Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for Discussion of: <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/News-ID510200.asp" target="_blank">3/9/06 Jim on Film: Treasure Planet: 101 Reason</a>
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Frankly Jim, I don't need convincing that Treasure Planet was a great film, although I apprecieate the lengths to which you defended and elaborated upon the movie's animation, acting, computer imagery and sound track. All were superb and, to this day, I have always chalked up the film's poor ratings to biased reviewers and competing films. To a great many movie reviewers, Disney is simply not "cool" enough to merit a good review. If it comes from Pixar, which can effectively be distanced from Disney by the likes of Ebert and crew, then the films are always regarded as superb. But Disney animation seems to just not be cool anymore, at least in the minds of many reviewers. What's more - I liked Atlantis too - maybe not the ending so much, but the visuals, the blending of computer and traditional animation, and the wonderful characters, such as the cigarette smoking woman whose name I can't recall but I still remember the voice and actions of this character who stole the show for me.
Originally Posted By DlandJB A nicely written piece. But still, when I think of Treasure Planet I can't help but think, "Well there is 95 minutes of my life I'll never get back."
Originally Posted By bean I agree with you Jim. Treasure planet was a good film that could have been succesful if they had not chosen a terrible release date that placed it against some highly advertised movies. It also did not help that Eisner jumped the gun and tried to correct his errors by writing off the cost of the film after only one week of its debut. It created a flurry of articles that practically destroyed a movie that could have recovered slowly from its low opening weekend.
Originally Posted By kai2cito Jim, your analysis is right on target. Treasure Planet is a rich and beautiful film, and its relative failure can not be adequately explained on the film's merits, but by external factors such as release date, reviewers having an anti-Disney bias, and so on. in the ong run, the film will take its rightful place in the Disney canon, just as earlier "failures" have done.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Chalk me up as another that loves TP, Atlantis and Brother Bear. These are some of the best Disney films ever made IMHO, far better than the overrated Little Mermaid. And better than the Sword and the Stone, The Fox and The Hound, The Rescuers, Cinderella, Black Cauldron, Basil the Great Mouse Detective, Oliver and Company, Aladdin and many more. I like the fact they took a chance, gave us some adventure, and tried a different animation style. when Sleeping Beauty came out it too was considered a flop because it did not have the rounded cuteness or perceived artistry of it's predecessors. And I think the same is true with these modern classics. Schmaltzy musical animations are ok, but they are largely forgettable and due not challenge us to think. TP and Atlantis do, and for that they will always be classics to me!
Originally Posted By pecos bill Treasure Planet is a wonderful film. I did not see it in the theaters based on the bad press, but then took a chance and bought the dvd. It must have been a bitter disappointment to the team that put so much creativity and hard work into this film to see it rejected by the public. I find the film more intelligent and thought provoking than most animated features.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>when Sleeping Beauty came out it too was considered a flop because it did not have the rounded cuteness or perceived artistry of it's predecessors<< That's true. Nice article, Jim.
Originally Posted By ctdsnark I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who appreciated Treasure Planet---in fact,it's the only Disney animated feature of the last ten years{not counting Pixar movies}I have on home video.The scene with the starborne whales reminded me of "Skywhales",an animated short I saw sometime back in the 80's{that's all I remember about it}.Oddly enough,when TP was over,I remember thinking "This is what 'The Ice Pirates' should've been like!"{an obscure '84 film,starring Robert Urich and Mary Crosby,whose imagination went relatively unhampered by a low budget}.
Originally Posted By xXxNIGHTMARExXx Great article! My husband and I both love Treasure Planet...we saw it twice in the theater. We couldn't understand why it did so bad at the box office. It was a very exciting movie with a lot of heart. Thanks for giving it a moment in the sun. P.S...I love the song too!
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo "This is what 'The Ice Pirates' should've been like!" I used to love that movie too!
Originally Posted By spaceace I loved Treasure Planet, Atlantis and Brother Bear. I think why most people didn't like them was because they were not kid movies with stuff in them for adults. The were made for adults as a movie not as a family time thing.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo That said, my 2 year old also loves these. But he also loves Star Wars! What can I say, I started brainwashing him at birth.
Originally Posted By Mickeylover8383 Great article!!! You said everything about the movie I would've said if I were writing the article!! Jim Hawkins and John Silver are by far the most complex characters Disney has ever created. Personally, I think the box office couldn't handle the fact that Disney broke out of the traditional mold and put a contemporary spin on a classic story. As far as I'm concerned, I give Treasure Planet an A++++++++!!!
Originally Posted By xXxNIGHTMARExXx I forgot to also say that I too love Atlantis and Brother Bear. I saw Atlantis 2 or 3 times in the theater. I think Disney has been a little backwards with all their movies for the past few years. The ones that turn out to be really good, they barely promote...but the ones they promote to death are duds, IMO.
Originally Posted By Dingle-Hopper While I enjoy this article, I agree and disagree with some of its breakdowns, such as descriptions on how "deep" the characters were portrayed to be, and that being the film's gold mine. They were perfectly thorough breakdowns; the issue is that the film itself was less thorough than your own analysis. Your explanations on the film's characters were more or less overanalyzed elaborations that the film itself did not go into. They were explanations you personally had to feel to self-analyze; to connect and create a bigger picture with conclusions derived from the "take it or leave it" bits and pieces the film gave. A five minute music video is a not a "well portrayed" anchor for the emotional growth of a character, it's a timesaver that shortcuts actual character development and key information by being indirect, fleeting, and abbreviated without any real detail or storytelling associated with it. "I'm Still Here" had a few good lines, along with some vaguely brief insight into Jim's psyche with poetry that beats around the bush and abandons you later--but I don't feel where this radio-appropriate song could be deemed as "highly emotional rock" so much as a highly generic "Kids Rock" song with lyrics that repeat and strain your brain to really "get their nitty-gritty symbolisms" right off the bat without playing the guessing game. I wouldn't be thinking, "Cause I'm not here, but I'm still here"--means "who Jim is at the core hasn't changed; he's wearing an external mask." Matter of fact, that speculation is really reaching. You put the lyrics into perfect perspective in the article; the song did not. Had you not told me [or Disney's summaries, for that matter], I wouldn't have even assumed Jim was wearing a mask. I thought that how he was was just who he was, a product of his "apparently" swerving teenhood [since the characters told you about his life more than the story did; riding a surfer in a restricted area does not scream "troubled youth going off the tracks" nonetheless], because in all honestly, the viewer wasn't given enough time to really get "who he was" as opposed to "what he did" in the beginning of the film. I wanted to know more about intro-Jim before we got to rising action-Jim, falling action-Jim, and then later, conclusion-Jim, because intro-Jim is how we get to know the character's basic traits [and not basic actions] before everything starts happening to them and "changing them." We were given a short span to see Jim's personality in its own element. Since the movie rushed straight to the voyage after his run in with the cops and Bones, his personality only reacted to the circumstances it came under and the situations it faced. When he was sitting on a roof, we assumed he was sullen and angsting because of what happened earlier. We don't assume he's most likely that way all the time--knotting his eyebrows together and being terribly distant by default. We saw him wild and free, so we assume he projects a radical personality even in the presence of others in his daily life; probably gets the girls, probably hangs with the wrong crowd, probably sends out charming smirks and devilish "rebel" vibes, but the problem is that we're left to assume it, and in the long-run, he does and is the opposite of those things according to Disney handbooks. When he gets on the voyage, one might even assume he was acting nonchalant and disrespectful because he was in a new environment, under actual authority for once, and keeping himself at arm's length from someone he thinks is the villain, but not because he's most likely this way all the time to everyone he meets. We assume that he probably laughs and plays with Morph as much as he does in his regular life with other pets or children; not because he's "changing." People have different faces for different people in different situations---so what's his face when he's not putting one on for those two things? What's his personality and what's just a reaction to what's happening around him? We only ever see Jim's personality--in its true element and form--in the opening when he's surfing, and then the ending when he confirms his future, but his presence is flat against the rest of the screen. Other characters were more appealing than him, more attention-grabbing than him, more "there" and "in the room" than him--such as Silver, Morph, Amelia, and Ben--for the entire movie. You can't have the main character squeezed out by the supporting ones. His personality was a part of the background and, at times, lost in it. An example of better characterization for Jim would have been Haley from "Stick It," who is nearly the same character as him: gets in trouble with the law due to her sporty daredevilry, responses to others with classic teen wit, hides her emotions behind sarcasm, wears baggy, big clothes to keep anyone from knowing her underneath the mask, rebels against authority, flushes her greatness down the toilet---and all because her family was ripped apart when her mother walked out on her. She later finds a father figure in her coach. And in the mix of her defense mechanisms and blase attitude, her depth is not rolled up into a shortcut and passed off as "character development," it's hauled through agonizingly and slowly. What WAS shown of Jim's "personality" was quite gimmicky and sanded down, making his dialect sound and feel one-dimensional and/or reminiscent of other teen-angst flicks that have better characterization. I also wouldn't call Jim "so emotionally real" because they drew tears in his eyes and a far-off gaze on his face as his windblown hair dances in the..."atmospheric breeze," or even giving him a daddy-issues backstory that wasn't much of a backstory. What would make Jim "emotionally real" to the viewer is if the viewer themselves has daddy-issues, and can manifest their own experiences into this paper-individual, filling in the vaguely-told spaces in the character by relating to him with their own flaws, and thus, fledging him through this--not necessarily because the movie's portrayal did that wonderful of a job. Because not every Disney-viewer is a fatherless boy, troubled youth, or even exposed to a non happy-go-lucky teenhood without romantic undertones, it was difficult for most of the audience to act as if they were one heart with Jim when his "pain with his Dad" is condensed into--once again--a short music video. Sure, the emotional scenes were nice, but they bounced instead of stuck [except the ending]. Compared to my own fatherless, troubled teenhood, I actually didn't even feel much for this musical scene---other than, "I see Disney is playing quick show and tell instead of flow and develop." However, I do have a strong connection with how Jim reacts to certain things, and I can "fill in his story" with my own through them. All the same, too many corners were cut to amount to "real story and character substance." The story---or the development of it--was skittered through, leaving little to no information about the setting or the characters, indeed giving a bypassing feel. It all happened quickly, the bond between Silver and Jim, the romance with Doppler and Amelia, etc. There was also no given reason for why Silver bonded with Jim or why he had the capacity to be touched by his fatherless upbringing if he's a pirate who's had his limbs chopped off for violent crimes and, not to mention, blew up an Inn. If Silver had daddy issues himself, failed to once be a father, or even felt worthless at one point like Jim, it would've been more touching to use that as the basis for their relationship rather than "Silver just bonding with Jim." Because Silver's "a really good person" isn't a good back-up; it's still baseless. The characters were also not technically complex or devastatingly riveting for the five to six minutes of "powerful mood-setters," save for that beautiful ending scene between Silver and Jim. The ideas that crafted them, the themes behind their characters and what they were designed to represent were complex, but the actual execution of them was not. It attempted to be, but in most instances, fell flat and rushed itself. Jim's ending also didn't sit well with me; the tale is for him to find his identity, but becoming a military cadet is only going to stifle the personality that years of pain have molded into him. Regardless of it being an exterior, it's a defense mechanism that comes with habit. It would take time and constant psychological up's and down's for it to permanently slough away. It isn't going to change in a few months or after a "life-changing" voyage unless you're constantly on that voyage; old traits and methods of dealing with things will still surface like small relapses and put that shiny exterior to the test, so putting him in that lifestyle and finalizing it with "he lived happily ever after" in it felt a bit counterproductive to how it REALLY goes in reality. As the fatherless kid with her own identity issues and masks, it's an ongoing battle for mental sobriety. Then there's the movie's placement. It would've done the entire feature a favor if it explained its AU platform and not pretend we were supposed to be automatically familiarized with it, such as Jim breathing in space. It was such a creative world, yet there was no information whatsoever--just a few names and locations thrown out. Titan A.E. is a good example of what it should've glanced over. Fans have made up all kinds of backgrounds for Jim's origins, such as thinking he's an alien himself because they don't know where the story is dated, how its universe came into being, or why their solar-system has no mentioning of Earth. I had to buy the Voyage of Discovery just to know the basic background; it has an empire and a queen! Since when? I even learned the name of Jim's father, why he left, how he left, how they lived, and all the important crumbs the movie didn't touch. I also learned and understood more about the movie and its characters from this article than I did within the actual feature, and that shouldn't exactly have to happen when you're watching one. Do not get me wrong. I actually do adore Treasure Planet, and Jim is a very symbolic character for me. I find the film decent, fun to watch--but when it comes to praising it and really sucking its toes...it boggles my mind. I like a movie while completely understanding why it flopped.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 TP is easily my favorite of the Disney animated features of this period. I like it much better than Atlantis or Brother Bear (which I think are okay). TP does have that something extra for me.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I liked both TP and Atlantis. Brother Bear I don't know if I've watched it the whole way through.
