Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the November 27th Toon Talk Review of Treasure Planet at: <a href="News-ID114660.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID114660.asp</a>.
Originally Posted By MouseBear Salutations Kirby, It sounds like you were impressed with the movie's visual beauty, but you were not impressed with its handling of the Treasure Island story. This seems like a movie that people either love or hate, and that is reflected in the reviews. Some critics rave about Treasure Planet and others think its terrible. Yours was about the most balanced review I've seen. Thanks for checking out the movie. I'm not sure about it, but we'll probably check it out this weekend. Thanks again, MouseBear
Originally Posted By Great Stone Dragon Since the movie is based on Treasure Island, I didn't find Silver's betrayal as "predictable" in any way that would reflect negatively on the film. That's like slamming Beauty and the Beast for Beast transforming back to human at the end of the movie. All in all I'd have to give the Treasure Planet team lots of praise for a very creative reimagining of the tale visually. It is very bizarre but wonderful at the same time. I thought they got Jim's character exactly right, as well as Silver's character and their relationship together. In the original version, Ben Gunn was a creepy, cooky guy, so even though I wasn't fond of the new robot it didn't bother me. I wasn't fond of Delbert at first, but he grew on me. I loved the Captains character -- Emma Thompson was great! Whereas the old live action film left you still on Treasure Island at the end, Treasure Planet has a brief prologue that I liked, helping to give a little character resolution. While I have overwhelmingly positive ratings for individual elements, there did seem to be something missing. It doesn't seem to have the desire for repeat viewing that Disney's great films have. I don't think it lacks heart though, and I don't think the movie is cold. I think it feels ever so slightly rushed. You never really get a second to ponder the greatness or danger of what their journey is about unless it is a "feel sad for Jim" moment. There is only a blink of the eye between when Jim opens the map and when they board the ship. Time where emotional conflict could have been developed more as well as plot line. We never see the hiring of the pirates or any real fear the Captain has of them. Also, you would imagine that getting to an out of the way planet across the galaxy would take A LOT of time -- they probably could have used a couple extra short scenes aboard the ship. Basically, I can't put my finger on what I felt was missing from Treasure Planet. Maybe it was just a little TOO bizarre and it will take an extra viewing for me to take it all in.
Originally Posted By ben-gunn Aye maties, tis I, the real Ben Gunn. While I thoroughly enjoyed Treasure Planet, (I welcome any and all interpretations of R.L. Stevensons timeless adventure) I did take exception with certain character portrayals, notably, Doctor Doppler as an amalgamation of both Dr. Livesy and Squire Trelawny. I felt that something was missing without both characters represented individually. I also thought Doppler uncannilly resembled the dog/cat creatures from the 1983 Canadian animated feature ROCK & RULE. I also took exception with the lack of character development in the cutthroat crew, slapping together George Merry and Isreal Hands (no pun intended) as the single antagonistic pirate. T. Planets Jim Hawkins was missing some of the innocence of Bobby Driscoll's portrayal in 1950 but I'd doubt a similar portrayal would fly these days with today's savvy youth. All and all I enjoyed the heck out of Treasure Planet and I feel more compelled to view it again, this time in the 70mm IMAX format. No one does pirates like Disney, and thank goodness someone still does. Nice work, ye all!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I already went on at length in another thread, but I'll sum it up this way: I LOVED THIS MOVIE! Stepping back, I can see where Kirby is coming from in his review, but this movie totally pulled me in from the opening frames.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators I thought the combining of Livesy and Trelawny was less confusing, as I always found the Stevenson characters too much alike.
Originally Posted By Jim Okay, I've been dying to share my thoughts. I loved this movie. I loved this movie. The first time I saw it, I really enjoyed it, but because it is so different in style, I didn't get a full feel for the development of some of the characters (namely Amelia and Doppler). But I saw it again and fell in love with them. First of all, Jim. I loved Joseph Gordon-Levitt's voice. When I heard he was cast, I rolled my eyes. I thought, "They have to do name casting even for Jim." But I was so wrong. His voice is PERFECT. Furthermore, I swear that I have had Jim in class before. He was so incredibly real. Not just realistic . . . but real. That part where he's listening to his mother talk about him, and she is at her wits' end about what to do with this intelligent kid who makes all the wrong choices--I've had her at conferences. The story of the father who abandons the family is so real as well (or can be identified with other social problems that prevent kids from developing into happy kids). I think the song "I'm Still Here" is one of the most touching and sad moments in Disney history. To see the father brush past Jim, and then to see Jim desperately run after his father as he is leaving . . . with that desperate pleading in his eyes . . . that's a quadruple wow for me. I was so moved. I loved that song, and as you watch, the image matches perfectly with the words . . . and the words seem to come straight from Jim's heart. The scene where Jim rests his head on Silver's stomach is so powerful because of what we've seen in that song. I loved Morph, who was not some cloying comic sidekick (as he looked in images from the net). The animation was awesome, particularly that of Jim (wow) and Silver (another wow). That's all I have time to write at the moment, but I was very impressed with TREASURE PLANET, and it will be a true pity if it doesn't at least beak $130 million.
Originally Posted By jdub <<First of all, Jim. I loved Joseph Gordon-Levitt's voice. When I heard he was cast, I rolled my eyes. I thought, "They have to do name casting even for Jim." >> ?? Who IS Joseph Gordon-Levitt?
Originally Posted By Santa Monica Voice of Jim. He starred in Third Rock from the Sun and Angels in the Outfield.
Originally Posted By Santa Monica <<I loved that song, and as you watch, the image matches perfectly with the words . . >> I noticed that and loved it too. I was actually amazed that the song worked so perfectly with the images on screen. I have the soundtrack and love it.
Originally Posted By JeffG Maybe it is just that I don't listen to that style of music much, but I couldn't understand the lyrics in the song well enough to tell whether they matched the scene very well. The singer enunciated in such a way that it sounded like he had cotton stuffed in his mouth... -Jeff
Originally Posted By dennis-in-ct I just came back from my trip into NYC and saw the movie on IMAX at Lincoln Center Lowes. LOVED IT !!!!!! This is the first animated movie I have enjoyed from Disney since Hunchback. LOVED IT !!!!!!!
Originally Posted By basil fan I couldn't listen to the lyrics because the music was screaming at me. Other than that, I thought TP was geat! I posted a long opinion elsewhere, so rather than repeat all that, I'd like to mention something new. The ending taught such a wonderful life lesson that's missing from a lot of movies. Not that Jim could make something of himself if he tried. I'm talking about how he went looking for a fabulous fortune (and the artists drew it far beyond any treasure I imagined). If he'd returned with it, he would've been set for life & all his troubles would be over. At least, that's how some lesser storytellers would've played it. Instead, Jim gets enough to rebuild the Inn, & the family has a good life, but by working for a living like normal people. It shows that wealth is not the be-all & end-all of existence. One teeny tiny trite story point: Amelia's & Doppler's girl babies look felinelike their mother while their boy baby looks canine like his father. How Lady & the Tramp of you! I'd've gone the other way 'round. All in all, a terif film. Star Wars Glitches <a href="http://www15.brinkster.com/wtstsgalor/etc/starwars.html" target="_blank">http://www15.brinkster.com/wts tsgalor/etc/starwars.html</a>
Originally Posted By narkspud >>>>>Amelia's & Doppler's girl babies look felinelike their mother while their boy baby looks canine like his father. How Lady & the Tramp of you! I'd've gone the other way 'round.<<<<< Three of her, one of him. It was either a tribute or a rip-off. Not sure which.
Originally Posted By Torgo Just got around to seeing the movie and reading the review. Great review, Kirby. My 2 cents: I really didn't like the movie. Concept of the movie was great; ever since it was announced I've really been looking forward to it. The CG was well done. Character design was just fine. Voice acting was very well done. And it all came crashing down because it forced all this fantastic concept work into the stupid Disney "formula." Even when they're working from established material that's a classic of modern literature, they have to futz with everything to shoehorn it in this "classic Disney" formula that didn't even exist until the early 90's. Each of the characters from the book is remolded into the tired old two-dimensional standard character. Comparisons with "Atlantis" are apt because the characters are almost exactly the same, as well as with "Tarzan," "Hunchback," on and on back to "The Little Mermaid." I was all ready to tolerate the wacky marketable morphing sidekick -- I liked "Tarzan" despite the Terk and Tantor characters, after all -- but when they brought out the wacky Martin Short robot I just gave up. Even the animation was all Don-Bluth-y, as if Disney couldn't even rely on their one remaining unique talent as the most accomplished animation studio. It was all by-the-numbers, formulaic, factory-issued commercial entertainment product that just left me feeling insulted. On the letter-grade scale, I'd have to give it a D. It's an even bigger disappointment after "Lilo & Stitch," which had me hopeful that Disney had finally gathered enough courage to break out of their own self-imposed formula and make a movie with real character.
Originally Posted By Jim Torgo, I respectfully disagree with about every part of your review. I would encourage you to catch the film again and see what you think.
Originally Posted By basil fan I always thought Don-Bluth-y animation was when the characters stuck their tongues out while talking. So You Wanna Be a Collector... <a href="http://www15.brinkster.com/wtstsgalor/collector.html" target="_blank">http://www15.brinkster.com/wts tsgalor/collector.html</a>
