Mars Needs Moms - FULL HD 3D - Now Available

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Impossible

It does amaze me that this film got such a bad rap considering most of the dung that gets praised here. It was a far better film than probably 90% of 3D titles that are released. It was a great little film, the subject matter is a bit too sensitive for kids, but a great film none the less.

I liked the trailer when I first saw it in theaters, and then they showed the title at the end of it. "Mars Needs Moms"> When I saw the word "Moms", I bailed on giving it a chance, thinking it was a movie about "Moms", instead of seeing it for the adventure movie it probably is. The title can break a movie's chances (see "John Carter" as an example). Nothing against Moms by the way, I just don't want to see a movie about Moms.

Originally Posted by EricJ

When a movie opens big and drops off, that means people went to see it and didn't like it.
When a movie opens in fifth place and stays there still the studio pulls it out, that means that people didn't even want to go see it in the first place.

Apart from the general post-mortem of seeing another Zemeckis movie come out after Christmas Carol...
There has to be SOME reason why audiences looked at the trailer, and didn't feel the overwhelming urge to leave their homes to go see it.

There is:

[Show spoiler]

Yeah, I think it was the title that scared kids away. Had it been called "Space Aliens" or something, it probably would've done much better.

Did Zemeckis write the story to these later films you hate so much? It seems you're suggesting he doesn't know how to direct a movie, after directing the successful Beowulf, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Forest Gump (not my style movie), Romancing the Stone, and Back to the Futures. He just needs to pick better movies, no? It's clear he has a talent to direct successful movies. Beowulf 3D being my favorite, but to be fair, I haven't seen Christmas Carol or Mars needs Moms (produced). Polar Express wasn't bad for a Christmas movie IMO.

Originally Posted by Impossible

The same could be said for any Peter Jackson film that doesn't contain midgets and fairies, yet that talentless hack is still making movies, albeit he's had to go back to midgets and fairies

To be fair:
To have no talent means he would be clueless regarding how to direct a huge cast and crew on a movie set, where the epic-scaled movies would have fallen apart and never be completed under his direction. He didn't write the movie, he only directed it. The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien was written for an audience who likes fantasy, medieval type stories. It won't appeal to everyone and wasn't meant to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_jackson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jrr_tolkien

Did you dislike the slower pacing of Lord of the Rings? Did you hate the cinematography, the way the shots are framed by the Cinematographer? The characters, story, written by Tolkien originally? Anyone can say "I hate this", but unless they give a reason why, the creator of what they hate will remain clueless to improve it and keep spewing out what you hate.

Originally Posted by EricJ

This movie was dead before the trailer even finished, but we judged it from the trailers anyway:
We didn't like the slob.
We thought the Martian mom was speaking "jive" , when in fact she was speaking 60's.
We didn't like the kid.
The "native" kids weren't funny.
We could guess the ending from the title.
Some of us (not everyone) knew Robert Zemeckis hadn't directed it, but we wanted him to finish going away anyway.

You couldn't sell this movie to the audience with a set of dishes....LIVE WITH IT.

I didn't like the whole part about Moms in the title as it reminds me of a boring family type theme (nothing against moms), but the trailer looked visually impressive. I still haven't seen it, though I'd consider it if the price gets down to 16.99$.
Directed by Simon Wells. Produced by Robert Zemeckis as you suggest. You really hate the guy's work, huh? What could he do to improve besides giving up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zemeckis

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Did Zemeckis write the story to these later films you hate so much? It seems you're suggesting he doesn't know how to direct a movie, after directing the successful Beowulf, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Forest Gump (not my style movie), Romancing the Stone, and Back to the Futures. He just needs to pick better movies, no?

If you mean his live-action movies, he needs to have Bob Gale writing them again.
If you animated movies, no, he doesn't--"Monster House" flailed about in every direction, and "Christmas Carol" was completely at sea: Apart from the "rollercoasters" that have to be in every Imagemovers movie, ACC seemed to have no idea how to block out a scene for a non-LA movie, and watching Zemeckis handle Dickens was like watching a fourth-grader try and understand the story for the first time, which, very likely, he was.

Mars may or may not have been good for Z not directing it, but it was just too late to the party and the damage to the company's public audience appeal had already been done--Audiences treated the movie as "What, YOU still here??"

What could he do to improve besides giving up?

Well, that would be a start...
Like the current director craze for 3D-converting old movies, we knew from the beginning that Z had been attracted to mo-cap not because he had a vision for Beowulf and the North Pole, but because he thought he had a Magic Movie-Making Button on his new machine.
Directors, you see, don't use computers as much as we do, and if you tell them computers can do neat stuff, they all want to use it right away. We could excuse him ONE film to get it out of his system and serve as an experimental example to other directors, but he genuinely seemed convinced he could make more than one. (I've seen Christmas Carol, Polar Express, bits of MNM and all of Monster House, and he couldn't--They're the same movie.)

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by EricJ

If you mean his live-action movies, he needs to have Bob Gale writing them again.
If you animated movies, no, he doesn't--"Monster House" flailed about in every direction, and "Christmas Carol" was completely at sea: //
Directors, you see, don't use computers as much as we do, and if you tell them computers can do neat stuff, they all want to use it right away. We could excuse him ONE film to get it out of his system and serve as an experimental example to other directors, but he genuinely seemed convinced he could make more than one. (I've seen Christmas Carol, Polar Express, bits of MNM and all of Monster House, and he couldn't--They're the same movie.)

Monster House flailed in every direction, in what way? I thought it was a great story and movie for halloween with a consistent focus on discovering what they mystery of the house was all about. The motion captured animation was well done. The same movie as Polar Express and MNM, how? Better yet, give me an example of one of your absolute favorite movies so I can understand what you're comparing it to storywise/visuals/etc.

I don't think most mainstream audiences of parents and kids, even know who Zemeckis is, and wouldn't avoid Mars Needs Moms just because his name is on it. I avoided it for the title alone, as it set the tone as a movie topic I had no interest in seeing.

To each his own opinion.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

I liked the trailer when I first saw it in theaters, and then they showed the title at the end of it. "Mars Needs Moms"> When I saw the word "Moms", I bailed on giving it a chance, thinking it was a movie about "Moms", instead of seeing it for the adventure movie it probably is. The title can break a movie's chances (see "John Carter" as an example). Nothing against Moms by the way, I just don't want to see a movie about Moms.


Yeah, I think it was the title that scared kids away. Had it been called "Space Aliens" or something, it probably would've done much better.

Did Zemeckis write the story to these later films you hate so much? It seems you're suggesting he doesn't know how to direct a movie, after directing the successful Beowulf, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Forest Gump (not my style movie), Romancing the Stone, and Back to the Futures. He just needs to pick better movies, no? It's clear he has a talent to direct successful movies. Beowulf 3D being my favorite, but to be fair, I haven't seen Christmas Carol or Mars needs Moms (produced). Polar Express wasn't bad for a Christmas movie IMO.



To be fair:
To have no talent means he would be clueless regarding how to direct a huge cast and crew on a movie set, where the epic-scaled movies would have fallen apart and never be completed under his direction. He didn't write the movie, he only directed it. The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien was written for an audience who likes fantasy, medieval type stories. It won't appeal to everyone and wasn't meant to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_jackson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jrr_tolkien

Did you dislike the slower pacing of Lord of the Rings? Did you hate the cinematography, the way the shots are framed by the Cinematographer? The characters, story, written by Tolkien originally? Anyone can say "I hate this", but unless they give a reason why, the creator of what they hate will remain clueless to improve it and keep spewing out what you hate.


I didn't like the whole part about Moms in the title as it reminds me of a boring family type theme (nothing against moms), but the trailer looked visually impressive. I still haven't seen it, though I'd consider it if the price gets down to 16.99$.
Directed by Simon Wells. Produced by Robert Zemeckis as you suggest. You really hate the guy's work, huh? What could he do to improve besides giving up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zemeckis

I didn't say I didn't like LOTR, I said he hasnt made anything successful (or even remotely watchable) besides it.

[Nommag]

Originally Posted by Impossible

I didn't say I didn't like LOTR, I said he hasnt made anything successful (or even remotely watchable) besides it.

Peter Jackson's early works including bad taste, braindead (Dead alive) and heavenly creatures are cult classics and incredibly watch-able. I've never met or heard of anyone who has watched these films and doesn't like them. Jackson did sell out to Hollywood though.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by Nommag

Peter Jackson's early works including bad taste, braindead (Dead alive) and heavenly creatures are cult classics and incredibly watch-able. I've never met or heard of anyone who has watched these films and doesn't like them. Jackson did sell out to Hollywood though.

Well now you have

I didn't mind Heavenly Creatures, but I loathe horror/comedy films so I would've hated the others regardless. Lovely Bones is in my Top 5 worst films ever made list and apart from the last 15 minutes of King Kong, it was terrible.

[Nommag]

Originally Posted by Impossible

Well now you have

I didn't mind Heavenly Creatures, but I loathe horror/comedy films so I would've hated the others regardless. Lovely Bones is in my Top 5 worst films ever made list and apart from the last 15 minutes of King Kong, it was terrible.

Well actually no I haven't, you a) said you didn't mind heavenly creatures and b) assumed you wouldn't like movies you have never seen. You can't say you don't like films you have never seen because of Genre. Notice in my post I referred to people who have watched those films not people who havn't

I can't argue about his newer stuff, I don't really like it. To be fair though the masses do and when your a big hollywood director you don't make the 'braindeads' and 'heavenly creatures' you make movies with mass appeal.

[3Dparty]

The movie tries too hard at times, but overall I liked it. Except for martian men with double digit IQs living in a giant garbage pile. That part was depressing.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Impossible

I didn't say I didn't like LOTR, I said he hasnt made anything successful (or even remotely watchable) besides it.

Proof that not all movies are made for all audiences.

Brain Dead was a well made zombie gore/comedy film, despite what people might think about it. As far as his first movie, Bad Taste, that one definitely takes a lot of getting used to for me as I couldn't quite follow the storyline while awake. I'll have to attempt it one more time. It's been five years now.

Originally Posted by Nommag

Peter Jackson's early works including bad taste, braindead (Dead alive) and heavenly creatures are cult classics and incredibly watch-able. I've never met or heard of anyone who has watched these films and doesn't like them. Jackson did sell out to Hollywood though.

I see what you're suggesting, though I don't think he sold out as much as he chose to actually take on bigger challenges and actually make some big money in a new genre, compared to his early career, which was mainly for niche audiences. I wouldn't pass up Lord of the Rings if I were him either. He did an incredible job IMO, having read all three books plus the Hobbit a few times and kept a lot of his horror sense present through all of the monsters in the films, like Sam Raimi hinting at Evil Dead in Spider Man 2's hospital scene. The Hobbit I and II should be just as epic. And in 3D.
I think these days, anyone who leaves behind one genre for another is considered a sell out by their original cult fans, who feel abandoned, wishing he'd continue making horror movies forever.

ON TOPIC: Mars Needs Moms needs a new title. Any suggestions for those who have seen the movie? What would've been a better title?

I would remove "Needs Moms" from the title, maybe something about aliens and avoid the word Mars.