives this big motivational speech and ends it by saying that one can make the impossible possible "if...you're...awesome!"
Even in a movie with talking animals and a special-effects laden production, there are a few times when an event is so implausible or impossible that my suspension of disbelief goes out the window for a minute. The biggest of these is the climax. Every time there is so much as a candle or a Bic lighter on the set, movie studios take elaborate safety precautions, and a firefighting unit is required to be on standby on the actual set. There is no way that the company would let their child star be endangered by an improperly trained animal in that way. In reality, the show would not have resumed production without some major legal action.
I usually give movie physics a pass, but Bolt would have suffocated in that box travelling cross-country. There were no holes in it, and the little bit of air that made it through the flaps and tape would not have sustained him for long.
My last quibble is more of a question. Why does Rhino stay with Bolt, Mittens, and Penny instead of going back to Grandma Butter Beans? It did not look like he was mistreated or underfed. Would she have been too hard to find, or did he figure that she had other hamsters to keep her happy?
I saw several things in Bolt that reminded me of other movies. Whether they are ripoffs or homages depends on if you like the movie or not.
Rooftop and helicopter jump: The Matrix
Bolt and the truck running toward each other: The Matrix Revolutions (Neo and Smith)
Mittens' backstory: Toy Story 2 (Jessie)
The pigeons: Finding Nemo (similarities in attitude and movement, plus an actual name drop)
The cross-country trip and main trio: Homeward Bound movies (especially Mittens being like Sassy)
I'm sure I overlooked some, but there are plenty of Easter eggs for the movie buffs out there.
The 3D experience is okay, but I don't think it's worth going out of your way for, especially with a higher price and this economy. Chicken Little is still the most effective use of 3D that I've seen. I don't know if it's because it was the first RealD experience I had, if it was designed for the process a little more, or if those projectionists were a little bit more competent. I may wait on word of mouth on how the 3D looks for future movies.
Right now, my rating of Bolt stands at 4.5 stars out of 5, the same rating I gave Wall*E. I'd have to watch the latter again before I can say which I like better.
- magicalwands
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2099
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:24 am
- Location: Gusteau's Restaurant
Yeah, I defiantly thought they were either inspired or ripped off Animaniacs on that one.magicalwands wrote:I'd say they are closer to Animaniacs' The Goodfeathers...one of them is even named Bobby!BrandonH wrote:The pigeons: Finding Nemo (similarities in attitude and movement, plus an actual name drop)
OK here's my take on the situation – admittedly after no seeing Bolt and most likely not seeing it for a long time being as its not opening in the UK until February 09 and the Blu-ray will be region locked making a mid-09 UK release the only option.
Pap64 is correct to say we don't know if American Dog would have had a bigger (or smaller) opening weekend than Bolt. To speculate one way or another is impossible – there's so many variables when it comes to promoting and opening the movie, nobody can predict anything. I would however, hazard a guess that the actual "story" of the film has little impact on the opening weekend because nobody knows the story. I would also hazard a guess that reviews have less effect on movie openings than people think – after all the New James Bond broke box office records in the UK despite the majority of reviews being negative… Hancock got terrible reviews (38% on Rotten Tomatoes) and was a hit. heck, Wallace and Gromit's movie had rave reviews in the US (95% on Rotten Tomatoes) and flopped, while Madagascar the same year got middling reviews (55% on RT) and was a hit. So no, nobody could predict how American Dog would open compared to Bolt.
It could easily have been another Teacher's Pet. However, I do know, I would by far would much prefer to watch another film with as much wit, energy, fun, craziness and creativity as Teacher's Pet, than a sanitised copy deemed fit for the masses. I'll place Teacher's Pet over any other Disney or Pixar film made this decade.
Personally, just behind Teacher's Pet is Lilo and Stitch. L&S isn't a bad Disney film, it's just a different Disney film. And some people don't like "different". I've never understood what "heart" means when it comes to movies. What the hell does it mean? To me its just a lazy way of people describing a film, without having to analyse and articulate their emotions. What exactly do you feel with a film has heart? What do you miss when it doesn't?
Regardless, I feel L&S had plenty of heart. The "Family" in L&S is a metaphor. It seems like a broken family nobody can relate to – how many people are orphans living with their older sister? But the role of the members of the family is irrelevant. It's not about a specific family – its about all families.
Every child in a family feels like an outcast at some point in their life. They're probably feeling too old to be treated as a baby, but not old enough to be trusted with full responsibility. That's Lilo. Most families have a Stitch – it may be a baby sibling who's a toddler and always getting into trouble. If there are no siblings, perhaps it is a pet, or a family member more remote – perhaps a cousin? And anyone who can identify with Lilo also knows a Nani-type family member. One who loves them dearly, but is the voice of authority and responsibility who's seen as not being fun. And the film is all about this family – broken or not – coming together for support, friendship and reaffirming a bond which nobody or nothing can break. In short, it is genius.
That's why L&S is so clever – it’s a "wacky" film that 90%+ of its audience can identify with – either because they are currently a character be it Lilo or Nani, or they once were one of the characters and can remember it. There's something behind the "wackiness", something of a universal truth which is the backbone of all successful literature and writing. To me, that's "heart" – you get a strong emotional attachment top the characters because you are/were the characters. Compare that with Meet the Robinsons – a film which reportedly has more "heart" but really was "wackiness" without reason. Or Beauty and the Beast for example, which show stopping musical numbers aside, says very little about the true human condition – yet again is lauded as being full of "heart". Even a film like Finding Nemo is heavy on verbal exposition to explain how Marlin and Nemo feel all the time, where as in L&S, the family interaction and relationships just organically happen and grow. We are shown them, not told about them.
I cried at the ending of Lilo and Stitch, just by the film showing simply photographs. I haven't cried at any other Disney film this decade.
Now, I have no doubt that one of the reasons American Dog was flagged for change was because the original storyline is basically a retread of Cars – Popular arrogant TV Star/Sports Star finds himself stranded in the American Desert and has to interact with the locals who he always thought were beneath him in order to reach his goal. Have I just described Cars or American Dog?
If that's why American Dog was canned from its original form, then fine. It's a perfectly good reason. But don't blame Sanders for not being flexible to change it if that was one of the requests. If you are an artist you don't change your vision – especially if in American Dog's case (should I be right) it would involve taking the whole "point" of the story, the entire reason Sanders crafted the story in the first place, out of it.
"Yeah, we like your ideas. But does he have to be an selfish star who's heart is softened when he sees and learns about the lives of the people he has nothing but contempt for?"
Yes, he does. BECAUSE THAT WAS THE STORY. The director of Meet the Robinsons wasn't asked to stop Lewis from being an orphan. Or remove the futuristic villain from the story and replace it with ghosts, or an alien, or dinosaurs. In short, the director of Meet the Robinsons wasn't told to change HIS story (not that it was his story anyway, so he wouldn't of had as strong an emotional attachment to it in the first place) – he was simply told to concentrate more on certain aspects of the story.
Finally, my final point. Lasseter apparently has reportedly stated Disney Feature Animation is now a Director led company. Odd then, that out of three films from WDFA since he took over, two have had their director's replaced.
Pap64 is correct to say we don't know if American Dog would have had a bigger (or smaller) opening weekend than Bolt. To speculate one way or another is impossible – there's so many variables when it comes to promoting and opening the movie, nobody can predict anything. I would however, hazard a guess that the actual "story" of the film has little impact on the opening weekend because nobody knows the story. I would also hazard a guess that reviews have less effect on movie openings than people think – after all the New James Bond broke box office records in the UK despite the majority of reviews being negative… Hancock got terrible reviews (38% on Rotten Tomatoes) and was a hit. heck, Wallace and Gromit's movie had rave reviews in the US (95% on Rotten Tomatoes) and flopped, while Madagascar the same year got middling reviews (55% on RT) and was a hit. So no, nobody could predict how American Dog would open compared to Bolt.
It could easily have been another Teacher's Pet. However, I do know, I would by far would much prefer to watch another film with as much wit, energy, fun, craziness and creativity as Teacher's Pet, than a sanitised copy deemed fit for the masses. I'll place Teacher's Pet over any other Disney or Pixar film made this decade.
Personally, just behind Teacher's Pet is Lilo and Stitch. L&S isn't a bad Disney film, it's just a different Disney film. And some people don't like "different". I've never understood what "heart" means when it comes to movies. What the hell does it mean? To me its just a lazy way of people describing a film, without having to analyse and articulate their emotions. What exactly do you feel with a film has heart? What do you miss when it doesn't?
Regardless, I feel L&S had plenty of heart. The "Family" in L&S is a metaphor. It seems like a broken family nobody can relate to – how many people are orphans living with their older sister? But the role of the members of the family is irrelevant. It's not about a specific family – its about all families.
Every child in a family feels like an outcast at some point in their life. They're probably feeling too old to be treated as a baby, but not old enough to be trusted with full responsibility. That's Lilo. Most families have a Stitch – it may be a baby sibling who's a toddler and always getting into trouble. If there are no siblings, perhaps it is a pet, or a family member more remote – perhaps a cousin? And anyone who can identify with Lilo also knows a Nani-type family member. One who loves them dearly, but is the voice of authority and responsibility who's seen as not being fun. And the film is all about this family – broken or not – coming together for support, friendship and reaffirming a bond which nobody or nothing can break. In short, it is genius.
That's why L&S is so clever – it’s a "wacky" film that 90%+ of its audience can identify with – either because they are currently a character be it Lilo or Nani, or they once were one of the characters and can remember it. There's something behind the "wackiness", something of a universal truth which is the backbone of all successful literature and writing. To me, that's "heart" – you get a strong emotional attachment top the characters because you are/were the characters. Compare that with Meet the Robinsons – a film which reportedly has more "heart" but really was "wackiness" without reason. Or Beauty and the Beast for example, which show stopping musical numbers aside, says very little about the true human condition – yet again is lauded as being full of "heart". Even a film like Finding Nemo is heavy on verbal exposition to explain how Marlin and Nemo feel all the time, where as in L&S, the family interaction and relationships just organically happen and grow. We are shown them, not told about them.
I cried at the ending of Lilo and Stitch, just by the film showing simply photographs. I haven't cried at any other Disney film this decade.
Now, I have no doubt that one of the reasons American Dog was flagged for change was because the original storyline is basically a retread of Cars – Popular arrogant TV Star/Sports Star finds himself stranded in the American Desert and has to interact with the locals who he always thought were beneath him in order to reach his goal. Have I just described Cars or American Dog?
If that's why American Dog was canned from its original form, then fine. It's a perfectly good reason. But don't blame Sanders for not being flexible to change it if that was one of the requests. If you are an artist you don't change your vision – especially if in American Dog's case (should I be right) it would involve taking the whole "point" of the story, the entire reason Sanders crafted the story in the first place, out of it.
"Yeah, we like your ideas. But does he have to be an selfish star who's heart is softened when he sees and learns about the lives of the people he has nothing but contempt for?"
Yes, he does. BECAUSE THAT WAS THE STORY. The director of Meet the Robinsons wasn't asked to stop Lewis from being an orphan. Or remove the futuristic villain from the story and replace it with ghosts, or an alien, or dinosaurs. In short, the director of Meet the Robinsons wasn't told to change HIS story (not that it was his story anyway, so he wouldn't of had as strong an emotional attachment to it in the first place) – he was simply told to concentrate more on certain aspects of the story.
Finally, my final point. Lasseter apparently has reportedly stated Disney Feature Animation is now a Director led company. Odd then, that out of three films from WDFA since he took over, two have had their director's replaced.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
- Special Edition
- Posts: 518
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:00 pm
- Location: Washington, DC
- Flanger-Hanger
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3746
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:59 pm
- Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters
Superb post all around netty
It's always good to see someone using their head on UD, and you never fail to do so.
Would someone like to come up with a good, thorough, applies to everyone definition of the term "heart" and explain to me to why the hell it's not in Lilo and Stitch and why you don't think that film was good? (Don't bring up Disney's ridiculous push for everyone to love Stitch after the fact, I'm talking the original movie)

It's always good to see someone using their head on UD, and you never fail to do so.
Would someone like to come up with a good, thorough, applies to everyone definition of the term "heart" and explain to me to why the hell it's not in Lilo and Stitch and why you don't think that film was good? (Don't bring up Disney's ridiculous push for everyone to love Stitch after the fact, I'm talking the original movie)

I honestly don't like how you seem to imply that those that didn't like "Lilo and Stitch" are not using their heads.Flanger-Hanger wrote:Superb post all around netty![]()
It's always good to see someone using their head on UD, and you never fail to do so.
Would someone like to come up with a good, thorough, applies to everyone definition of the term "heart" and explain to me to why the hell it's not in Lilo and Stitch and why you don't think that film was good? (Don't bring up Disney's ridiculous push for everyone to love Stitch after the fact, I'm talking the original movie)
The reason I don't like "Lilo and Stitch" that much is for the same reason many people here don't like Snow White, Bambi, Sleeping Beauty and some of the other DACs; its all subjective. I admit that I've argued against this idea in the past, but I've come to accept it since the Disney films are so different that varied opinions are bound to happen.
I've seen the film multiple times, both on DVD and when Disney Channel aired it. I liked the soft colors and animation and liked how the character of Stitch was portrayed, but the film failed to capture me as well as other films have.
Its not a surreal thing to believe because many of us don't like Bambi when everyone and their grandmother see it as a pinnacle of animation and storytelling. Hell, people think Lion King its overrated, even though it was Disney's biggest grosser.
The only reason I am taking this stance is because people are taking the change in directors a little too personally when in the end, its business and its common in the industry.
Its sad that Chris quit and we will never now how his idea of Bolt would have been like. But now its reaching childish proportions where people are demonizing Lasseter, Pixar and Disney.
Again, I don't think Lasseter is a saint nor that he will save Disney Animation. All I am saying is that he is getting too much flak from fans over decisions that would have still happened even if he wasn't the head of feature animation.
I guess what I am trying to say is that there are many things in the world worth being upset about. Chris Sanders quitting Disney is not one of them. At least, that's what I think.
-
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Yeah.... but shouldn't the director(s) in question, at all times, have a strong vision?2099net wrote:Finally, my final point. Lasseter apparently has reportedly stated Disney Feature Animation is now a Director led company. Odd then, that out of three films from WDFA since he took over, two have had their director's replaced.
In my opinion, whoever is running the studio needs to be the judge of wether or not someone is capable of actually directing. You'll notice, it takes quite a while over at Pixar before you get a directing gig. Usually someone has to really make a kick-ass animated short or do terriffic story work and then move on to a full length feature. And even then it doesn't always work out. What if no one had said to Pinkava "it's not working"?? Ratatouille might not have been that great a movie.
What I think Lasseter meant all this time is that animated features need capable, experienced directors with a vision and a damn good pitch. At Eisner's Disney ANYONE could just make a movie. I mean, what made Glen Keane qualified to direct a film? He's an animator! His stoywork involved Tarzan and Pocahontas (not the best films) And he couldn't come up with a working story after, what, 5 years?!?! There's no excuse for that. Who was to say the directors of Disney's mediocre films earlier this decade were capable? Stainton?
Should Lasseter just sit back and let the directors at Disney "do their thing"? Should he have let Sanders and Keane go on with something that simply wasn't working? You know, there's a reason why Musker and Clements were brought in to make Princess and the Frog. They're the best, most consistent Disney directors in the post Walt era.
And let's not kid ourselves, WDFA was a mess. He had to fix things. And if we're going by what the general response through Rotten Tomatoes looks like, he's not doing half bad:
Chicken Little 37%
Meet the Robinsons 66%
Bolt 84%
Within a period of two years under Lasseters reign the Disney team upped their game. Quite impressive if you'd ask me. Even the DTV studio churned out a movie that isn't hated by critics or making Walt himself spin in his grave.
As for Bolt underperforming, well let's just say I think Disney (of all studios) should have recognised competition from Twilight. They should have released it this week. It would have done Enchanted numbers at the very least. This is purely a marketing failure much like Wall-E's poor international roll-out. Their marketing department needs a kick in the #*&%$#
-
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
- Location: The Netherlands
From what I read Lasseter wanted the director to realise that what he was trying to communicate through the film wasn't working. The director told Lasseter he could identify with Lewis because of his similair childhood. At this stage in the production Lasseter told him he could not see this personal attachment, the director claimed to have, reflecting in the movie. So he told him to focus on those more personal aspects.2099net wrote:The director of Meet the Robinsons wasn't asked to stop Lewis from being an orphan. Or remove the futuristic villain from the story and replace it with ghosts, or an alien, or dinosaurs. In short, the director of Meet the Robinsons wasn't told to change HIS story (not that it was his story anyway, so he wouldn't of had as strong an emotional attachment to it in the first place) – he was simply told to concentrate more on certain aspects of the story.
Personally, speaking as a student majoring in Illustration, I can relate to a LOT of the things Lasseter has talked about in the years since he took over Disney Animation. He speaks in much the same manner as most of the teachers I've had throughout the years.
Though I think it's important to always be critical of anyone, after all even Walt Disney himself lost touch at some point, I can't help but feel the anti-Lasseter comments in online forums come from complete ignorance over the creative process. Now I don't mean anyone specifically. Just the outcry in general. In the end, how much do we really know? What if American Dog's story reels were just downright awful? I'm pretty shocked at how people have reacted at the decision's made by the man that built Pixar Animation Studios, probaply the most consistent major American film studio of all time. I'd like to see anyone try and do better.
- Elladorine
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4372
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:02 pm
- Location: SouthernCaliforniaLiscious SunnyWingadocious
- Contact:
I can! I have been a Star Trek fan as well as a Disney fan most of my life (40 plus years) and as all fandoms some people accept change and others do not. Change can be a good thing and I think John Lasseter is moving the company in the right direction. American Dog might have been a real dud and only those closest to it can know if that is so. We have to trust Lasseter to make the right calls. I'm sure, based on his experience, that we can rely on him!enigmawing wrote:Pap64 and PatrickvD-
Thanks for so eloquently saying what I failed upon in my attempt a few pages back.
I really can't believe how fickle some of the fans are.
Kevin
- DisneyJedi
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3737
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:53 pm
- Gender: Male
-
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5613
- Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:05 am
- Location: Wichita, Kansas
When John Lasseter came on board he had goals to improve the quality of the Disney animation department, and if that meant 'clean house', then that's what he did.
Chris didn't quit Disney over 'American Dog', he was fired because he refused to make the changes that Lasseter required before the film could be completed. Lasseter had a vision for the film, which has turned out to be a very big plus, and Chris didn't understand what he wanted and insisted that he was going to do it his way or no way at all.
Let's not be so quick to praise something that no one will ever get to see and just be happy that all four wheels of the Disney Animation studio are back on the ground and it is heading in the right direction.

Chris didn't quit Disney over 'American Dog', he was fired because he refused to make the changes that Lasseter required before the film could be completed. Lasseter had a vision for the film, which has turned out to be a very big plus, and Chris didn't understand what he wanted and insisted that he was going to do it his way or no way at all.
Let's not be so quick to praise something that no one will ever get to see and just be happy that all four wheels of the Disney Animation studio are back on the ground and it is heading in the right direction.

The only way to watch movies - Original Aspect Ratio!!!!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
- akhenaten
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1267
- Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:12 pm
- Location: kuala lumpur, malaysia
- Contact:
i saw bolt today.my first disney digital 3d experience.
wasnt nauseating nor as exciting as the gimmick made it seem.
the movie was GOOD. while we're at the heart issue, yes it somehow lacked some 'heart' in the second act..i felt more hearttugged in the scene of penny n bolt in the actor's trailer.the movie is as good as a goofy movie.the reason i compare both titles is the cross america elements and the repetitive characters in several scenes(for budgeting purpose or in-joke?) like the guys and the nuns. i like the main characters especially mittens.she's just as good and not irritating as dory.travolta and cyrus fit their roles well..the hamster doesnt impress me.
btw, i dont really like the digital 3d fx, it makes the visual look viewfinderish even tho its computer animated.most of the background looked flat and divided into 3 or 5 layers. it'll look worse on hand drawn animation i think. but the background does look painterly gorgeous.towards the end, i didn't want to part with the 3 adventurers, i didnt want them to reach their mission, i just wanted to cruise across the country with them..always.
does this movie capture the disney magic? not so much for me. i think MTR accomplished that better.but its a whole lot better journey than the aristocats had.
look out for paul bunyan on the map.
3 1/2 out of 5

the movie was GOOD. while we're at the heart issue, yes it somehow lacked some 'heart' in the second act..i felt more hearttugged in the scene of penny n bolt in the actor's trailer.the movie is as good as a goofy movie.the reason i compare both titles is the cross america elements and the repetitive characters in several scenes(for budgeting purpose or in-joke?) like the guys and the nuns. i like the main characters especially mittens.she's just as good and not irritating as dory.travolta and cyrus fit their roles well..the hamster doesnt impress me.
btw, i dont really like the digital 3d fx, it makes the visual look viewfinderish even tho its computer animated.most of the background looked flat and divided into 3 or 5 layers. it'll look worse on hand drawn animation i think. but the background does look painterly gorgeous.towards the end, i didn't want to part with the 3 adventurers, i didnt want them to reach their mission, i just wanted to cruise across the country with them..always.
does this movie capture the disney magic? not so much for me. i think MTR accomplished that better.but its a whole lot better journey than the aristocats had.
look out for paul bunyan on the map.
3 1/2 out of 5
do you still wait for me Dream Giver?
Since when is it the director's job to be a writer? Don't movies have writers anymore? Look, directors can and do have say in the script, story and how it is realised, but personally, I think its more the producer's job to get the story/writers sorted than the director. It is after all the producer who does the actual hiring and firing. Shouldn't he be hiring writers who can actually, you know, write? As for scripts, for one example, wasn't it Lucas constantly holding up scripts for Indy 4 even though Spielberg (the director) was happy with them?PatrickvD wrote:I mean, what made Glen Keane qualified to direct a film? He's an animator! His stoywork involved Tarzan and Pocahontas (not the best films) And he couldn't come up with a working story after, what, 5 years?!?! There's no excuse for that. Who was to say the directors of Disney's mediocre films earlier this decade were capable? Stainton?
Should Keane and his team have been producing bad storyboard breakdowns to tell the story he has been given, then yes, Keane would be responsible. But somehow, after seeing his animation, I doubt he has any issue with transferring words to images.
I suspect the bigger problem would be Rapunzel has been in progress for so long, under so many regimes, nobody, including Keane and the writers really know what was wanted anymore. I think in all honesty, if Disney had any credibility they would be better of just scrapping the film than still steaming ahead with it, but that's just me.
As for the Frog Princess, it has the benefit of not being ping-ponged around different heads of departments and CEOs with conflicting views on what the movie should actually be.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
- magicalwands
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2099
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:24 am
- Location: Gusteau's Restaurant
-
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
- Location: The Netherlands
...I'd say since he's directing the story he needs to be familair with basic story structures. Like a writer. Keane is a master animator. All I'm saying is that that doesn't make him qualified to direct. That's two completely different things. A Director should also, at all times, feel the urgency to tell a stoy. Keane's talents probaply lie more with animating2099net wrote:Since when is it the director's job to be a writer?
My mom and I took 5 kids (3 nieces and 2 nephews) to the movie today. Not sure about my mom, but I think all 5 kids enjoyed it. I really liked it. I want the DVD now!
I think they should have had a little cartoon before the movie, but after the advertisements (Navy Reserve, Diet Pepsi Max, Movietickets.com) and at least 4 trailers (but none of them was RACE TO WITCH MOUNTAIN! I was so sure they'd show the preview for that!) I was ready for the actual movie to start.
My heart was beating near the end (you know what scene if you've seen it) and the beginning where we meet Bolt is soooo cute!
Any idea what kind of dog he is?

I think they should have had a little cartoon before the movie, but after the advertisements (Navy Reserve, Diet Pepsi Max, Movietickets.com) and at least 4 trailers (but none of them was RACE TO WITCH MOUNTAIN! I was so sure they'd show the preview for that!) I was ready for the actual movie to start.
My heart was beating near the end (you know what scene if you've seen it) and the beginning where we meet Bolt is soooo cute!
Any idea what kind of dog he is?

Disney Channel died when they stopped airing movies with Haley mills (Parent Trap and Pollyanna) and fun adventure movies like Swiss Family Robinson. R.I.P. the REAL Disney Channel. Date of Death: When the shows became teenie bopperish.