I don’t want to get anyone upset or start a fight here, but I was discussing this with Mickey Mouse Boy and I felt compelled to post this. The following is a dissection of the review and explanations of why we felt the way we did about it. It is based on conversations we had this evening. It is also to explain to the other people here who automatically assumed that MMB went ballistic just because he didn’t agree with the review.
First off, without delving into the actual substantial content, or shall I say, lack of depth in this film... the first apparent flaw for me was the overall apparent aesthetics of the presentation which seemed blatantly directed towards a botched perception of the cliche "cool-conscious" & rough-edged pre-teen American boy as is seen in the main character with his cheesy 80's pony tail, corny hipster dialogue and celestial surfboard.
Okay, here you are basically saying when you write that you felt the first flaw of the film was “aesthetics of presentation,” seems to be the overall design and look of the film, especially the main character of Jim. Well, ponytails existed before and after the 80’s, if this is all just a personal thing, okay, whatever. I don’t believe that anything there was “botched.” This is from animated-movies.com:
The entire movie was specifically made so that it reflects the likeness of Brandywine painters, a group of American illustrators, including N.C. Wyeth and Maxfield Parrish, made famous for their oil paintings during the 17th century. "We liked the warmth of the 17th century," John Musker explained. "That was the look we really wanted to have in the movie."
I can honestly say that I hated all of the characters and their personalities, I wasnt able to connect with a single one.
Okay, I will accept the fact that for your reasons you didn’t like the lead character of Jim, but you hated everyone in this film? The Captain? Morph? Long John Silver? He was one of the most interesting of Disney villains in that you didn’t quite know to love him or to hate him and neither did Jim. Someone else called him a ‘so-called villain’ in their post. Sure, why not? Not every film needs the ultimate bad guy, this one was different and in many ways more interesting.
They're existence seemed to personify what I feel was the only motivation of the project which was it's marketability - a younger audience satisfied with a simple script and fast-paced colorful animation, neither of which attain the aspects of an above average film which seems apparent as Treasure Planet was not a box-office success.
Disney usually markets their animated films toward younger audiences… they are Disney cartoons! The reason for making this film was not just marketability. This was the pet project of John Musker and Ron Clements for ten years!
Anyways, the storyline and plot were pretty basic (though supposedly derived from Robert Louis Stevenson's classic novel, shamefully void of all insight), uninspiring and the soundtrack in itself was an all out trainwreck.
There were critics who stated that they were actually surprised that the script was so close to the original. Sure it was set in space instead of on earth, but Disney already did a literal translation. As far as the music goes, it was fine. Again, it may not have been to your personal tastes, but you are the first person I actually heard complain about it.
Visually, I will give the film some credit as it did offer some imaginative and elaborate sequences however I found the pressence of such facets which would otherwise be favored, to exist only to fill the empty and useless timeslots which make up the bulk of this hapless attempt at a profitable film.
Here you give a slight compliment to the film, but also get a little jab in there as well. Nice looking sequences here and there, but you say they that they are just filler, to take up time. In each sequence something is happening. We are seeing the story progress; we are learning more information about these characters and their motivations.
This was an obvious commercial ploy to bank off ticket sales, there was not much passion put into this project.
You say ‘not much passion?’ The directors tried for ten years to get this story made! This obviously was a project that they wanted to do very badly. They went to Katzenberg after Little Mermaid saying that this is what they wanted to do. The project got put off, but they eventually got the go ahead and spent 4 years making this movie.
It had definite potential in it's concept but unfortunately the writers sacrificed quality and efficieny with a terrible script and a resulting flat out, inanimate production better suited to an audience of young boys who think the floating pirate ship looks cool.
Maybe young guys did think the ships looked cool! So what? Aren’t kids allowed to like animated films anymore? They poured $140 million into making this film, I don’t think there was a lack of quality or of trying on their part. Maybe the only things they could have done better was marketing and giving it a better release date.
So, what got us so upset here? No, its not a negative review of this film, you can feel how you want about any movie. It’s the attempt to hide your own lack of knowledge about this film with a bunch of big words and run on sentences. Everyone has the right to an opinion, but know a little more about what you are discussing before you decide to totally trash a film and you might get less flack next time.
For more about this and many other animated films try:
http://www.animated-movies.net/TreasurePlanet.html
...
