They should have just made 'Treasure Island' - Treasure Planet (2002) Discussion

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] NextActionHero 19 years ago

Box office receipts say not as many enjoyed it as Disney's more traditional outings.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] NextActionHero 19 years ago

I know, and I'm sure that most who saw it enjoyed it. But the box office indicates that a lot of people decided not to see it.

reply

[–] MetFanMac 19 years ago

That's their own bloody fault because this movie rocked. Don't forget it was marketed horribly too.

Supermodels...spoiled stupid little stick figures mit poofy lips who sink only about zemselves.

reply

[–] sutava 19 years ago

I agree with them and they are right. My fiance and I disliked it and it's the first Disney 2D animated that we didn't like. It's rubbish like this that caused the drop in box office sales and thus the sad closure of the 2D animation studios.

reply

[–] jfc5-1 17 years ago

How could you not enjoy this? It was gorgeous.

reply

[–] mamacaraig 19 years ago

Disney already made a live-action Treasure Island so they didn't need to just make an animated version of the same story.

They tried to inject an animation-element into a traditional story, like they did with "Oliver Twist" and "Oliver and Co." or Mickey's Christmas Carol, etc.

reply

[–] R-Taco 19 years ago

Because the world NEEDED a sci-fi pirate movie.

reply

[–] PopeJaimie 17 years ago

You're goddamn right it did.

reply

[–] NextActionHero 19 years ago

All right, I rented this thing to see where it hit and missed.

Hits: Great animation, characterization, and storytelling. I expect nothing less from Disney.

Misses: The space theme was not only unnecessary, it distracted me from the story. Why do we need "space whales" swimming in an airless vacuum? Why do we need stupid looking aliens in place of human characters? The visual design didn't even try to do away with old English uniforms and wooden ships with ropes, for God's sake.

We also get a shape-shifting blob in place of Long John Silver's parrot. How inspired is that? And I truly hated the space port scenes that were obvious rip-offs of Naboo from the Star Wars prequels. I half expected to see Padme Amidala and Obi-Wan Kenobi show up.

The nautical theme of the original story was preserved where it shouldn't have been. I stand by my original statement: they should have just made this Treasure Island.

reply

[–] Lady_Kayura 19 years ago

I respect your opinion that the nautical and space themes didn't mesh well, but I actually really liked that about the filmsIt put new twists into the story but kept things that would've kept it from being just a space Treasure Island film. It seemed like a good compromise to me. The traditional story had been done quite a few times, it was nice to see a new take on it.

But apparently its a good thing I haven't seen the Star Wars prequels yet though. And no, I haven't been living under a rock, I just haven't spent the money to buy them yet.

reply

[–] NextActionHero 19 years ago

I, too, respect your opinions, and it was an entertaining film.

But in my mind "new twists" are new interpretations of the story and characters, which was not in this film. The only thing this film did was change the setting from 18th Century Earth to "a galaxy, far, far away." The story, characters, situations, and the nautical theme are intact. There is no attempt to make the ships look like spacecraft.

It's no different than if they made it take place in 21st Century Earth. This version added nothing, it only changed things. Laser blasts in place of anitquated weapons and bionics in place of a peg leg aren't anything "new" to today's audiences. The success of Pirates of the Carribean and the failure of this film at the box office only underlines the fact that Disney would have had a bigger hit had they stuck to the original story. Someone upthread mentioned that Disney had done a live-action version of Treasure Island, which is true, but has that stopped them from remaking other films from their collection?

101 Dalmations (live action version of the animated film)
The Absent Minded Professor (remade as Flubber)
That Darned Cat (Original with Haley Mills, remade with Christina Ricci)
The Parent Trap (Remake was Lindsay Lohan's screen debut)
Freaky Friday (Remade twice. The original had Barbara Harris and Jodie Foster, the TV remake had Shelly Long and Gaby Hoffman, and the 2001 remake had Jamie Lee Curtis and Lindsay Lohan)
Just to name a few.

If I were to make a general statement regarding Disney, it could be that no one is interested in space fantasy films from that studio. Disney is known for family-friendly films, especially animated versions of classic literature, and unless it were to find something truly original in science fiction that has never been done before, it should stick to what it does best. To force a classic tale into a genre that competitors consistently succeed at just makes me think that the producers didn't want to make this film in the first place. They wished they were working with George Lucas or Steven Spielberg on something more "grown up." I don't mean to step on any toes, but that is the vibe I get from this film.

reply

[–] R-Taco 19 years ago

I think that they avoided classical high-tech-looking stuff intentionally. The steampunk-ish look of some things (like Silver's machine parts) just made it seem more fantasy than sc-fi. And I think that changing a voice-mimicking parrot to an appearance-mimicking blob was a pretty clever idea.

The way they did it, they were able to try some interesting new things, rather than the same old pirate or sci-fi themes.

reply

[–] Lady_Kayura 19 years ago

There is no attempt to make the ships look like spacecraft.

My guess is that they did that to keep it from looking too sci-fi. I agree with R-Taco that they may have wanted it to seem more like fantasy that a true space movie

Laser blasts in place of anitquated weapons and bionics in place of a peg leg aren't anything "new" to today's audiences.

Maybe so, but I've never seen them designed that way. It was an interesting look

The success of Pirates of the Carribean and the failure of this film at the box office only underlines the fact that Disney would have had a bigger hit had they stuck to the original story.

To me, it underlines the fact that they should've wait a couple months to release Treasure Planet. There was nothing big at the box office to compete with POTC that I recall, but Treasure Planet was release right between Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings. Not the brightest idea Disney ever had. Or brillant if the 'Disney heads wanted this to fail to end 2-D animation' theory is right.

To force a classic tale into a genre that competitors consistently succeed at just makes me think that the producers didn't want to make this film in the first place.

Actually, the directors pitched this idea back in 1985, and had to put a clause in their contract when they signed up for Hercules that they would get to make this next in order to get the heads to ok it. So you are right, it DOESN'T seem like the head producers wanted to make this film. But Clememts and Musker had been trying to get this made since before the Little Mermaid. And I'm a little glad it got pushed back so far, it allowed technology time to develop. I must disagree on it being forced though, I felt that everything kinda fit, though it didn't for you.

And actually, though they've never changed it to this extent, Disney is known for taking classic literature and taking it apart to make it their own. But that was mainly to keep it family-friendly. I first realized that when hercules came out. Most other kids were saying 'cool!!', I was saying 'how are they gonna pull THAT off?!'Then I read the real version of Cinderella *shudder*

I don't mean to step on any toes, but that is the vibe I get from this film.

You're not stepping on toes, just stating your opinions. And backing them up quite well. Too many times, boards see people who blaze through and say 'I HATE THIS MOVIE!!" and don't say another word.

I can see why you dislike this film, can't say I blame you. But I've fallen hard for the film. Doesn't help that the Disney heads set the poor thing up to be their scapegoat to try to end 2-D animation.

As for the 'they should've made Treasure ISland' part of the discussion- I say to each his/her own :)

reply

[–] NextActionHero 19 years ago

Just one thing:

I said, "Laser blasts in place of anitquated weapons and bionics in place of a peg leg aren't anything "new" to today's audiences," and you answered, "Maybe so, but I've never seen them designed that way. It was an interesting look."

Silver's mechanical arm looked almost exactly like Arnold Schwarzenegger's de-fleshed mechanical arm in Terminator 2, so it was nothing new to me.

I didn't even say anything about Jim Hawkins sporting what looked to me like a Padawan Learner haircut, either, so I won't. Oh, wait a minute . . .

reply

[–] Lady_Kayura 19 years ago

Silver's mechanical arm looked almost exactly like Arnold Schwarzenegger's de-fleshed mechanical arm in Terminator 2, so it was nothing new to me.

True, but I don't think The Terminator's arm had so many gadgets attached to it.

Jim's hair looked like something a 'bad' kid of the '90s would've worn to me.

But again, It probably helps that I haven't watch the Start Wars prequels yet.

reply

[–] R-Taco 19 years ago

The Terminator's arm looked very different from Silver's. Silver's arm was very skinny, with bulky plates over his shoulder and forearm. The Terminator's arm was basically a metal human arm, with a bunch of extra details added in.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] NextActionHero 19 years ago

"You're making connections and comparisons that defy any form of logic."

Back up this statement with examples, otherwise you're talking out of your ass.

"Sounds to me like you weren't trying to voice actual opinions, but rather you were trying to vent out your pathetic little angers."

Funny, I wasn't angry, just disappointed. All those resources and talent used to make what I thought was an inferior film. I thought writing what I think was voicing opinions. What alien dictionary do you use to define "opinion?"

"Guess that says something about your intellect, doesn't it?
"And by the way, I LOVE this movie."

Which says something about your intellect.

"What're you gonna do about it?"

Nothing. Unlike you, I don't attack people for having their own opinions, but I do respond to personal attacks like yours. I'd bet money you wouldn't say any of this to my face, but I have no problem telling a person that I (1.) didn't like a movie and (2.) back up what I think with examples, rather than resort to name-calling and making unsubstantiated statements. You must be a Democrat.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hknjarle 18 years ago

(Sorry, I see it's an old thread, but I so much disagree I just had to post...)

I just watched Treasure Planet the day after I first finished Stevensons original book, and I have to say I disagree totally with the whole theme debate:
I think that what was good with this movie WAS the space theme!

It's so cool that Disney for once try to add a new dimension to an old classic, instead of just reproducing 'em for the big screen! And I personally think they did it excellent; the space whales, the mix of old england and the future(!), the funny looking alien-pirate-dudes, the whole semi-futuristic future was great, I mean, COME ON! How often do you see such an elegant blend like that?!

It was not extracting, rather, enchanting.

What flaws to comment? Maybe only that it should'ave sticked closer to Stevensons classic, ofcourse it's hard to catch all the brilliant characteristics from Treasure Island, but still... and why go forward in such a hurry pace? (Should'ave been an hour longer...) The animation was beautiful, though, and I can imagine it looks real nice in HD :)

Anyways, nice movie, a fair remake.

reply

[–] Vesey 18 years ago

I thought it was an intresting twist, i liked it.

They probably did it because
a) They're have been quite a few Treasure Island movies by disney and others, and wanted to change it up a bit.
a) Science fiction pretty popular

This was also before the success Pirates of the carribean so maybe they thought a classic pirate story would be too... classic for people to like it.

reply

[–] shawboy311 18 years ago

ugh...you're so obviously one minded

who really cares about your opinion anyway?

Disney has been changing fairytales since they started in the animation business. Im a huge disney head, a huge animation buff, and a huge fairytale nerd. I'm also a writer, so i must say that you are wrong when you say that Disney hits big when it sticks to its sources, because if Disney stuck to the original fairytales, Walt Disney Feature Animation would be completely different. Ever read Hans Christian Anderson? or the retellings from The Brothers Grimm? Read the original story of The Little Mermaid and let me know if you think Disney really stuck to its roots. Also, did you know The Lion King was based on Hamlet, The Lion King 1 1/2 was inspired by Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, a humurous backstory of the characters from Hamlet? Also, read the original story of Aladdin as well and you'll see that Disney has and always will change up the original fairytales to their standards, which, given the fact that fairytales have ALWAYS been retold in different ways, i completely back.

i think Treasure Planet was true to the original story in the story aspect. It had the basic elements of Treasure Island, a story that had been retold over and over again, and was refreshing to see something with a space theme done properly.

THe only gripe i had with it was the music. But the story from writers John Musker and Ron Clements was fantastic. The characterization, the plot and the HEART of it was fantastic, and for a childrens animated feature, who could ask for anything more from the geniuses who brought us Aladdin, THe LIttle Mermaid, Hercules and soon to come The Frog Princess

reply

[–] NextActionHero 18 years ago

"ugh...you're so obviously one minded"

So anyone who has an opinion that differs from yours is one-minded?
There's a flagpole in the restroom, pal.

"who really cares about your opinion anyway?"

And I'm supposed to give a crap about your opinion more than my own?
You ought to try rehab.

"Disney has been changing fairytales since they started in the animation business. Im a huge disney head, a huge animation buff, and a huge fairytale nerd.

"I'm also a writer,"

Then why do you use incorrect spelling and grammar? It seems to me a writer should be able to master this aspect of the English language before turning professional.

"so i must say that you are wrong when you say that Disney hits big when it sticks to its sources, because if Disney stuck to the original fairytales, Walt Disney Feature Animation would be completely different."

First of all, as a "writer," you should be literate, and as such should be able to comprehend that I said the story should have been set in its classic timeframe. I did not say that changes should not be made. And I must say that your use of imperative tone doesn't make you right, either. The box office receipts indicate that this space fantasy was recognized for what it was by most of the movie-going public. Yet all other Disney animated features that have been successful have been set in their classic times.

"Ever read Hans Christian Anderson? or the retellings from The Brothers Grimm? Read the original story of The Little Mermaid and let me know if you think Disney really stuck to its roots. Also, did you know The Lion King was based on Hamlet, The Lion King 1 1/2 was inspired by Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, a humurous backstory of the characters from Hamlet? Also, read the original story of Aladdin as well and you'll see that Disney has and always will change up the original fairytales to their standards, which, given the fact that fairytales have ALWAYS been retold in different ways, i completely back."

Yes, Mr. Writer. I do read the classics, and I do know that changes need to be made, mainly for pacing and dramatic purposes, but putting a pirate story in space with wooden ships is not a clever twist. It's ripping off another successful genre. There's no originality in that.

"i think Treasure Planet was true to the original story in the story aspect. It had the basic elements of Treasure Island, a story that had been retold over and over again, and was refreshing to see something with a space theme done properly."

It was the story of Treasure Island. But "a space theme done properly" implies that the scientific elements of space travel would be adhered to. Open air ships capable of interplanetary travel and whales swimming in the vacuum of space is not what I call a space theme done "properly."

"THe only gripe i had with it was the music. But the story from writers John Musker and Ron Clements was fantastic. The characterization, the plot and the HEART of it was fantastic, and for a childrens animated feature, who could ask for anything more from the geniuses who brought us Aladdin, THe LIttle Mermaid, Hercules and soon to come The Frog Princess "

They got the drama, characters, and pacing down fine. But to call them "geniuses" when the only thing that they did differently from past film incarnations of this story was to set it in the wrong place is laughable.

reply

[–] StephEff 18 years ago

Yay!! I heart you NextActionHero! Even though I liked Treasure Planet, you are officially the first person I've ever see on IMDb back up their opinion and back it up well. I've been on IMDb for somewhere between six months and a year and I'm on the boards a lot and any time someone criticizes a movie, they do it shooting fireballs out their eyes and take no prisoners. I'm so glad there's someone on here with some common sense!

Much love and BIG KISSES,
Steph

______________

If you were a mermaid, you said, If you were a mermaid, I was the sea.

reply

[–] NextActionHero 17 years ago

Well, Steph, I do have a degree in filmmaking.

reply

[–] jackytar 17 years ago

This isn't science fiction; it's space fantasy. Take it as such. Nothing wrong with it as entertainment. You said it yourself: They got the drama, characters and pacing down fine. That's all you need for a good story.

Shoot for the stars; settle for high orbit.

reply

[–] ProkhorZakharov 18 years ago

I just thought I would point out, if somebody hasn't already done so, that it's not role reversal to make "The Frog Princess." "The Frog Princess" is a famous Russian faerie tale, and it has since appeared in many Russian children's books and paintings by Ivan Bilibin, et cetera.

And, yea, in case anybody was wondering: "The Frog Princess" is almost exactly the same tale as "The Frog Prince," only with... Tsars and Tsarinas and stuff, plus the "role-reversal." I'm not sure which tale came first, or why this variation exists, but a lot of people seem to be familiar with both versions.

reply

[–] NextActionHero 18 years ago

You are correct. "The Frog Prince/Princess" is indeed a fairy tale that has several versions, but the most familiar version in the USA is "The Frog Prince." But from the standpoint of familiarity with the "original" story, most people will view The Frog Princess as a role reversal, even if it technically is not.

reply

[–] mamacaraig 18 years ago

Why should Disney-- or anyone else for that matter-- make an animated "Treasure Island"?

They can make a live-action "Treasure Island" for one third the money. In fact, they did.

"Treasure Planet" allowed them do the traditional story but with science fiction touches that only animation could bring to life on the big screen. It failed at the box office but the story and visuals are still very good.

And assuming that an animated "Treasure Island" would be a hit just because "Pirates of the Caribbean" became a hit is really stretching things.

"Pirates of the Carribean" had romance, an action-hero story and a truly unique performance by Johnny Depp. What would they have done for "Treasure Island"? Make Long John Silver a wisecracking stoner? Put in a hot female character for Jim to fight over? Add some kung-fun fighting? That sure is sticking to the source material.

There is a reason the success of Pirates of the Carribean has not been followed by a host of pirate movies. Because people know it would be hard to recapture the feel of the original movie without bringing back the old cast.

Disney didn't stick to the source material in many of their animated movies. "The Jungle Book,", "The Little Mermaid,", "Tarzan," "the Rescuers", "Peter Pan," "Sleeping Beauty," etc. They kept the basic plots but added their own touches. Too bad they didn't succeed with "Treasure Planet."

reply

[–] NextActionHero 18 years ago

"Disney didn't stick to the source material in many of their animated movies. The Jungle Book, The Little Mermaid, Tarzan, The Rescuers, Peter Pan, Sleeping Beauty, etc. They kept the basic plots but added their own touches. Too bad they didn't succeed with Treasure Planet."

If The Jungle Book, The Little Mermaid, Tarzan, The Rescuers, Peter Pan, or Sleeping Beauty were set in space, I don't think that they would have had the success they did.

To today's kids, Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Peter Pan, Mowgli, Tarzan, and Baloo are Disney characters. James Barry? The Brothers Grimm? Rudyard Kipling? Edgar Rice Burroughs? Who are they?

When viewing Disney's past animated movies for the changes made from the source material, it seems to me that most of them were made for the sake of pacing and film length. The Little Mermaid tacked on a happy ending, which is okay for the sake of having a satisfying filmgoing experience, but the more recent efforts, like Tarzan, stink of Political Correctness, the fear of offending some people. (I could just hear the animal rights crowd applauding when I saw that one.)

Treasure Planet is a paradox. The story I know has been done as a film before, yet there was such a fundamental and unnecessary change made to the story that did nothing but make it a joke in my eyes. It was Treasure Island, but it wished it was Star Wars.

I felt that Disney, in making this film, was almost irresponsible, because now some kids will be introduced to this story as a space-fantasy, and will be very surprised to find out it was a literary classic from over 100 years ago.

I don't think they get that from Cinderella.

reply

[–] Lady_Kayura 18 years ago

I felt that Disney, in making this film, was almost irresponsible, because now some kids will be introduced to this story as a space-fantasy, and will be very surprised to find out it was a literary classic from over 100 years ago.

That's actually what I've always liked about Disney. Kids get introduced to the story, then find out that there's a story already out there, and read it to see what the differences were.

They may even get to appreciate both versions. I know I do.

A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having.

reply

[–] mamacaraig 18 years ago

Disney already rewrote other classics.
Pinnochio is very different from the original book where the protagonist was originally a brat. The Jungle Book was completely, deadly serious but Disney turned it into a comedy. They made Robin Hood into talking animals, Oliver Twist into dogs and cats, etc.

Might as well complain that it was irresponsible for Disney to introduce kids to the Jungle Book, thinking it would be a light-hearted romp and to have them discover instead that it is a very deep drama.

And if Kipling, Barrie, Collodi and company aren't being "disrespected" by such changes, why should R.L. Stevenson be accorded such respect? Who cares about Kipling and company? Well, who cares about the original "Treasure Island"?

Frankly, it looks like some purist is insisting that Treasure Island is some holy book that should not be changed. Well Disney did it. They brought their own unique stamp to it, fully utilizing the potential of animation. They didn't just regurgitate the book in cartoon form like some cheap "after-school special" that they used to grind out for all the big 'classics.'

"Treasure Planet" may not have been a financial success but it was a great artistic effort that couldn't be duplicated elsewhere. An animated version of Treasure Island would be just another cartoon that would pale in comparsion to a well-made, live-action Treasure Island.

reply

[–] NextActionHero 18 years ago

"Frankly, it looks like some purist is insisting that Treasure Island is some holy book that should not be changed. Well Disney did it. They brought their own unique stamp to it, fully utilizing the potential of animation. They didn't just regurgitate the book in cartoon form like some cheap "after-school special" that they used to grind out for all the big 'classics.'"

First of all, I'm no purist, and Treasure Island is not sacred material, but respect for one's source material carries over to the finished product. And if you read what I wrote, I did not say changes should not be made to the story. I said it should have been in its classic time frame. I don't see how setting the story in space is Disney's "own unique stamp." It actually sounds more like George Lucas's "own unique stamp." But is space fantasy all that unique in this day and age?

Disney dropped the ball by not making a film that would stand alongside its other animated counterparts, and the box office reflects this.

"Treasure Planet may not have been a financial success but it was a great artistic effort that couldn't be duplicated elsewhere."

You didn't see Star Wars Episode I, did you?

"An animated version of Treasure Island would be just another cartoon that would pale in comparison to a well-made, live-action Treasure Island."

What Disney animated film do you consider "just another cartoon?"

reply

[–] MetFanMac 18 years ago

What Disney animated film do you consider "just another cartoon?"

How about "Home on the Range", or any of the shi*quels?

Supermodels...spoiled stupid little stick figures mit poofy lips who sink only about zemselves.

reply

[–] wlpaul4 18 years ago

The only reason I even knew about it was because I happened to be in a Disney store and saw the trailer the summer before it came out. When it did finally come out, I hardly saw any trailers or other advertisements for it. I don't know, maybe the producers could have trimmed the budget elsewhere to leave more room to market it. But I don't think that the films financial success (or lack thereof) is predicated on the quality or merits of the film.

At the same time though, the setting is something you're going to be hit or miss on. Either you love it or you hate it. Being able to breathe in space or no crazier than the talking animals in Lion King, Bambi, Robin Hood, The Rescuers, etc.It is a unique twist on the space fantasy. I think as long as you are willing to suspend disbelief then it works. I admit though that its a tough one to do.

I'm writing this with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight (and it is just my opinion), but if Disney really wanted the *story* to be a success, they would have tied it in to the same world as POTC in a live action version and then sprinkled in just enough to the POTC characters and locations to entice people to see it. Personally I think it would kill the story, but if you want it to be a success then you go with what works right?

I read a quote a little while back that Nasa was learning a lot from building and coordinating the ISS, unfortunately one of the things they are learning is that they probably shouldn't have built the ISS. I think its the same thing with Treasure Planet. Disney probably learned a great deal about animation, marketing and what goes in to a "successful" movie these days, unfortunately what they learned was that Treasure Planet probably shouldn't have been made.

reply

[–] NextActionHero 18 years ago

"It is a unique twist on the space fantasy. I think as long as you are willing to suspend disbelief then it works. I admit though that its a tough one to do."

"Unique" isn't the word that immediately springs to my mind, but it's because we denizens of Earth have a general knowledge, albeit limited to our own existence, of the lack of life in the vacuum of space. But I agree that it's one's ability to suspend disbelief that is a definite factor.

By the way, POTC is Pirates of the Carribean for those who were trying to figure out the acronym.

reply

[–] lambizkit 17 years ago

Kudos to those at Disney and for the guys behind the idea for the film. I think that it's great that someone could take a classic tale of pirates and treasure and completely revamp it for a sci-fi setting. I thought the movie was great, it was certainly very enjoyable. It makes me wonder what other classic tales they could take and plug into a sci-fi setting and what sorts of fantastical stories they could come up with.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MissLadyLoki 17 years ago

IMO, the concept was pretty cool, but it was done really badly. A regular Treasure island woulda been cool, but i just hope it wouldn't have been an atrocity on a great book like Devil Wears Prada and Running With Scissors.

I found the Fountain of Youth! It's the toilet!

reply

[–] TheDoctorMan 17 years ago

Did the producers of this film just wish that they were doing Star Wars instead of a classic?

Star Wars is a classic.

[Davy Jones is CGI]

reply