Why Good Movies do Bad & Bad Movies do Good.

Hi Nathaniel,

I was just wondering if I could get your feelings on this subject. Why do some good movies (like SON for example) do poorly at the box office while some absolute turkeys soar?? It never ceases to amaze me when I see what I consider to be a great movie, one with a good plot, character developement, overall quality, etc. lay an egg at the box office while another movie with so so credentials and lackluster performances by the actors involved literally takes off, even dominates for the duration of its run in the theatres. Your thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You... 8) 8)

Allow me to start. I think it's because lackluster movies appeal to the simple minded, and they're artfully compossed to play off of other already successful movies without actually ripping them off outright.

Meanwhile the good ones are usually ahead of their time and therefor not many people get it. Let's take the videogame Metroid for example. That game wasn't so hot when it came out but now it is hailed as one of Nintendo's masterpieces. Awesome game, but I don't think people where ready for it when it came out. There where other things like insane difficulty.

There is a certian something in Secret of NIMH that isn't in cartoons nowdays. When I watch an animated movie now I just don't get that same feeling that I got when I was much younger. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of great work out there that I enjoy but nothing has that SON touch.

Maybe it's because I'm older, but SON still has it's old charm. Hope that gives you a different angle on the subject.

I sum it up to a couple things, 1: there are a -lot- of idiots out there, and 2: it has to do with the state of the world in which we live, or at least North America. I've found most people don't want a movie to challenge them, they want to be able to sit back, shut their brain off, and enjoy scenes of senseless violence, or utter stupidity.

I recently watched Kill Bill vol. 1 (2 hours of my life I'll never get back) which got RAVE reviews, by critics and moviegoers alike. But it was nothing more than senseless, exaggerated violence (not that I don't enjoy a bit of violence in movies), bad writing and bad acting. Its a perfect example of people not wanting to engage their brain. If they can't coast through a movie in, or near a stupor, they're not interested.

Unfortunately it seems there's more of those types of people than there are that enjoy a mentally and emotionally engaging film. Which ultimately means they have more money to spend as a whole, and therefore are the more profitable audience to focus on more often than not.

Okay, rant over ;)

Bravo! You do sum it up quite nicely. That's exactly it, people are too lazy to think. They would rather just sit in front of the TV and allow themselves to be braindead for the duration of the movie. I've seen examples of this many times...

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

Bravo! You do sum it up quite nicely. That's exactly it, people are too lazy to think. They would rather just sit in front of the TV and allow themselves to be braindead for the duration of the movie. I've seen examples of this many times...

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

I've got one good example, and I can sum it up in 3 words.

"Prime Time Television"

I've got a saying that applies to most Prime Time television "Made by idiots, For idiots" there's a reason when I watch TV that I usually either watch 1 of a handful of channels, that consist of: G4TechTV, Discovery, History Channel, Biography Channel etc. I use to watch TLC too until 99% of their programming turned to stupid 'reality' shows.

The sad part is, people rave about the sitcoms on now, like Simpson's, and Sex in the City and stuff like that, but I find them extremely dull witted. most of the jokes and punch lines can be seen from a hundred miles away. One show I've always thought was very good, and extremely funny at times is 'Stargate SG-1' some of the one liners the characters (mostly Colonel O'Neill) are totally out of the blue, and candid. Not to mention downright hilarious most of the time.

'Who's line is it Anyway?' can be hilarious sometimes, and all of its stuff is out of the blue, because the show itself is random. No script. Kinda sad though that they couldn't do better -with- a script. After all, isn't that the purpose of having a script?

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

'Who's line is it Anyway?' can be hilarious sometimes, and all of its stuff is out of the blue, because the show itself is random. No script. Kinda sad though that they couldn't do better -with- a script. After all, isn't that the purpose of having a script?

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

well, the reason it was so hilarious was because it was impromptu. The whole point of the show was they had to do the skits off the top of their heads. I remember the one time the one guy (don't remember his name) Oswald I think it was from The Drew Carey show, mock rammed drew's desk and ended up shattering the neon tube that was mounted on the desk, it was hilarious because it was totally unexpected. Plus nobody got seriously hurt which made it all the better :)

Stargate SG-1 is a good show. At first I thought it was kinda campy but it grew on me. It's actually a decent movie to tv cross over.

Stargate SG-1 is a good show. At first I thought it was kinda campy but it grew on me. It's actually a decent movie to tv cross over.

SG-1 is one of the best shows on Television IMO. They even have a spinoff 'mini series' (or so I think its a mini-series) on the movie network here called "Stargate Atlantis" havn't had the chance to watch much of it, but it looks alright. Not as good as SG-1 though IMO.

I think SG-1 is a fair bit better than the movie. However I enjoy both.

the box office is about as realiable in picking good movies as some one who is blind and deaf. it realky seems as if they dont even watch the movies they rate at times.

well, the reason it was so hilarious was because it was impromptu. The whole point of the show was they had to do the skits off the top of their heads. I remember the one time the one guy (don't remember his name) Oswald I think it was from The Drew Carey show, mock rammed drew's desk and ended up shattering the neon tube that was mounted on the desk, it was hilarious because it was totally unexpected. Plus nobody got seriously hurt which made it all the better :)

Heh, I remember that. One of the funniest things I ever saw, and yeah the fact no one got hurt -and- it was unexpected made it even funnier. Ryan Stiles I think was his name.. (dunno if I spelt that right)

Stargate SG-1 can get very good sometimes as well, especially when Teal'k and O'neille start arguing. :)

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

I know this question was directed at me, but gosh, what more can be said? ;)

Anyway, I think you all have pretty much hit the nail on the head. Remember, these movie studios aren't generally looking for "art" or "culture" or anything mentally or emotionally challenging, they're looking for something that'll load up their coffers with a lot of money from box office sales. Unfortunately, a lot of times that leads them to produce something crappy, since they feel they have to appeal to the lowest common denominator to make a buck. Which is the reason that I rarely watch TV anymore (although I do try to catch Whose Line every so often; I love that show).

Still, I recently went to see Finding Neverland, and I can honestly say that's the best movie I've seen this year--perhaps even including the movies I saw last year (in the theaters). And there have been a number of good movies recently. So I'm optimistic that there are enough people out there that want an engaging plot with characters that you care about to keep some good movies coming.

Will the same be true in the realm of animation? I don't know... it seems like studios see too many manhours spent in traditional animation versus the return on their investment. And just about all of the recent traditionally animated movies have been flops or mediochre (sp?) at best. Unless there's some serious regime-changing at Disney or there's someone with enough guts and money to hire some talent (I'd personally love to see Bluth & co team up with Brad Bird, writer/director of Iron Giant and The Incredibles) then I'm thinking we're going to see a lapse in it for the near future.

Personally, though, I don't feel that Traditional Animation will die--as good as Pixar is, there seems to be a warmth and art in traditional animation that you don't really see elsewhere. Perhaps some of the more famous producers of Anime (my money's on Myazaki (sp?)) will shake things up. Guess we'll have to wait and watch.

Excellent post Simon! especially with what has already been said. Sorry for somewhat 'hijacking' the thread too. Things sometimes kind of just get rolling, y'know? ;)

However I think if we managed to hit the nail, you pounded it straight in with one shot! not to mention did it in a much more eloquent way.

I don't think most people see cartoons as an art form, no more than most find comic books an art form. I don't see that popular opinion changing any time soon, but at least they'll surely always be there. On the other hand, I can see the traditional 'cel and brush' method dying, but animation will live on in a 'digital' format. Be it CGI animation, or 'digitally drawn/painted' 2D animation. At least in North America anyway, I'm pretty certain that Hayao Miyazaki, as Simon mentioned, still does his films the 'traditional' way for the most part. That and the fact that Disney clearly saw something special in his works, to make such a deal with him to even be allowed to bring his works 'officially' to North America, is a good sign in my opinion.

BTW Simon, you did good on 'Miyazaki' just missed the one 'i' ;)

re: Xavier
its like i said the movie makers work for profit nnot art and it really ticks me off when they screw up art with sequels like secret of nimh 2

its like i said the movie makers work for profit nnot art and it really ticks me off when they screw up art with sequels like secret of nimh 2

That's one of the few things I believe I can actually agree with you on.

That could also be said about some of the cartoon series that have popped up as spinoffs of a great movie. It only serves to screw it up for later generations... <sighs>

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

That is the truth. I'm so glad I didn't se Nimh2 first. I would never have seen the first one and would have missed out on something truly special.

re: dragon
i how ever can not say the same truthfully i would seen it nwith my little siblens and they would have been bored to death. my little nsister is 3 wich is the age group i would show SoN 2 to but thier is no way i would show her SoN simply because it would bore her.

re: dragon
i how ever can not say the same truthfully i would seen it nwith my little siblens and they would have been bored to death. my little nsister is 3 wich is the age group i would show SoN 2 to but thier is no way i would show her SoN simply because it would bore her.

I have a four year old cousin who sat through, and quite enjoyed Secret of NIMH. It wasn't boring to her in the least. Quite the opposite in fact.

I have a four year old cousin who sat through, and quite enjoyed Secret of NIMH. It wasn't boring to her in the least. Quite the opposite in fact.

Speaking of which, the first time I saw The Secret of NIMH, I was only three. I loved it back then, and I still do. Never had any younger siblings to share the movie with, so unfortunately Ican only relate my own experience. .

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

re: Xavier
its like i said the movie makers work for profit not art and it really ticks me off when they screw up art with sequels like secret of nimh 2

Hmm I seemed to have missed this comment earlier, I think... maybe I'm repeating myself. If I am sorry, if not?.... WOOO HOOO! :D

One reason why I like anime, is because most of it is not just about making money, a lot of times the art is a big part of it. Primarily because Anime originally stemmed from manga, which is heavily focused on art.

On another note regarding Tzolkins latter post:

Speaking of which, the first time I saw The Secret of NIMH, I was only three. I loved it back then, and I still do. Never had any younger siblings to share the movie with, so unfortunately I can only relate my own experience. .

I too saw it at a young age, but for some reason it didn't strike me as well as it did when I was older. I enjoyed it when I was younger, but typically found it slow and too dark for my liking. However these days, I enjoy a good movie that you need to 'watch' to enjoy, not to mention darker stories, and a greater appreciation for art and animation

I too saw it at a young age, but for some reason it didn't strike me as well as it did when I was older. I enjoyed it when I was younger, but typically found it slow and too dark for my liking. However these days, I enjoy a good movie that you need to 'watch' to enjoy, not to mention darker stories, and a greater appreciation for art and animation

Well I must've been born a goth, because the story struck me nearly exactly the same then as it does now, though I'll admit I've grown to appriciate it's brilliance a lot more now that I can understand all that's happening. :wink:

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

One reason why I like anime, is because most of it is not just about making money, a lot of times the art is a big part of it. Primarily because Anime originally stemmed from manga, which is heavily focused on art.

I'm glad someone said that. That seems to me to be one of the fundamental differences between Western and Eastern animation. In Japan animation is considered an art form, and not simply something that will keep children quite for about one and a half hours. It's not always the case, they have their own fair share of dross produced solely as a means of cashing in on a franchise… but the amount of animation produced as a labour of love, that strives for new technical heights, that is constantly trying to present something new and exciting with the medium of animation, is much greater than what we get in the West. Occasionally we can get animation like that over here. Don Bluth and co. were trying to recapture some of the animation techniques that were lost at Disney, and their dedication shows in the loving representation of the world they created. Some other companies (anyone heard of Cosgrove Hall?) and directors (Martin Rosen?) are equally fond of animation, though they seemed not to have the budgets to do their talents justice. The image of traditional animation needed to be changed. No one took it seriously, and now it has been replaced almost entirely by CGI. [Sob]

I know what you mean by CGI replacing art. One such example are the Final Fantasy movies. They're CGI almost entirely.. It hasit's own excellence, like the fact that one can barely tell the difference between the animated characters, and real actors, but it's missing something. Probably something that most can't handle nowdays. Passion. A love for what they are creating. CGI has no soul, just like the computers that generated it. It's not hard to tell this difference IMO, comparing Final Fantasy to NIMH...

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

CGI has no soul, just like the computers that generated it. It's not hard to tell this difference IMO, comparing Final Fantasy to NIMH...

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

No, but they are controled and guided by the very souls that graduated from Tech collages, art schools, and other artists from different studios. I hear artists at Disney are trying out this CGI program and want to get the hang of it.

You have to admit though, that is A-LOT of detail they put into them.
http:/" alt=""/img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/Iodied/jeditemple.jpg

That's astounding! I didn't mean to give the impression that I don't approve of CGI. As Tzolkin mentioned above, CGI is great and can be an art form in its own right, it's just that it's a different medium from cel animation and I think lacks some of of the magic of hand drawn animation. It's a personal thing. I realise CGI work can be just as painstaking. If one were so inclined you could make every frame a key frame, controlling every tiny apsect of the character's movement, just like in cel animation. I suppose I'm just old fashioned, and I have a certain resentment towards computers.

As Tzolkin mentioned above, CGI is great and can be an art form in its own right, it's just that it's a different medium from cel animation and I think lacks some of of the magic of hand drawn animation.

Yes, and hand-drawn animation lacks some of the realism and detail of CGI. Both have their stregnths and weaknesses. But what if they were combined in just the right way? :wink:

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

As Tzolkin mentioned above, CGI is great and can be an art form in its own right, it's just that it's a different medium from cel animation and I think lacks some of of the magic of hand drawn animation.

Yes, and hand-drawn animation lacks some of the realism and detail of CGI. Both have their stregnths and weaknesses. But what if they were combined in just the right way? :wink:

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

well that would be cool does not happen often they usauly like to really on one or the other.

A basic fact is that computers can make bad art fast. It takes an artist to put that soul into the creation, be it 3d or otherwise. I know this from personal experience as it is harped on every day at school . . .

A basic fact is that computers can make bad art fast. It takes an artist to put that soul into the creation, be it 3d or otherwise. I know this from personal experience as it is harped on every day at school . . .

yeh but thats were all the world is heading now every things about how fast and cheap nyou can get iit out thier. it is all about the money not the art.

yeh but thats were all the world is heading now every things about how fast and cheap nyou can get iit out thier. it is all about the money not the art.

I agree, Warner Bros. is taking the Looney Toons and turning them into a show with more violence, bogus anime imitated artwork, and new characters that are nothing but evil destructive creatures compared to their original counterparts. Also, instead of calling themselves Looney Toons, they are known as the "Loonatics"

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050217/050217_loonatics_hmed.hlarge.jpg[" alt=""/img]

Warner Bros. had this to say:

"Loonatics" is part of a wider effort by Warner Bros. to boost classic franchises: A new Batman movie and a remake of "Superman" also are in the works. The potential revenue is massive: If "Loonatics" is a hit on Saturday morning, for example, it is likely to ripple through the company's merchandising, home-video and movie divisions. "That's the ultimate goal of all kids programming," says Mr. Janollari. "If we score, it's a gold mine."

Taking old classics that defined cartoon animation and pumping them full of more violence, personality changes, and another art style all for the sake of greed and money is what they call the "ultimate goal of all kids programming"?! What the hell happened to creativity, humor, and YOUR OWN designs, just because something is old does not mean it's warn out!

What the. . . ? They call -that- art?!? I don't even have to say where I think the design for the 'loonatics' should go, because judging by the extremely poor quality work, that's probably where they found it. This reminds me of something I saw in a movie once. Never thought we'd be seeing it for real. :shock: What happened to the soul? What happened to the warmth and dedication that we deserve to see? There is no life in those characters. They are just as cold and unfeeling as the greed-mongers who brought them into existance. And this is the goal of kids' 'programming'? Yes, programming seems to be a very apt word, because that's all it'll -ever- be used for, and indeed the only thing keeping it from going in the trash where it belongs. :cry:

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

:roll: dear god every one knows that the companies just use the old characters to exploit profit out of new generations. :x what really peave me off is the fact that they get away with destroying great creations in the name of profit. :( is there no person doing it for the soul of the art?

re: Xavier
its like i said the movie makers work for profit nnot art and it really ticks me off when they screw up art with sequels like secret of nimh 2

Take a look at Land Before Time, The first one was excellent! (another one from Bluth, go figure hehe) though, they're on like what, Land Before Time XIII or something like that? all of which but the first one have been terrible, and all taking part of the "throw in lots of songs and dances and it'll sell" routine. Considering they've made so many of them only proves making mediocre/half-assed sequels works.

Heck, even Disney has been getting on the bandwagon, and doing the same. How many excellent, original movies have they made a lame sequel for? I think Mulan is the most recent one they've done a sequel for. Its to the point where they make more sequels than they do original/new features.

I think Mulan is the most recent one they've done a sequel for. Its to the point where they make more sequels than they do original/new features.

I've never seen the movie yet, but from what I can see from trailers and movie clips, it's got the same wonderful animation and personality. Perhaps at least this one will be worth the watch.

I think Mulan is the most recent one they've done a sequel for. Its to the point where they make more sequels than they do original/new features.

I've never seen the movie yet, but from what I can see from trailers and movie clips, it's got the same wonderful animation and personality. Perhaps at least this one will be worth the watch.

I've not seen the new Mulan, and I didn't necessarily mean to imply it was sub-par as well, just that its a rehash of an established franchise. That and in most cases, sequels are never as good as the original movie.

On a back note from previous in the thread regarding CGI though, I disagree that CGI can't have the same heart or emotion as a traditional animation. I've seen plenty of CGI cut-scenes in video games, and they can have all sorts of character, personality and heart. Not exactly in the same way as 2D animation, but they're only the same in terms of them both being animation. You don't need to do every single frame to get heart and soul into a CGI animation, You can control any aspect of the motion regardless of what it is. It all depends on the animator.

Most CGI software will move a limb for example from point "a" to point "b" in key frames. But between those two frames you could say have the wrist, or fingers, or any other sort of joint move to help give it character. The more time someone puts into creating the motion the more heart it and soul it can and will have.

Saying a computer has no ability to give CGI animation heart and soul is no different than saying a pencil and paint brush alone can give a 2D animation heart and soul. It all depends on the animator. I've watched CGI cut scenes that can really pull at the emotions. Some even to the point of encouraging tears of happiness/sadness, both in the good ways. It all boils down to how well the animator uses his 'tools' to get the animation done.

On another note, One nice aspect of Cel-Shaded CGI graphics/animation is that it does give 3D characters and environments a "2D" drawn look and feel. If 2D animation goes anywhere, I see it taking on the form of cel-shaded CGI. I doubt photo-realistic CGI animation will completely take over the animation genre.

I think Mulan is the most recent one they've done a sequel for. Its to the point where they make more sequels than they do original/new features.

I've never seen the movie yet, but from what I can see from trailers and movie clips, it's got the same wonderful animation and personality. Perhaps at least this one will be worth the watch.

i have seen it it is ok but it is still not as good as the original i truely think that they could have done better on the story line.