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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pretty sure this one’s comics adjacent enough to be Cinemaphile. Also, it’s pretty much a Cinemaphile related story, because the only reason they dropped the necessary half of the title was because a cartoon underperformed.
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.
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
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.
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.
>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.
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.
not Cinemaphile (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).
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.
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
That's not why it flopped.
Why did they, then?
It was terrible in general.
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.
I really wish they had done more with the francise
>no sequel/series focusing on them dating when she's 30 times his height
Feeling's mutual.
>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.
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 were awful, the characters were boring, the animation was good, but the story itself was the blandest thing. The villain was high tier though.
The slugs, mostly.
They should have called it "Simply Ebin"
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.
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.
Pretty sure this one’s comics adjacent enough to be Cinemaphile. Also, it’s pretty much a Cinemaphile related story, because the only reason they dropped the necessary half of the title was because a cartoon underperformed.
"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
This movie was fucked over so badly. It didn't deserve it.
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.
Well they should cut it out.
It helps with translating the title in other languages. They really should cut it out because what happens when Hollywood runs out of words?
>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
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.
We already have kino named Toys
HA HA HA HA HA HA HAPPY WORKERS
It might not have been the whole reason, but the name sure didn’t help.
Well it does make it hard to search for fanart
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.
the bland wannabe anime art style doesn't help the show either
The designs themselves are fine, it's the low fps korean sweatshop animation which did the damage.
>low fps korean sweatshop animation
I thought the animation was fine.
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.
I mean has anyone ever watched something just because of a poster?
>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.
Yes.
Heck, an academy award voter once admitted to voting for a movie he’d never seen because he liked the poster.
13 years later and it's still applicable
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.
It aired on a obscure streaming service and the only other cartoon on there it's slippin jimmy
not Cinemaphile (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).
Or so they said
Who said that? I don't get it. It's not a awful title.
Disney.
The fact it was released near Cameron's Avatar had nothing to do it of course.
It was sent out to die as its whole production was a favour to Lasseter. If it flopped, they could shutter the 2D studio
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.
Also because the movie itself was just average.
movie was decent but not good
Arthur and the Minimoys did the concept better.
The name makes it sound some preschooler show about kids playing with drones and not the race using alien tech that it was.
They should have called it "Tight French Girls".
Plenty of movies with bad titles are very successful, otherwise everyone would put more effort into titles.
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
I remember seeing more ads for this shit than anything else on Nickelodeon before its release. It just loooked uninteresting.
Epic?
That was indeed an EPIC FAIL.
>the owl house
>99% of the show doesn't even take place in the house