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

[Jezza]

Originally Posted by EricJ

BECAUSE. IT. WAS. A. BOOK.

Not a particularly memorable big-expensive-picture-book at Barnes & Noble, and the movie, traditionally, bears not the slightest perceptible resemblance to the plot, design or theme of it past the title.
But, like "Polar Express", "Shrek", "Cloudy/Meatballs", "Night at the Museum", "Ant Bully", "Horton Hears a Who", "The Lorax", etc., as long as it has the same title as the book that's on the overpriced-picture-book shelf at Barnes & Noble, this immediately validates it with parents as a mushy and responsible movie to take your young ones to.

And who knows, maybe in another twenty years, some animation-studio executive will actually READ it past the marketable sounding title.

That's as maybe, but it's quite easy to change the title to something different and more saleable. Clearly the title didn't say to parents that it was appropraite for children to see, because that's probably why it flopped.

As a relatively unknown book it would have made much more sense to change the title anyway.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Jezza

As a relatively unknown book it would have made much more sense to change the title anyway.

Ah, but then you couldn't SELL the book--
Do you think Dreamworks wanted to make an original movie ungainly called "How to Train Your Dragon"?

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Ah, but then you couldn't SELL the book--
Do you think Dreamworks wanted to make an original movie ungainly called "How to Train Your Dragon"?

What are Disney going to get out of selling someone else's book, a book almost no one has heard of.

The difference between this and Dreamworks is that Dreamworks know how to sell a film, and Dreamworks are instantly recognised by parents and children around as there films have a distinctive style. This style is an instant turn off from the get go. Zombie motion cap, please, annoying little brat of a kid, great, fat dude saying the dumbest things ever imaginable, yes, I will book my ticket in advance now!

Dreamworks had a fantasy book and took that and advanced it to a very good fantasy film, you know Disney didn't think this was good as it was frankly dumped out unnoticed.

Also there is no harm of changing the name in international countries, they've just done that with Battle: Los Angeles!

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Foggy

What are Disney going to get out of selling someone else's book, a book almost no one has heard of.

(Insert "It WASN'T. FREAKIN'. DISNEY." disclaimer here.)

A) It provides a "hook" for the studio boardroom to sell a concept, since projects have to be sold to paying parents, not kids, and parents need something with a little more validation than an animator's pet project,
B) It allows for lucrative tie-in deals, usually on books most readers HAVE heard of (whether the movie has anything to do with the original or not), but since in this case they haven't,
C) You can do anything you darn well please with the title and one-sentence concept and who's going to know, as long as you've got A) and B) paying the bills and making the project looks "respectable".

Take "Night at the Museum" for example--
Had YOU ever heard of the picture book?...No? Don't feel badly if you look it up and the plot has approximately 1% to do with the final movie.
However: Disney was also planning a "Museum comes to life" movie, so if Fox wanted to beat them to the punch and win the competing-project king-of-the-mountain game, they needed something with a little more leverage than just someone else's competing studio high-concept idea.
And what has more "pull" in tentpole family-film marketing?...

Also there is no harm of changing the name in international countries, they've just done that with Battle: Los Angeles!

(Are you talking about the real one, or the Asylum one?:
http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Los-Ang...dp/B004C3J76Y/
After a year of public-domain dodges, I suspect our mutual friends are about to visit the courtroom again... )

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Also there is no harm of changing the name in international countries, they've just done that with Battle: Los Angeles!

That's true. In France it's called Surrender: Los Angeles! and it's only fourteen minutes long.

:rimshot:

Thank you, I'll be here all week...

[PrivatePixel]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

Did you read the review? It was making it sound like this movie was trying to show that only families with a father and mother is correct and right and so on and so forth. I think it's just trying to show how much family means, and the the reviewer is looking too far into it with that fact that it's a father and a mother. That's all I was saying.

There is an instance in the film where such a point was articulated by one of the characters; the insinuation wasn't thinly veiled, it was overt.

Then the movie goes out of its way to show that before Butchy McLes-alien took over, all children were raised by a man and a woman.....I kept thinking that I was reading too much into the film (impossible), but when Ke tells the Martians that they were meant to be raised by two parents, because that's the only way to feel love, I was convinced. And angered.

It's much more than emphasizing the importance of family; I think the movie wanted to affirm the importance and relevance of the nuclear family definition, while slighting the competency and validity of non-traditional family structures. I am the product of a nuclear family (with a sibling; can't get more traditional than that), but if I weren't, I would take offence to the message that a child is only truly loved when in the presence of two parents.

[agoofykindasuperman]

I'm just going to chime in here and say that I took my nephew opening weekend to see this, 3 days after he turned 3 years old. It was not only his first visit to a movie theatre, but first film in 3D, and aside from the 4 bathroom breaks he took, he loved the film! lol His eyes were glued to it. I can't say much for it myself... just seemed like yet another failure from Disney going animated without Pixar, but I spent most of the flick watching my nephew enjoy it!

[Beta Man]

Here's the deal.....

From the rules:

You are only allowed to discuss religion and politics when it is the main topic of a specific movie. Keep in mind that all people are different and have different beliefs, so be respectful to each other. Stay on topic and make sure what you say is directly related to the movie.

This is extended to "sexuality" and pretty much everything else that was brought up in this thread.....

I realize some believe it was "On topic" because it was in support/contradiction to a review on this film.... but ONE REVIEW, from some other site/blog/place/whatever doesn't give the go-ahead to discuss completely off-topic family-moral-value-nuclear-fallout.....

For instance.... if I find a review that claims all pixar movies are racist against native Southern-pole inhabitants, that doesn't give the green light to have a racial diatribe every time Pixar releases a movie.....

HOWEVER.... If you want to discuss the THEME of the nuclear family and how it related to the movie (I also happened to see the trailer for this one, so I obviously didn't see the movie ) that is FINE...

BUT:

There should be no discussion along the lines of.

"I was raised by 17 dads and turned out fine"
"I was raised by wolves and now I'm screwed up"
"I wish my parents divorced"
"Divorce is good"
"Divorce is bad"
"Gay this"
"Straight that"
"Tri-sexual-African-whooping-cranes"

Etc. etc...

Basically if you bring up statistics and/or your personal real-world experiences/beliefs... then you're not discussing the THEME of traditional family (if that's what it is in this movie that I haven't seen ) you're expressing your views on a topic that isn't within the rules of this forum.

So... Carry-on... discuss if you think the theme worked/didn't work etc... or, by all means, discuss other aspects of the movie

[ArmyOfDarknessAW]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

Here's the deal.....

From the rules:



This is extended to "sexuality" and pretty much everything else that was brought up in this thread.....

I realize some believe it was "On topic" because it was in support/contradiction to a review on this film.... but ONE REVIEW, from some other site/blog/place/whatever doesn't give the go-ahead to discuss completely off-topic family-moral-value-nuclear-fallout.....

For instance.... if I find a review that claims all pixar movies are racist against native Southern-pole inhabitants, that doesn't give the green light to have a racial diatribe every time Pixar releases a movie.....

HOWEVER.... If you want to discuss the THEME of the nuclear family and how it related to the movie (I also happened to see the trailer for this one, so I obviously didn't see the movie ) that is FINE...

BUT:

There should be no discussion along the lines of.

"I was raised by 17 dads and turned out fine"
"I was raised by wolves and now I'm screwed up"
"I wish my parents divorced"
"Divorce is good"
"Divorce is bad"
"Gay this"
"Straight that"
"Tri-sexual-African-whooping-cranes"

Etc. etc...

Basically if you bring up statistics and/or your personal real-world experiences/beliefs... then you're not discussing the THEME of traditional family (if that's what it is in this movie that I haven't seen ) you're expressing your views on a topic that isn't within the rules of this forum.

So... Carry-on... discuss if you think the theme worked/didn't work etc... or, by all means, discuss other aspects of the movie

Sounds like a deal. And by the way you cracked my up with the bolded part .

[linkgx1]

"Tri-sexual-African-whooping-cranes"

What kind of stuff you been watching?

Anyways, the movie bombed simply because the characters look terrifying. 'nuff said. Thread closed.

[linkgx1]

*squints eyes*

Ironically, Disney CG movies tend to do terrible. They need to stick with 2d drawing. Maybe get some anime writers in there. I hate their CG stuff.

[Jezza]

Originally Posted by linkgx1

*squints eyes*

Ironically, Disney CG movies tend to do terrible. They need to stick with 2d drawing. Maybe get some anime writers in there. I hate their CG stuff.

Have you seen Tangled? It's incredible and could easily rival the best of their hand-drawn 2D classics.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by linkgx1

*squints eyes*

Ironically, Disney CG movies tend to do terrible. They need to stick with 2d drawing. Maybe get some anime writers in there. I hate their CG stuff.

Bolt and Tangled were both better then just about all of Disneys hand drawn titles since Lilo and Stitch. Mars Needs Moms was highly flawed in many ways but even it manages to be decent family entairtainment despite a silly story and at times annoying characters.

[Talal86]

I almost hated the movie thanks to the annoying fat dude, but a month later my opinion has changed so I'll probably get the blu ray when it's released

I wonder if the Seth Green track will be available on dvd/blu ray

[benbess]

Originally Posted by Talal86

I almost hated the movie thanks to the annoying fat dude, but a month later my opinion has changed so I'll probably get the blu ray when it's released

I wonder if the Seth Green track will be available on dvd/blu ray

noticed your avatar tala. Is that a good movie? What is it? Orphan?

[Talal86]

Originally Posted by benbess

noticed your avatar tala. Is that a good movie? What is it? Orphan?

correct, it's Orphan

I love it and everyone I know who watched it loved it too
it's a fun watch and an interesting thriller, nothing groundbreaking though

[benbess]

Originally Posted by Talal86

correct, it's Orphan

I love it and everyone I know who watched it loved it too
it's a fun watch and an interesting thriller, nothing groundbreaking though

thanks~!

[Coveragentcov]

Mars needs moms wasn't that bad. I actually really liked it!