Thank you for saying that.
I thought I was in the Twilight Zone at seeing people act as though absolutely no sore thumbs about this film were indeed responsible for it not being "the best thing ever" at the time, and the more anyone compares it to being almost up there with The Lion King, the more I want to scream.
This movie is decent. It just didn't equate to Disney extraordinaire, and for me, that was the actual story-telling package, something the Lion King richly balanced. Haste for pace does not make an okay movie a great one, and it doesn't make the characters fleshed; it makes it feel like it's just a plaform the characters are on with "ham-fisted," or ham-handed "depth." I have seen Disney tell a story about its characters much better. Atlantis, for me, had better character development and depth-portrayal without occasionally cutting it too short or too half-baked to make room for the plot.
Treasure Planet deserved better writers.
That's it.
It has great MOMENTS.
It's just not a great MOVIE.
Something being "worse" makes it "better than that," not great by itself. The production book is outstanding, because it goes into its entire universe, like how it came to be, how the home-planets operate, and, last but not least, the shaping minds of the characters.
The movie is just a bit half-assed in that department.
It's the problem that will arise when you try to remake a tale, that's more about treasure-hunting than its characters, "too deep" in regards to its "action-hijacked" cast, along with creating such a beautiful fantasy world without any given details on it whatsoever unless it's a skate-over. The Treasure Planet universe, as said by its production book, is ruled by a human queen with over one hundred united planets under something called The Intergalatic Space Union, I think. Who could know that by watching the movie?
That and, unless Jim was on his solar-surfer or doing something neat, everyone around Jim stood out more than Jim himself, because Jim's grand exploits, and what happens to Jim both in past and present, are far more engaging than "Jim." Once the adventure started you really had no reason to care about him, and the writers seemed to further this by side-stepping him most of the time; that or his lack of personality presence did this.
I have an issue with movies where the main person can not carry the movie like his attention-stealing acquaintances, unless said character has help from their "Bad Past," "cool looks," or "cool tricks." Had Jim not been molded to fit the attractive facial charms of Joseph Gordon Levitt [aside from quite a few animation bloopers regarding Jim's sometimes lopsided face], I don't think I would've cared too long about him. He's hot first and "sorta kinda has a personality" later, which is saddening, because his character theme was quite rich and original for the Disney genre.
Yes, he has a great setpoint of qualities and great potential as a character, but I feel like the movie didn't express it properly to even break the surface of what could've made his *actual presence* as brilliantly done or powerful as Tarzan, Mulan, Brother Bear, Bambi, Simba, Ariel, Stitch, Lilo, Balto, etc. And it's always been a sore loss for me that I actually have genuine grief for, because I relate to him symbolically more than any of the Disney Princesses. I knew exactly what they were trying to get at with Jim but they never got at it without sort of half assing it.
As an executed character he failed, but in idea Jim was victorious, and the same goes for Treasure Planet.
reply
share
FairlyAnonymous
12 years ago
Thank you for posting that because I didn't feel like spending the time to write a similar message and I knew I would have to watch the movie again to make a comment first. The issue I had with the movie was the lack of character development (like you said) and the fact that Jim's relationship with Silver was created with on montage isn't character development at all but is simply a way to IMPLY that character development occurred but in truth none did.
reply
share
Word-Weight
12 years ago
Yes, you are very welcome. I felt it had to be said.
In truth, I am a huge fan of this franchise due to reading it's splendid production book, and the driving inspirations pushed behind it [Catcher in the Rye and James Dean's "Rebel Without a Cause"].
However, even I am able to see the finished product's downfalls that actually did cost the movie its quality for where it was going with the title theme [which was beyond "Treasure Island"], and for some reason, every time I hear someone amp it up in, "PPL ARE IDIOTS FOR NOT SEEING IT'S THE BEST! I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT DID BADLY! IT MUST BE MARKETING!" [and this is becoming WAY more popular of an opinion as time has gone on] it makes me want to focus on explaining those faults a lot more, which gives the impression that I hate the movie.
"but is simply a way to IMPLY that character development occurred but in truth none did."
Agreed.
I got the point of their relationship and where it was going, but I was unable to experience the meaningful time-span between them as they had, or get any real "pull" from it. I was unable to "be there with the characters" at that hasty, "here you go, audience" presentation. All I got was that it was cute. But cute isn't deep. Even less so when it's trying super hard to be. "Disney caricatures everything. All reality and sincerity is completely gone by the time the movie is finished."
Basically the montage was presented in a manner that is suitable for TV show series, not films. That's why it registered as lazy. Other Disney films actually go through the motions. This did not. If you're going to go "deep" don't compromise on elements just to hurry up and get it to the Treasure Island basics.
Even when the montage featured a very important glimpse of Jim's childhood, I felt nothing, which is quite odd, because my childhood is hysterically identical to everything in that one scene of final, and physical, abandonment from his father. I was the "Daddy issues" misfit and/or "misunderstood hellraiser" in my fifteen year old persona, so that's probably why I wanted so badly for this to work, and was, at first, very delighted to see Disney explore this father link that connects the dots in most "emotionally" stranded kids who don't "feel good enough" in most avenues of their life, thus live off the tracks by the means of "free-wheeling instability" being their platform for stability.
reply
share