OT: Skip the Robinsons

[Bill]

Finally went to see "Meet the Robinsons" in Disney Digital 3D. The good news is that the 3D is crystal clear with little ghosting or annoying artifacts. The bad news is the movie's crap.

I knew that this was one of the transitional projects for which John Lasseter intervened, but I have to think he didn't intervene enough. The premise is cliched and lackluster. There's no emotional stake in any of the conflicts. The villain is impotent. The Robinsons are dull and uninteresting. In short, everything that could have been milked to make this a fun movie was drained. Within 10 minutes I was regretting not going to see Spiderman. Unfortunately the "surprise" of the film is broadcast early on so when it finally shows up, you feel as though you arrived on an earlier train.

There's a phenomenon in movies that was abundantly evident in "The Rescuers Down Under". I call it the "Joanna Syndrome". It's when one scene stops a movie dead in its tracks. Suddenly you're out of the story, your face taking on that zombie screensaver appearance that you usually reserve for Jehovah's Witnesses at your doorstep. This movie is full of them. (Not Jehovah's Witnesses...Joanna moments.)

Nothing worse than wanting to like a movie and having it not deliver on ANY front.

They showed "Working for Peanuts" in 3D before the film. Interesting gimmick...pales horribly next to contemporary 3D...still fun to see as intended.

 

[X-S Tech]

Wow that's the first negative review I've heard. Most people I've talked to really really liked it.... but I generally wouldn't trust any of thier opinions.

I haven't seen the movie, but what I have seen suggests that it may also suffer from one of the other malady's to infect Disney Animation in the last decade- the "Cast of thousands" syndrome. Remember the commercials for little Mermaid? The commercial told you that teh film was about Ariel, her story. There were some variations that focused on her friends Sebastian, Scuttle, and Flounder, but even those commercials were about thier relationship with Ariel. You knew from watching the commercial what the film was about, who it was about, and what they wanted. Nowadays the commercials, posters etc... do thier best to show you every single person in the film, not because there are more characters in the film than there used to be, but because suddenly it's not about one character anymore, it's about every character. According to the commercials, Meet the Robinsons is about a blonde boy, a dark haired boy (I don't think the commercial ever tells you thier names) a creepy guy in a bowler hat, a dinosaur with small arms and a big head, a woman with a caffiene addiction, and most importantly, a bunch of singing frogs, which I have to assume from the amount of advertising they are on, must just be one of the crowning moments of cinema. There's no focus, and while you may follow one or two characters throughout the film, the story requires a dozen or so participants to get anywhere. I suspect this is the result of not being allowed to go back and streamline things when it's necessary. We've all heard stories from our favorite films about characters that didn't make it into the final film; they did some important task in the story but it was inevitably decided that they weren't all that necessary and that whatever they were doing could easily be handled by one of the crucial characters.

Again, I haven't seen the film and have only heard good things, but good Lord there are a lot of characters on that movie poster.

 

[BLM07]

Working for Peanuts, wow, now there's something I haven't seen in 3D since it was showing at Magic Kingdom.

Commercials are hyper and annoying, this is true.

 

[MousekeTodd]

I watched the 3D format of the film. I was thankful the option was available to me.

Now, I had seen movie trailers since last summer, and I had no great enthusiasm for watching it.

My wife and I took our two daughters -- ages 10 and 8 -- and I actually enjoyed it! The 3D format was outstanding (So was the U2 concert promotion!), and the story was compelling.

And, I will purchase the DVD.

 

[Tannerman]

I liked Meet the Robinsons. Was it Pixar-quality? No. Was it better than other recent Disney animated fare? Yes.

Of interest to us was the foster care/adoption plotline in the film (which apparently has been quite controversial in those circles). My wife is a therapist who works with kids involved in these situations, so we were curious how Disney would handle those aspects in the film. (Our thoughts here if you are really bored)

I will agree MTR dragged a bit at times and the marketing campaign was horrid. But overall, it was a decent film.

 

[Gurgitoy2]

I had very, very low expectations going into this film. The marketing campaign seemed awful, and the trailers seemed to be all over the place. So, I feared Chicken Little or Home on the Range...

I was pleasantly surprised. It wasn't on the level of Pixar, but it's better than most of the recent stuff Disney has churned out. It had some heart to it, and it didn't have any pop culture references, or bodily function jokes (at least that I can remember). There were parts that needed work, but overall the move was decent. Better, in my opinion, than Chicken Little or Home on the Range. Not in the top tier of Disney films, but not in the bottom either.

 

[X-S Tech]

No pop culture references.... except Todayland right?

Actually this is a film with which I wouldn't have any problem with Pop Culture references, as it's set in the modern day. It's the fantasy films set in times or cultures that have no knowledge of our world that bother me when they do pop culture references.

 

[BJWanlund]

Here's a good question: Why would you say that it's the "cast of thousands" syndrome rather than "what it used to be under Walt"? I think that this was a very splendid, CREATIVE work (is there something like this anymore, EVER?). Maybe it was my short attention-span, or the fact that movies that plod along at a slow clip (Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Lady and the Tramp, even) are not my favorites? I love action-packed movies (the recent Casino Royale, The Three Caballeros, Saludos Amigos, Melody Time, etc.) and the boom-boom-boom style is one of my faves. Maybe it's just me, but boom-plod along-boom just doesn't make for quality entertainment. John Lasseter should be PRAISED, not KILLED.

BJ

 

[BJWanlund]

OK...I can accept that most of you liked the movie...just curious what your reactions were to the following: (SPOILER ALERT)

1. The true villain in this piece is Dolores (Doris?). The villain-apparent is too bumbling and ineffectual to be threatening AND these characteristics were never set up earlier when they were developing his earlier persona (Yagoobian). I also thought that the absolute absence of any physical similarity between his childhood incarnation and his adult incarnation was a cheat...too convenient...as was the absence of common character traits in old and young Lucille. Meanwhile...other than explaining that Dolores was a creation of Mr. Robinson's, there is no real reckoning for this at the end.

2. I felt that this movie gave a lot of talk time to the destination ("the future") and then we really only see "the future" as they're arriving (ie. cool bubble transport, instant buildings, etc). After we arrive at the Robinson house, the coolness factor of "the future" seems to have dissipated and we're in Roly Poly Oly land.

3. We don't REALLY "meet" the Robinsons. While we're introduced to the Robinsons, they're all kind of generic wacky. We don't see or understand why Robinson would have collected all of these individuals. (Less about "building a family" and more about collecting weirdos.) Certainly his immediate family (son, wife, parents) engages Lewis, but who are all these other people? Why aren't we shown that they are all as unique and special as Lewis and THAT is why he invited them into the fold? Seems like a mental institution and not a makeshift family of misunderstood, but valuable individuals.

4. I feel that, in order for this film to really "work", the villain would have to be much more threatening...not merely driven by "lack of sleep"...and not second banana to the hat. Lewis' invention would have to be more connected to finding his mother (perhaps the time machine itself INSTEAD of the mind reading machine). Mr. Robinson shouldn't be so conspicuously absent until the end (I felt that this BROADCAST his identity early on. I knew as soon as they showed his silhouette portrait that it was Lewis). And each of the Robinsons should have a reason for being in this story. Each should contribute to Lewis' adventure AND...it should set up "the perfect family that Lewis never had". The thought of returning to his own time should be heartwrenching. Only then does the "reveal" pay off in a way that is meaningful.

5. To me, the most compelling relationship is Lewis' relationship with Mildred. She loves and cares for him and understands him and gives him leeway to be himself. In a sense, the major conflict is rendered impotent because he's seeking only the idea of "parents"...not the understanding environment that he already has with Mildred. It seemed to me to short circuit the emotional need of the story. ("If I ever go looking for my heart's desire again, I won't look any further than my own backyard" -Dorothy)
Would you chose the doorbell twins over Mildred?

That this movie could be called "boom boom boom" pacing by anyone is amazing to me. If I spent any more time in that orphanage or at the school, I would hemorrhage.

Perhaps (definitely) I'm just a harder sell.

PS. I thought Tannerman's comment about the orphan aspect was interesting. We don't see Disney characters missing parents much, except in Snow White, Pinocchio, Dumbo, Bambi, Cinderella, Peter Pan, Sword in the Stone, Jungle Book, Aristocats, Rescuers, Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, Black Cauldron, Fox and Hound, Rescuers Down Under, Pollyanna, Escape to Witch Mountain, Follow Me Boys, Chicken Little, Treasure Island, Treasure Planet, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Finding Nemo, Brother Bear, Johnny Tremain, Light in the Forest, Tonka, Darby O'Gill, Third Man on the Mountain, Toby Tyler, Kidnapped, Babes in Toyland, Big Red, In Search of the Castaways, Summer Magic, Three Lives of Thomasina, Adventures of Bullwhip Griffin, Horse in the Grey Flannel Suit, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Napolean and Samantha, World's Greatest Athlete, One Little Indian, Castaway Cowboy, Apple Dumpling Gang, Treasure of Matecumbe, Pete's Dragon, Candleshoe, Return from Witch Mountain, and perhaps in some of the more recent films...

1. I actually thought the Bowler Hat Guy was somebody else...Seriously...

2. Remember, the same guy who did the "Bob the Dinosaur" books and the book this movie was based on, "A Day With Wilbur Robinson", also gave us...wait for it...Rolie Polie Olie. William Joyce was responsible for ALL of that. So if it's a little wacky, that's why.

3. "Generic wacky"? Whatever gave you THAT idea? I thought that that family made me laugh on numerous occasions, especially when you first meet Adult Franny. And even when you met Lucille, and Grampa Bud, and even (to an extent) Wilbur. I thought that the Robinsons were just like MY family, only wackier.

4. You are SUCH a hard sell. I wasn't expecting the emotional gut-punch at the end, I never saw it coming, and let's just let it roll.

5. Nah, that ain't THAT compelling. For me, the incredibly complex space/time continuum relationship between Lewis/Cornelius Robinson and Goob/Bowler Hat Guy was very compelling!

BJ

 

[Greg Ehrbar]

Perhaps it might be worth noting what was likable about MEET THE ROBINSONS.

Unlike many current animated features, there were no gratuitous superstar voices except one, and that in itself was used for comic effect.

There were no penguins or other cuddly critters doing dances that will date in a few years.

While the songs were largely contemporary and not as traditional as in many Disney films, they seemed to be chosen for suitability to the story and most were written for the film. The MTR album is not another K-Tel collection of existing pop songs posing as a soundtrack.

The musical choices seem to reflect the director's personal vision -- rather than the flavors of the day that make many of today's features profitable and popular in the short run, but locked in their time in the long haul. It also did not depend on the stock classic pop songs like "I Feel Good" (with all due respect to that song) that are so pervasive because they elicit an easy response.

Instead, the music in MTR was by artists like Rufus Wainwright, Rob Thomas and Jamie Cullum, who are certainly celebrated, but somewhat more niche in their markets than the "sure-fire" pop stars on so many other current soundtracks.

I can only imagine how the script and other details must have been tampered with before John Lassiter stepped in and told Stephen Anderson to follow his vision -- as evidenced in the tired, overused stock characters, situations and music we experience in other films so often nowadays. Because this vision was followed, there surely was more of a risk involved, especially since this was a high-profile, big-budget Disney release.

MTR was not perfect, but there is a lot to like about it -- and one of the things to like is what it's NOT.

 

[Gurgitoy2]

"1. The true villain in this piece is Dolores (Doris?). The villain-apparent is too bumbling and ineffectual to be threatening AND these characteristics were never set up earlier when they were developing his earlier persona (Yagoobian). I also thought that the absolute absence of any physical similarity between his childhood incarnation and his adult incarnation was a cheat...too convenient...as was the absence of common character traits in old and young Lucille. Meanwhile...other than explaining that Dolores was a creation of Mr. Robinson's, there is no real reckoning for this at the end."

I thought Doris was a good villain, and something I wasn't quite expecting. It may have been a bit cheap, and dimished what little Bowler Hat Guy had to begin with, but it made sense why he was just so dumb. Although that's something I had an issue with...he was TOO dumb compared to his smarter, younger self.

"2. I felt that this movie gave a lot of talk time to the destination ("the future") and then we really only see "the future" as they're arriving (ie. cool bubble transport, instant buildings, etc). After we arrive at the Robinson house, the coolness factor of "the future" seems to have dissipated and we're in Roly Poly Oly land."

Yes, I wish they had spent more time in the future that was outside of the Robinson's house, but I didn't mind the Rollie Pollie Ollie land, becasue I know that's the creator's style.

"3. We don't REALLY "meet" the Robinsons. While we're introduced to the Robinsons, they're all kind of generic wacky. We don't see or understand why Robinson would have collected all of these individuals. (Less about "building a family" and more about collecting weirdos.) Certainly his immediate family (son, wife, parents) engages Lewis, but who are all these other people? Why aren't we shown that they are all as unique and special as Lewis and THAT is why he invited them into the fold? Seems like a mental institution and not a makeshift family of misunderstood, but valuable individuals."

This I agree with, and was one of my major complaints about the movie. They introduced so many, then just never talked about them again. I also thought inviting him into the family came a bit early when he didn't even really know who they were.

"4. I feel that, in order for this film to really "work", the villain would have to be much more threatening...not merely driven by "lack of sleep"...and not second banana to the hat. Lewis' invention would have to be more connected to finding his mother (perhaps the time machine itself INSTEAD of the mind reading machine). Mr. Robinson shouldn't be so conspicuously absent until the end (I felt that this BROADCAST his identity early on. I knew as soon as they showed his silhouette portrait that it was Lewis). And each of the Robinsons should have a reason for being in this story. Each should contribute to Lewis' adventure AND...it should set up "the perfect family that Lewis never had". The thought of returning to his own time should be heartwrenching. Only then does the "reveal" pay off in a way that is meaningful."

Well, maybe, but that might be asking a lot for such a short film. I didn't mind that the villain seemed inept. It reminded me of silent movie villains, or Snidley Whiplash...somebody that would tie a "damsel in distress" to railroad tracks, only to be "foiled again". I thought that when Doris was revealed, it added some of that real danger that was not present when Bowler Hat guy was trying to get the invention.

"5. To me, the most compelling relationship is Lewis' relationship with Mildred. She loves and cares for him and understands him and gives him leeway to be himself. In a sense, the major conflict is rendered impotent because he's seeking only the idea of "parents"...not the understanding environment that he already has with Mildred. It seemed to me to short circuit the emotional need of the story. ("If I ever go looking for my heart's desire again, I won't look any further than my own backyard" -Dorothy)
Would you chose the doorbell twins over Mildred?"

Actually, I thought that too. Lewis seemed to take Mildred for granted, and when she showed him the love that he thought his mother might have given him, he just didn't seem to notice. Mildred kind of just of suffers in silence and gets no payoff in the end. I'm glad they at least decided to have Lewis NOT meet his real mother, as that would have ruined everything.

Overall, there were some major plot problems, but it worked better than most films, and certainly better than Chicken Little.

 

[Gurgitoy2]

"There were no penguins or other cuddly critters doing dances that will date in a few years."

Except for the frogs...

Otherwise, I agree with your post about the good things.

 

[Greg Ehrbar]

Please re-read my post, because I said a whole lot more than "the music wasn't bad."

In an era of artistic compromise where committee and marketing initiatives rule supreme, even if a film isn't your cup of tea, the simple fact that it doesn't buy into all the extreme pressure to be what "sells" has to be admired, even if the result doesn't please everyone.

All in all, though, I'm really enjoying this post and love the fact that everyone seems to appreciate hearing various points of view. That's what I like about this site.

 

[Gurgitoy2]

"And Ben...other than Doris and actually liking the movie, it sounds like we're thinking along the same lines?"

I guess so. I must have swung over to the "like" camp though, even though I agree with most of your criticisms. Maybe it was because I had such low expectations? Also, maybe it was what Greg points out, that it wasn't trying to be like a Dreamworks film with pop culture and satire oozing from it's pores. It stayed away from trying to make fun of itself. That was my problem with Chicken Little, that it tried to be too "hip and edgy" for it's own good, and wanted to be like Shrek.

 

[Dirk]

After seing the movie in 3D on its German opening weekend (in a nearly empty theater by the way) I came away ... feeling greatly entertained.

The 3D-animation was great and while the story kept moving at varying paces it (in my mind) got the necessary push at all times before it would have become too slow.

One of the ideas I really enjoyed was the fact how Doris turned out to be the main villain.

Regarding the music: I was really surprised that they used Cullum - I had somehow more expected that they would go with Michael Buble, who - at least to my understanding from a distance - is the better known of the two in the US.

It will be interesting to see how MtR sticks up to repeat viewing. While I came away from "Chicken Little" a bit underwhelmed in the meantime I bought it on DVD (when it was on sale) and rewatched it again with some friends (non-Disney fans) and somehow started liking it the third time around way more than the first time, when it was even in 3D.

And just to end this one final personal opinion: while the 3D-animation of MtR was stunning, the animation of Pixar's CARS still was a notch more impressive, especially during the drive out ... BUT ... MtR entertained me way better than CARS. Sitting in CARS for me it was too obvious that the story was just "Doc Hollywood" redone without any new ideas of the writers resulting in the movie really boring me in the end. MtR had - and with that it sets itself apart not only from CARS - a story that I hadn't seen / read before.


Yours

Dirk

 

[Greg Ehrbar]

I can't speak for Walt. I can only ask that my original post is re-read as it was written and anyone who wants to is welcome to draw their own conclusions and individual opinions.