SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Mar 15 2011 04:04 pm

http://blog.movies.yahoo.com/blog/905-why-disneys-mars-needs-moms-bombed?nc

Unsurprising. The trailer looked boring. The name was dumb.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

Yeah, it doesn't help that the movie sounds more like a porn title rather than a Disney movie.

Posted: Mar 15 2011 04:17 pm

Yeah really what the hell is up with that title? Laughing

Posted: Mar 15 2011 04:39 pm

The title comes from the book it's based on.

Agreed it looked dumb, but usually family movies still do well so I'm surprised. I bet it's a high-seller in the home market, but still won't recoup the cost of the movie.

Gallery 2 · Posted: Mar 15 2011 06:23 pm

From what I saw on the trailers, plus the reviews, I can deduct some theories:

1) Uncanny valley strikes again. Look, I'm not against pushing CGI beyond its limits, but uberrealism has its place and time, and a family movie is NOT one of them. There's a reason Pixar movies tend to fare off a lot better: Because they focus on fleshing out the character's personality so it FEELS real, not just look real.

"Oh, but motion caption did wonders to movies such as Avatar!" Yes... But that's because the effect was applied on the fucking blue cats!!! Anything barely looking human can get away with it for that reason. The moment something looks too human is when the creepiness kicks in.

2) Marketing. They say they invested millions on the marketing; my question is: Where that money go? I only found out about this movie like last week, while I learnes about Battle: L.A. Way before that.

3) The title. Seriously, no one thought there was something with the title to begin with?

4) Demography. I believe it suffered from the same problem Battle for Terra and Delgo had. They say they didn't enough of the right audience, but who was that audience? Small kids? Soccer moms? People who read the book? Pervs?

Posted: Mar 15 2011 07:10 pm

AtmanRyu wrote:

2) Marketing. They say they invested millions on the marketing; my question is: Where that money go? I only found out about this movie like last week, while I learnes about Battle: L.A. Way before that.

I can attest to this. I found out about this movie from a Manly Guys Doing Manly Things comic and didn't get it until I found out later it was a movie.

Posted: Mar 15 2011 07:13 pm

I'd never heard of it before this thread.

It definitely seems to be a marketing problem coupled with blurry demographics. Not only that, but the middle of March is traditionally the worst time of year to release a movie.

I don't really buy the uncanny valley arguement. I think it applies for robots, but not media.

Posted: Mar 15 2011 07:35 pm

The uncanny valley argument does hold some sway. Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol are all classic storys that I love, and I held off on seeing all of them due to the creepy/ugly motion capture bullshit.

Gallery 2 · Posted: Mar 15 2011 08:50 pm

Pandajuice wrote:

I don't really buy the uncanny valley arguement. I think it applies for robots, but not media.

Look at these images to the eye and tell me if you still think the term only applies to robots:

Posted: Mar 15 2011 09:01 pm

Dear lord that last one is horrifying.

Seriously doesn't this creep you out?

Posted: Mar 15 2011 09:05 pm

^hahaha

Posted: Mar 15 2011 10:26 pm

I lololo'd.

Reminds me of "Meet the Robinsons", but at least MTR has a funny trailer with that "I have a big head, and little arms" bit.

2010 SLF Tag Champ Joined: Jun 07 2006 Posts: 12294

was it worse than aliens in the attic?

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

FNJ wrote:

was it worse than aliens in the attic?

Is that based on Anne Frank?

Posted: Mar 16 2011 06:47 am

I guess the uncanny valley thing just doesn't apply to me alone. The only picture there I found creepy was the last one, but not because it was too realistic, but because her facial expression is creepy. If you showed me a real person pulling the same face, I'd find that creepy too.

You guys have to make the distinction between characters that look too much like humans (like Polar Express or the Final Fantasy movie) and fucked up faces that are just inherently creepy in any medium. Personally, I don't find the former hard to look at at all.

Gallery 2 · Posted: Mar 16 2011 08:28 am

Well then, we now know who NOT to trust when the Robot Apocalypse come upon us.

2010 SLF Tag Champ Joined: Jun 07 2006 Posts: 12294

Doddsino wrote:

FNJ wrote:

was it worse than aliens in the attic?

Is that based on Anne Frank?

she's that deaf, dumb, and blind chick, right?

Posted: Mar 16 2011 12:55 pm

FNJ wrote:

Doddsino wrote:

FNJ wrote:

was it worse than aliens in the attic?

Is that based on Anne Frank?

she's that deaf, dumb, and blind chick, right?

That sounds like an amazing movie...

Posted: Mar 16 2011 01:00 pm

FNJ wrote:

Doddsino wrote:

FNJ wrote:

was it worse than aliens in the attic?

Is that based on Anne Frank?

she's that deaf, dumb, and blind chick, right?

She sure plays a mean pinball.

Posted: Mar 16 2011 05:44 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

The uncanny valley argument does hold some sway. Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol are all classic storys that I love, and I held off on seeing all of them due to the creepy/ugly motion capture bullshit.

Yeah, pretty much this. (Although, after hearing Neil Gaiman did the script for Beowulf, I sucked it up and watched the movie. With my eyes closed. His words made it worth it. Also, the fight scenes didn't suck.)

Posted: Mar 16 2011 06:54 pm

I know if I was a boy between the ages of 6 and 12 (I assume the targeted demographic was somewhere in there), I wouldn't want to see a movie about "moms." Mom is an authority figure, disciplinarian, cooker of dinner and doer of laundry. She doesn't entertain me.

Posted: Mar 21 2011 10:28 am

haha http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/the-175m-flop-so-bad-it-could-end-the-3d-boom-2247778.html

Posted: Mar 21 2011 11:11 am

Doddsino wrote:

Yeah, it doesn't help that the movie sounds more like a porn title rather than a Disney movie.

Someone should totally make Mars Needs MILFs.

Posted: Mar 22 2011 06:53 am

username wrote:

haha http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/the-175m-flop-so-bad-it-could-end-the-3d-boom-2247778.html

This is good news as far as I'm concerned. Until people can see a 3D movie without annoyingly distracting sunglasses, the idea will fail. It's hard for me to fathom who can still afford to see regular movies anymore, let alone overpriced 3D ones.

Posted: Mar 25 2011 07:39 pm

I'm told that 3D is being pushed as hard as it is since pirating 3D movies from the cinema is currently impossible. I wonder how long that will hold true.