ITT:?

ITT: /toon/ media that flopped because they had terrible names

  1. 1 week ago
    Froggy

    That's not why it flopped.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Why did they, then?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        It was terrible in general.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          It wasn't that bad. It's sort of like an action-oriented Arrietty, with a touch of romance. At least it had coherent writing unlike Frozen which released the same year. The textures have aged remarkably well, they look like they could've released today. Pretty impressive blend of cartoonish style and photorealism. The only thing about the movie I didn't like were the slugs because they were unfunny and annoying.

          • 1 week ago
            Trollberg Lover

            I really wish they had done more with the francise

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >no sequel/series focusing on them dating when she's 30 times his height

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Feeling's mutual.

              If it had been live action it probably would have done very well.

              You feel like the execs new that low comedy CG almost always flops so the slugs got shoehorned in and were prominent in the marketing.

              >the slugs got shoehorned in
              Oh, it definitely felt that way. They should've never been included. It sort of felt like corporate higher-ups tried to sabotage the film, but what do I know? The four core characters had some good chemistry, and Mandrake was surprisingly charismatic. I like that the villain actually seems to care about his son.

              [...]

              Right?! I thought I was alone. Nod's cute as heck. I like him way better than Eugene too.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            If it had been live action it probably would have done very well.

            You feel like the execs new that low comedy CG almost always flops so the slugs got shoehorned in and were prominent in the marketing.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            The slugs were awful, the characters were boring, the animation was good, but the story itself was the blandest thing. The villain was high tier though.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The slugs, mostly.

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    They should have called it "Simply Ebin"

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Pic related didn't exactly fail but it could've done better but a proper title.
    This seems to have been a common problem within the studio. Ice Age at least gets a pass since there aren't many animated movies with prehistoric settings.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I love tiny people shit so its a bit sad this movie didn't do well enough for the franchise to be explored more. It's a little bit too generic good vs generically evil, most I can say for it is that the main villain actually cared for his son when he died which was unexpected but welcomed.

    The snail and slug comic reliefs weren't the best, they weren't the worst either but I could probably do without them. They also make absolutely no sense as they establish that insects move slower from the tiny people's point of view with the slow flying bee, yet these slugs move at normal slug pace if not faster. Might be a bit nitpicky but the inconsistent worldbuilding was a bit distracting as the speed differences were plot relevant at times.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Pretty sure this one’s comics adjacent enough to be /toon/. Also, it’s pretty much a /toon/ related story, because the only reason they dropped the necessary half of the title was because a cartoon underperformed.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      "The Princess of Mars" is such a cool title and it's baffling that they didn't make Deja Thoris part of the princess merch line

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      This movie was fucked over so badly. It didn't deserve it.

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    There's an actual but unspoken modern marketing rule for movies in general to be titled using a single word (preferably an adjective). It's curiously more widespread in animated movies for kids AND in horror, go figure.
    I'm sure there's a rationale for that that trumps the obvious limitations in meaning and memorability, but I don't really know the science.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Well they should cut it out.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous
    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It helps with translating the title in other languages. They really should cut it out because what happens when Hollywood runs out of words?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >unspoken

      i remember a disney bigman actually talking anout it in an interview about how rapunzel’s movie had
      to he titled “Tangled” after Princess and the frog’s
      lukewarm performance

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I have a theory it’s to do with boosting search results on google. If you name your film something specific it will be harder to have people find it accidentally. I guarantee of Toy Story were made today it would just be called Toys.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        We already have kino named Toys

        HA HA HA HA HA HA HAPPY WORKERS

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It might not have been the whole reason, but the name sure didn’t help.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Well it does make it hard to search for fanart

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      That poster is quite retarded and doesn't represent the show's main theme and mood at all so it counts more than the name.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        the bland wannabe anime art style doesn't help the show either

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          The designs themselves are fine, it's the low fps korean sweatshop animation which did the damage.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >low fps korean sweatshop animation
            I thought the animation was fine.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          If it wasn’t for the art style, I actually think the poster would be a bit more effective. Still bad, but not as bad.

          As the poster is now, you can barely even tell it’s supposed to be two different faces unless you squint, but after you’ve seen the show, you can kinda pick up from context that the point of the poster is supposed to be that it depicts Maddie juxtaposed against her video game avatar. It’s like the concept of the poster was made with the intention of having a live action face juxtaposed next to an animated one. But it’s pointless in execution because the art styles are so similar you can’t even see the difference.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I mean has anyone ever watched something just because of a poster?

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >just because
              If a single element in something as complex as a film production manages to make somebody watch it (like an actor or even a director), it's probably more related to a peculiarity in that somebody more than standalone merit of that element.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Yes.

              Heck, an academy award voter once admitted to voting for a movie he’d never seen because he liked the poster.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                13 years later and it's still applicable

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        What does it even represent? The poster is so bland, I couldn't tell. It could literally be a poster for anything. Drama, horror, capeshit, sci-fi, fucking anything that's how bland it is.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It aired on a obscure streaming service and the only other cartoon on there it's slippin jimmy

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous
  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    not /toon/ (possibly Cinemaphile-friendly), but this 2018 reboot movie flopped so hard in the states, yet still pretty successful in China and UK just for Warner and MGM to slowly greenlit a sequel that set to come out in 2021, but delayed due to stuff like COVID, difficulty to find new directors, story problems, and finally to the point where Warner and (eventually) MGM lost the rights, thus cancelling the sequel altogether, with studios currently hoping to own rights to the IP (that, and Squeenix selling Crystal and Eidos to Embracer).

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Or so they said

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Who said that? I don't get it. It's not a awful title.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Disney.

        The fact it was released near Cameron's Avatar had nothing to do it of course.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          It was sent out to die as its whole production was a favour to Lasseter. If it flopped, they could shutter the 2D studio

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I know it was meant for children, but I feel like this would’ve been much better if they’d toned the comedy WAY down and aimed it at a slightly older audience. As it was, it was an adventure movie undercut by retard-tier humor.

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Also because the movie itself was just average.

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    movie was decent but not good

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Arthur and the Minimoys did the concept better.

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous
  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The name makes it sound some preschooler show about kids playing with drones and not the race using alien tech that it was.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      They should have called it "Tight French Girls".

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Plenty of movies with bad titles are very successful, otherwise everyone would put more effort into titles.

  18. 1 week ago
    guy

    People in the industry have a million scapegoats for why their movies fail because the real reason is they were just bad. Kids know a good cartoon when they see it, like the great piggy bank robbery

  19. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I remember seeing more ads for this shit than anything else on Nickelodeon before its release. It just loooked uninteresting.

  20. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Epic?
    That was indeed an EPIC FAIL.

  21. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >the owl house
    >99% of the show doesn't even take place in the house

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *