Originally Posted By Jim If you read Rhett Wickham's interview with director Stephen Anderson, he addresses the issue of character development. I agree that the family members can't all be developed, and they don't need to be, though I think one or two of them (such as the mother) needed more.
Originally Posted By basil fan I rushed to see it today in order to cash in on the free soundtrack CD. And they are no longer available!! Aaaaagghh!!! That said, I enjoyed many things bout this film. The backgrounds and styling were delightful. The score was quite good, and the character design was the best I can think of in CGI. Many of the characters had actual visual appeal, something that's been lacking for quite a while. Most of the other usual CGI flaws are still with us: the rubber faces, the weightlessness...will they ever learn how to animate hands? It must be said that I love time travel as a genre. And the time travel bits were wonderfully handled, with plenty of thought-provoking, head-scratching, after-film-discussion-provoking moments. Yes, I figured out who Goob was in the first half hour, but that only made him a more interesting character. The more he acted like a big baby, the more I "got" it. (I thought Lewis was the great-grandfather of the clan. And the young frog girl only dawned on me as it began to unfold) The worst flaw in the movie is the over-frantic pace in several sections. I'm sure that will improve upon future viewings, but it's too bad modern filmmakers always seem to feel the need to go there. Of course, I found Nemo too dragging and repetetive...maybe I'm impossible to please. The one scene I would eliminate entirely is the part where Gramps takes Lewis around the house. Did nothing for me. I didn't mind the lightning intro of the family; obviously you weren't supposed to follow it all that closely. But the obese Uncle Joe was gross. Incidentally, bodily waste does rate a(n unwelcome) mention in a line by the frogs at the bar. The Tom Selleck business was hysterical! I think my favorite character is Wilbur. He had the best dialogue, and he was splendidly energetic without crossing over to manic--that's best left to the secondary characters. Yes, I cried at 2 or 3 spots. Anyway, just MHO. Disney Trivia Quiz <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/dquiz.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ disney/dquiz.html</a>
Originally Posted By basil fan Regarding the unravelling of the space/time continuum when Lewis meets his adult self--it reminds me of those who criticize science-fiction for not adhering to Asimov's three rules of robotics. Hello, people: it's *fiction*. Every "rule" you ever learned about time travel is just a figment of some author's imagination. In some stories, the past can't be changed at all. In some, it is changed routinely. In some, there is a "right" timeline. In some...well, you get the idea. Could you meet your future self? You'll have to invent a real time machine to find out.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>It must be said that I love time travel as a genre. And the time travel bits were wonderfully handled,<< This was one of the things I liked about MTR. Ironically, the very next day I got to attend a screening of the Anime feature "The Girl Who Leapt Through Time", which blew both MTR and its time travel stuff right out of the water.
Originally Posted By lesmisfan I loved this movie, sometimes i think i am the only one that really thought this movie was any good compard to the other animated crap that disney has come up with, and that is excluding anything pixar. I think disney did really well with this movie and thought it was alot more better done than chicken little. I loved all the jokes in there, the villian i loved because at heart he had no idea what he was doing, and yes i did figure out many of the twists except for a couple. But i really did feel for lewis. I do admit the when he met the family and had to give a whole recap he felt strange but i thought it was strangely funny. Loved the dinosaur, which they used him a bit more. But i thought it was better than anything else that has come out of disney lately.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>FWIW, Toy Story 2 also had a small army of writers given credit, so it's not always bad.<<< Correct. Actually, there was a lot more "cobbling" done on Toy Story 2 than MTR. With eight people credited for story material and writing on TS2, MTR's credited team was tighter. Note that this film's script was adapted from a celebrated book, so these sorts of adaptations can be more problematic, when framing for the big screen. And as other posters have noted, story artists are getting screenplay/writing credit, which more story artists are clamoring for, simply because 1) work is tougher for them to get these days, and so 2) when they DO get to contribute a few scenes, their agents/managers do what they can to parlay that work into another job - namely, getting them screen credit. You'd be surprised what a story artist getting his/her first writing credit, can morph that to on another job - a full writing assignment, a directing job, a producing job. In the end, that stuff is more about money, and probably doesn't reflect (for most of those credited) any huge contribution overall to the film's story. They were likely little fixes here and there.
Originally Posted By smeeeko SeanYoda & I saw it in 3-D at the El Cap on Sunday evening. The meet n greet characters were creepy looking.. I came to the film with little to no expectations since it wasn't a Pixar film and Sean had said it was done by the Chicken Little people (I really didn't like that stinky film). The 3-D on this film worked so MUCH better than Chicken Little, the story worked better too.. mostly as I understand the last minute re-writes that John Lassiter was involved in from what I heard. (thank you John Lassiter!) I liked the orphan kid story line & I liked the I knew from the beginning who the Robinsons were.. sort of ("the hair is a dead giveaway") I had fun figuring out who the Robinsons were to Lewis though. I loved bowler hat guy.. he was funny! He wasn't really evil, just easily mislead. I thought the film was MUCH MUCH better than Chicken Little (which really isn't saying much at all) but definitely wasn't Pixar quality. Pixar knows how to tell a story.. I'm not so sure Disney does anymore.. but thankfully this film could have been so much worse than it was. I'd give it a 6/10 maybe. The Wurlitzer organist always helps though, not to mention the disco ball. =)
Originally Posted By smeeeko ps: I almost forgot Sean & I had seen "working for peanuts" before as it was featured at the 3-D animation film fest & panel at the Egyptian theatre last year a few blocks up from the El Cap, (along with Popeye and a bunch of others no longer available to wide release 3-D films).
Originally Posted By Jim I think the whole screenwriter credits thing really wouldn't matter if this was, say, TOY STORY 2 or LILO AND STITCH. You only become aware of these things when they don't work out. Personally, I felt most of the character designs were typical CGI stuff. Big heads with bodies that look like sausage in clothes. The Bowler Hat Guy was cleverly done, but none of the characters, to me, really had any appeal. Compare the children characters to the appealing designs of PETER PAN or THE RESCUERS DOWN UNDER . . . no comparison at all. Also, compare the children's character development to the richness of FOX AND THE HOUND or PETER PAN . . . no comparison at all.
Originally Posted By LVCajun Wish I would of saw it in 3D...I might have something good to say about this movie. Even my 6yo who usually watches just about any cartoon intensely couldn't stay still for it. Oh there was a preview for Underdog...again kind of sad.
Originally Posted By basil fan I saw it again, this time in 3-D, which was a fun gimmick. But I really liked it much better the second time. I was able to follow the too-fast parts more easily. There really is a heap of charm in this picture. Lewis is sweet and I still love that Wilbur kid with the Elby's hair. I would've liked Carl the robot better if he didn't weave around like so much spaghetti. Though his parting comments to Lewis are funny. When I say the character design is great, I don't mean compared to hand-drawn characters. The CGI people aren't there yet. It's better than other CGI films. Except for young Goob. He just looks like that same old Pixar kid. Bowler Hat Guy is great. His utter childishness is just fun, especially when you know, or figure out, who he really is. I love how the villain turns out to be the sidekick and the sidekick turns out to be the villain. Would've liked to get a peek at his new adult self after Lewis fixed his future. I brought the family this time. The kids really liked it. Taylor kept slapping his forehead every time some character's true identity was revealed. And Abby's fave was Grandpa Bud, which is really strange, since, if there are no princesses around, she always likes the most glamorous female character. My sister, the children's book expert, said it totally reflected the style of William Joyce, who wrote the Wilbur Robinson book (he also created Roly Poly Olie). Yeah, I cried some more, too. The Ballad of Gilligan's Trial <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/etc/gilligan.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ etc/gilligan.html</a>
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle I'm glad I wasn't the only one who really enjoyed Bowler Hat Guy! No, he wasn't really villainous but he was a lot of fun, and I loved the look of him.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I just got back from Meet the Robinsons, and I have to say that I really liked it. It was quirky and off beat at times (the samurai style dinner), but that made it work for me. It did seem to me that it was about 2 hours worth of material crammed into 90 minutes. I don't think I would have eliminated too much (the size of the family is a great contrast from what Lewis is used to), but I would have just preferred some more time to let it all soak in. Definately one of the better movies I've seen in several years, and left me with that "I feel good about people in general" feeling that is too hard to come by in modern movies. Other than feeling rushed, I don't think I would change a thing about it. There were also some interesting things that I just happened to notice. When Lewis is meeting the family, he is given a stop watch to time the train and the guy in the cannon. The shape of at least the cover of it, if not the watch itself, is clearly a Mickey head. I thought that's what it was, and checked when it came back to it in another shot, and it clearly was. When they had the toast during dinner, all I could think of was that scene in Airplane, "...and that's where I developed my drinking problem." Anybody else feel that? I also liked how the steak that Goob had on his eye was a P-bone steak. Nice little play on words, without using any words. Also, the place where Doris was stored after being deemed a failure was labeled DOR-15. Great movie, with lots of little details, that I would like to try and find some more of them.
Originally Posted By sherrytodd We went and saw this movie yesterday in 3D and both I and the Fam really enjoyed it. And you can count me as part of the poor Bowler Hat Guy fan club. The scene where Doris gets him and he's sitting there with the Unicorn sippy drink and his final check-list, my poor little heart almost broke for him. I was able to figure out most of the plot twists and character identities, except the big one at the end did catch me completely by surprise. I think the pacing was intentional to represent the character of the Robinson family. I do also like the fact the the 3D accentuated the movie but wasn't overdone and gimicy. This movie is leaps beyond the Chicken Little abomination.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror Loved it. Not a perfect movie, but this is the most "Walt" of the last few Disney animated features to come down the pike. It wears its heart on its sleeve, and it's not just a family movie - it's a family movie ABOUT a unique family, and the virtues of individualism and striving to achieve. It embraces the best of Walt's ideals, and not merely the "keep moving forward" thing. Not a perfect movie. Bowler Hat Guy, while fun, is hurt by the very thing that here is used to squeeze laughs... by making the decision that he is weak, and not all that bright, he fails to get the respect of an audience that makes a villain more potent, and an audience more concerned with the real threat that villain can pose to the heroes. A different choice might have resulted in a more traditional-feeling villain, but it would have made everything Wilbur and Lewis go through, all the more dire and impactful. That said, the characters of Lewis and Wilbur are really well conceived, animated and voiced, with top Disney animators handling those heroes, and it shows. The supporting cast, to me, seemed quite up to the task of brightening up the screen and doing something that very few CG movies have done credibly of late - create a sense of COMMUNITY. The Ninja Turtles movie has a feeling of sameness for all its characters - the turtles feel slightly different from each other, the humans feel slightly different from each other, the Foot Clan - well, why bother? And those ancient warriors, again... sameness. Most of Dreamworks supporting casts tend to suffer from the same thing. Here, I'm really convinced that there's a city populated by a diverse citizenry, represented (cunningly) by the sheer diversity present in the Robinson Family. There's so much this film offers, and I don't understand terms like "Frenetic" being used... The pacing felt just right to me, and I'm hardly over-caffeinated (at least today). The thing was paced very intently - slower and deliberate, thoughtful early on, zippier when they're needing to get the whole plot and exposition out, and slowing down just a tad in those emotional moments. There's some very sophisticated storytelling in this film. I'm going to have to watch it again to really study it, but I'll definitely be buying this thing on DVD, and I'm writing Steve Anderson a letter tomorrow. He's got a bright future, and I couldn't be happier for him. The people who don't get this film... eh. I can hear the quibbles, but "frenetic"? Sheesh. Get out of 1976. Movies like this rarely do their
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror Oops... that last line was a holdover that I'd thought was deleted. In any event, I think Walt would be darn proud of this film. Lewis goes from helpless to self-actualized, and that was really a core part of Walt's whole life philosophy. He LIVED that dream.
Originally Posted By basil fan When it comes out on DVD, willit be in 3-D? Can they do that with home DVD as it stands today? Mouse Tales <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/mice.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ disney/mice.html</a>
Originally Posted By Buzz Lite-Snack BlueOhanaTerror mentioned that this movie "wore it's heart on it's sleeve", and I agree. I went in to see the 3D version yesterday with low expectations for the animation, characters and story and came out of the theater very impressed and wanting to see it again. A nice, positive message - nothing overly dark (even the villain turns out to be somewhat likeable - it's just his HAT that's bad!). I am so tired and bored of all the cynicism, smugness, violence, overt pop-culture reference and "winking at the audience" that often passes for theatrical entertainment. This was generally a "NICE" movie with a "NICE" message about believing in yourself and I completely enjoyed every bit of the emotional manipulation at the end of the film. I'm happy to see Disney release a film that is unapologetically NICE. "Keep moving forward!"
