'Mars Needs Moms' one of the biggest bombs ever.

[Chaotic]

Originally Posted by SapGoblin

I saw it...Disney's best? No.
Bad movie? No, actually not bad.

I liked it enough for a $6 matinee.

good, finally from someone who actually seen the movie.

[Battra92]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

If you read the comments in the forum (and this one forum here doesn't have exclusive rights on such post) most movies now a days stink before they are even written. A simple mention that such and such actor and director will make such and such story and within 5 minutes you have 10 posts saying it will suck. People convince themselves months in advance that movies will stinks or in reverse and be epic, it's just how things are.

I'm convinced that most movies suck. People tell me a movie is good; I don't believe them. They tell me it sucks and I know they are probably right. Occasionally I'm proven wrong (The King's Speech is the most recent example) but the batting average of the film industry I always err on the side of caution. When I saw the trailer of "Mars Needs Mom" I wanted to puke. It just summed up everything that was wrong with movies (an idiotic plot, more money spent on special effects than on a good script, toilet humor etc.) and so I instead watched a better movie.

[Trogdor2010]

I've seen it at theaters opening day (At 10 P.M.) and me and my dad were the only people in the theater. I'll just port my mini review.

Anyone watched Mars Needs Moms? Me and my dad were the only ones who were at the theater (at 10:00 PM in 3D!) friday last night. My dad though it was okay, but really hated the motion capture technology (It's use of photorealism makes people look phony, especially the boy Seth Green was playing and Joan Cusack). I got fed up really quickly on how constantly it puts so many gimmicks and special effects that distract it's simple storytelling; the boy jumps, runs, and tries to communicate to the martians, rarely funny, and it does it for about half of the freaking movie! It is just so interested in trying to impress you that you get bored and demand the plot progress, which would have been better served in a half hour/ hour long TV special. I'm also am starting to get fed up with 3D in animated movies, especially with the dimmer picture inherited by that. I liked it in Avatar and Sanctum because it's used with restraint, not in alot of these 3D films, I feel like wanting to watch the 2D versions.

It's just not interested in it's world and story it is telling, and I become apathetic and bored overall. There is certainly a good film here, but there is so little of it.

2 out of 4

[fatediesel]

I don't believe Disney spent near $50 million on this movie's marketing. I read a story over the weekend that Disney had given up on this movie a long time ago and was doing little promotion for it, and I can confirm I only saw ads for it a couple times. ImageMovers Digital, the Disney-owned studio that produced the movie, shut down last year and this is it's final movie.

[martymagicman]

I saw this movie last weekend. I didn't realize it was motion capture until it started playing and the little boy's eyes looked just like the boy's eyes in Polar Express. One of the first things Cameron realized in wanting to make Avatar was the problem with eye contact. He suceeded where the others have not. This movie is no exception. If you can't get the eyes right it throws off everything else.

This is not the movies biggest problem:
The plot is about aliens who take mothers from Earth, use their memories of mothering and DESTROY them.
This movie is not for young children and I wonder what John Lassiter was thinking when he aproved this. No Pixar movie has ever gone done this road.
This could have been a good movie, not Disney's best day.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by EricJ

And notice how the Miramax Factor is still at play: If audiences had gone to see it, we'd be whining about "Why does Zemeckis keep making movies?", but after it bombs, the headlines read "Disney's biggest bomb ever!" )

Originally Posted by SapGoblin

I saw it...Disney's best? No.

Not even Disney's, period. (See what I mean? )

One of Zemeckis' best? No. (That would be Christmas Carol, FWIW, although it's a pretty empty playing field.)

Originally Posted by Secretagentnumber6

I am honestly amazed John Lasseter let Disney release something that looked this horrible to theatres. This was clearly a STV release, Lasseter has done so well since he was put in charge of the animation at Disney, but I guess he gets a couple mistakes because of his golden background.

(...Y'SEE?--I mean, what do you have to do??
FTR, it was part of a three-picture deal that involved Carol, one more Christmas picture and an option on Yellow Submarine, but it was reportedly this screening, not Carol's BO that convinced studio chairman Rich Ross to toss Bob into a pile of manure, a la Biff.)

Originally Posted by Chaotic

i really want to punch people who say crap like this

Well, let's be honest: If a movie opens big, but falls off a cliff in the second week, that's a movie that looked good in the trailers but turned out to be a mess and the audience walked out...
If it can't get past the starting line on its first day, that means nobody made the effort of going to see it.
And when that happens....it's the trailer. Oh, dear gods, was it the trailer.

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

I was of course referring to 100% CGI movies like Polar Express, Beowulf, Mars Needs Moms, and Christmas Carol. What Jackson and Cameron have done with mo-cap is truly staggering.

He's referring to Tintin.
AND Zack Snyder and his owls.
AND Gore Verbinski and his lizards.
AND George Miller wanting to bring his penguins back.

...AND every other live-action director who ever got VFX-happy and thought "How hard could it be?"

[Dubstar]

there was barely a plot for 'Mars Needs Mom' and for alot of the movie where people are running around, it got dull and well... I fell asleep.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by EricJ

He's referring to Tintin.
AND Zack Snyder and his owls.
AND Gore Verbinski and his lizards.
AND George Miller wanting to bring his penguins back.

...AND every other live-action director who ever got VFX-happy and thought "How hard could it be?"

What Snyder, Miller, and Verbinski did was different from the "let's hire Tom Hanks to play the character and then digitize him to...look like Tom Hanks!" crap Zemeckis has been doing lately.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

What Snyder, Miller, and Verbinski did was different from the "let's hire Tom Hanks to play the character and then digitize him to...look like Tom Hanks!" crap Zemeckis has been doing lately.

No, Zemeckis doesn't do "Let's get Tom Hanks to play the character"...
Zemeckis does "Let's get Tom Hanks to play ALL the characters!"

[zombeaner]

Originally Posted by Gamma_Winstead

There's a difference between the two. I gaurentee Zyzzyx Road did not get a 50 million dollar marketing budget or even a wide release.

Zyzzyx Road only played at one theater for one week. I know because I work within spitting distance of that theater. The rumor is that only 4 people paid to see the film, which makes sense with the total.

[its.joesef]

too bad, the CG looked great. Too bad the story was absolutely stupid. Mars needs moms? What stupid writer was like "oh yea. this is gonna be awesome."

[Jimmy Smith]

In a way its a good thing since it should show Hollywood that not everything bright, shiney, and high tech will be a hit for these reasons alone. With movies like Alice in Wonderland, Transformers Revenge of the Fallen, and Avatar being hits entirely for visual power despite weak stories have been a bad trend for Hollywood. The rest of Hollywood should emulate Pixar more and create visually stunning movies with a heart and soul more often. POWER TO PIXAR

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by frogmort

From the review link above:
"Mars Needs Moms is adapted from a children's book by Bloom County creator Berkeley Breathed, much in the same way that my fecal matter is adapted from the food I eat."

So, pretty much in the way ANY children's picture book (Shrek, Night at the Museum, Cloudy/Meatballs) is adapted for film, then?

Here's the book, in case you're curious to make a postmortem:
http://www.amazon.com/Mars-Needs-Mom.../dp/039924736X

[Offender_Mullet]

So it's not as witty, hip and filled with random adult humor references like the 1,000 other cgi "kid's movies" that come out each year? For shame.

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

I was of course referring to 100% CGI movies like Polar Express, Beowulf, Mars Needs Moms, and Christmas Carol. What Jackson and Cameron have done with mo-cap is truly staggering.

Originally Posted by martymagicman

I saw this movie last weekend. I didn't realize it was motion capture until it started playing and the little boy's eyes looked just like the boy's eyes in Polar Express. One of the first things Cameron realized in wanting to make Avatar was the problem with eye contact. He suceeded where the others have not. This movie is no exception. If you can't get the eyes right it throws off everything else.

This is not the movies biggest problem:
The plot is about aliens who take mothers from Earth, use their memories of mothering and DESTROY them.
This movie is not for young children and I wonder what John Lassiter was thinking when he aproved this. No Pixar movie has ever gone done this road.
This could have been a good movie, not Disney's best day.

Well, Cameron and Jackson are not the only ones.

ILM has had CGI characters with heart and soul ever since...

Casper, Dragonheart.....that's '95....

Go watch Rango! That's one hell of a great animated feature, and it blows all other CG films into oblivion!

[cubs_2000]

I will agree that the 3D was very bad (my son wanted to see it in IMAX) but the story was much better than I thought based on the previews. Maybe I was not expecting much so I was pleasantly surprised.

[Clark Kent]

The title alone cost it several million at the box office. That name can't have been widely tested, it screams bad and I was not even aware of the movie before today.

[Agent Bond]

Poor Seth Green. Hopefully, it'll make back in its worth in rental / DVD or Blu-Ray sales to break even.

[Waboman]

'Mars' on track for biggest movie flops list.

The $150 million "Mars Needs Moms" faces "outright rejection" at the box office.

In the weeks leading up to the release of "Mars Needs Moms," Disney knew interest in the film was tepid at best. But no one was prepared for such a disastrous box office wipeout.

[CYMBOL]

Seems I had the same reaction to the trailer most did - thought it looked aweful. Just plain bad.

I'll have to go check out reviews to see if the trailer just didn't do the film justice. . . at all.