DVDizzy Forum

2099net wrote:Or see this youtube video (although the DVD has live action clips of the singer)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWsWpKu_m_A

Love it! Thanks for sharing.

-Aaron

2099net wrote:Or see this youtube video (although the DVD has live action clips of the singer)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWsWpKu_m_A

That ones good too.

Its seems that the animated films that came after "Tarzan" were poised to be ignored and forgotten by fans and the media alike.

"The emperor's new groove" got lucky, even if it didn't become the big hit many thought it would be.

"Atlantis" came and went without any fanfare...

"Lilo and Stitch" got VERY lucky and became Disney's only modern hit.

"Treasure Planet" seems to divide the fanbase in half. You either find people that really, really love it (Like good old Netty here) or people that just don't get it. The box office returns solidifies this further.

"Brother Bear" is also a film that seems to get mixed reviews. Once more people either think is good, others think it isn't good enough.

Finally, there's "Home on the Range" which hardly has a fanbase.

Even the CG films that came after it don't seem to find a solid fanbase like the Fab Four did.

Emperor's New Groove was good, Atlantis was OK (could have been better,) Lilo & Stitch was good, Brother Bear was OK, and I've never seen Home on the Range.

Chicken Little is good, and I really enjoy Meet the Robinsons.


Treasure Planet seemed too much of a mishmash, I like the original source very well. Also, it seemed like TP was aimed too much at tween boys, instead of being for a general family audience (like one of the "Disney Princess" DTVs or the Barbie DVDs are aimed at young girls.)

The Etherium to breathe in space just seemed tacked on, and was about as disconcerting as the udders on the male "cows" in Barnyard...

When Jim surfed with his skyboard, it just screamed "See, We're X-TREME! This movie is (only) for young boys!"

littlefuzzy wrote:Treasure Planet seemed too much of a mishmash, I like the original source very well. Also, it seemed like TP was aimed too much at tween boys, instead of being for a general family audience (like one of the "Disney Princess" DTVs or the Barbie DVDs are aimed at young girls.)

The Etherium to breathe in space just seemed tacked on, and was about as disconcerting as the udders on the male "cows" in Barnyard...

When Jim surfed with his skyboard, it just screamed "See, We're X-TREME! This movie is (only) for young boys!"

I'm not sure I agree. If you accept sailing ships in "space" then the Etherium isn't a huge jump. No more than Cinderella having talking mice (with clothes) yet a normal none-talking, none-clothed cat. Don't the taking mice seem "tacked on" (even Cinderella's bird friends don't talk).

The Skyboarding was required for the climax, it's foreshadowing as well as showing us in various scenes Jim's character and background. It sounds to me like you're claiming it was just cynical marketing. The skyboarding is - while not critical to the movie - important to the movie. It would be a different movie; a different Jim without it.

It's true that on reflection Treasure Planet may seem like it has no female characters... but then there's Captain Amelia - come on, Amelia is one of Disney's best animated female character's ever. But Amelia's appeal is more verbal than visual, making her appealing more for older viewers, which is why we have morph (who I feel is the biggest irritant in the film) and who was obviously created for the younger viewer.

I think its doing the audience a disservice to claim that Treasure Planet is a film aimed at boys just because there's no romance for the lead character (but there is Amelia and Doppler) - what does that make Snow White or Sleeping Beauty?

The Incredibles may have two female characters, but it's perhaps the darkest and most violent animated film released under the Disney brand - and it even strays (somewhat limitedly) with the idea of being unfaithful in marriage! How does that skew demographically? And Cars, well, I bet Cars had a hard time getting the young female audience to care for a hot headed, show off who in addition to being male, is also a car! A Car!...

But there's something in all those films to appeal to all the audience, whatever their age or sex. It's dealing with a universal issue - a need for acceptance and guidance while growing up. The desire to 'belong' is one of the aspects of most mythology (see The Hero with a Thousand Faces, lots of mythological heroes are outcasts or orphans, just replace "mentor" with John Silver). But what's good about Treasure Planet it Jim and Silver change each other - it's a perfect symbiotic relationship; each needs and influences the other as much as the other needs and influences them.

So in short, I think its undervaluing the intelligence of a large group of people to say the film was just aimed at young boys.

In all fairness, I for one had a hard time relating to "Cars" because I am, in fact, not a car.

SpringHeelJack wrote:In all fairness, I for one had a hard time relating to "Cars" because I am, in fact, not a car.

that's a strange reason to not be able to relate to something. you don't have to be a fish in order to relate to the characters of finding nemo, or a robot to relate with eve and WALL•E... why would you need to be a car to relate with the characters in cars ?

2099net wrote:Goliath - find me one instance of a character off-model in Treasure Planet. Even if you do (I suppose there are some) they won't be as off-model as some of the Arials and Belles in their movies.

In addition to that, there's some excellent animation acting when it comes to Jim and Silver too.

It doesn't matter characters were off-model in some of the 1990's films. They were still better animated than anything in TP.

mooky_7_sa wrote:Treasure Planet never really sat right with me, maybe because I prefer to have romance in my Disney movies - however cheesy it may turn out to be - and the lack of a potential love interest for Jim in TP kinda put me off.

Then how do you feel about Pinocchio, Dumbo, Alice in Wonderland, The Sword in the Stone, Jungle Book, The Great Mouse Detective, Oliver & Company and Mulan?

JDCB1986 wrote:

SpringHeelJack wrote:In all fairness, I for one had a hard time relating to "Cars" because I am, in fact, not a car.

that's a strange reason to not be able to relate to something. you don't have to be a fish in order to relate to the characters of finding nemo, or a robot to relate with eve and WALL•E... why would you need to be a car to relate with the characters in cars ?

I dunno, it's just how it is. I can't relate to Sleeping Beauty because I never slept through half a movie, and I can't relate to Tarzan because I only sometimes wear a loincloth.

I can, however, relate to Hercules, because we are both demigods and have a tendency to glow at relevant moments.

Goliath wrote:...and Mulan?

..."Mulan" didn't have a romance?

Goliath wrote:

2099net wrote:Goliath - find me one instance of a character off-model in Treasure Planet. Even if you do (I suppose there are some) they won't be as off-model as some of the Arials and Belles in their movies.

In addition to that, there's some excellent animation acting when it comes to Jim and Silver too.

It doesn't matter characters were off-model in some of the 1990's films. They were still better animated than anything in TP.

...Maybe you should sit down and watch "Treasure Planet" again. Whatever faults it has, animation is not one of them. And isn't saying "Things are off-model in this movie but they are better animated than in a movie in which things are on-model" a contradiction in terms? Part of animating would be keeping things consistent.

SpringHeelJack wrote:

Goliath wrote:...and Mulan?

..."Mulan" didn't have a romance?

No, because they were all queers remember so anything that resembled a romance stopped when Shang found out Mulan was a chick.

SpringHeelJack wrote:

Goliath wrote:...and Mulan?

..."Mulan" didn't have a romance?

If you have to ask, you obviously didn't watch it. No, Mulan never had a romance. You do know what a romance is, right?

I've been dating the same guy for over two years now, I like to think I have an idea of what romance is. Just because Shang and Mulan never danced in a ballroom or sang a ballad of mutual compassion doesn't mean there was no romance. Are you nuts?

SpringHeelJack wrote:Are you nuts?

Are you?

Mmm... no. Must be you, I guess.

Goliath wrote:

SpringHeelJack wrote: ..."Mulan" didn't have a romance?

If you have to ask, you obviously didn't watch it. No, Mulan never had a romance. You do know what a romance is, right?

I believe he thinks it looks something like this:



Wait, they're not kissing or singing a sappy ballad so you're probably right.

He comes back in the last *minute* of the film to bring her something...! Yeah, you can tell he's attrackted to her. But that's *not* a romance. For that to be a romance, you would have to change the definition of the word in every dictionary.

From the dictionary...

ro·mance - n.

a. A love affair.
b. Ardent emotional attachment or involvement between people; love: They kept the romance alive in their marriage for 35 years.
c. A strong, sometimes short-lived attachment, fascination, or enthusiasm for something: a childhood romance with the sea.

...Yeah, there's romance. I didn't say it was a romantic film, but there's romance in it.

Goliath wrote:He comes back in the last *minute* of the film to bring her something...! Yeah, you can tell he's attrackted to her. But that's *not* a romance. For that to be a romance, you would have to change the definition of the word in every dictionary.

lolz, so a romance in development doesn't count? Last time I checked a romance has to start with an attraction of some kind between two people, and I don't need a dictionary to tell me that.