Comments on: Mars Needs Moms Looks Horrible, Kills Disney Motion Capture Department

By: Super Bowl Movie Ads: Avengers, John Carter, More » DVDs Worth Watching

Super Bowl Movie Ads: Avengers, John Carter, More » DVDs Worth Watching — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 02:06:20 +0000

[...] from Disney is John Carter (no “of Mars”, not after their last film with that in the title), out March [...]

By: Shaina

Shaina — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 04:33:10 +0000

Lol oops I ment I LOVE animated kids movies ;0P

By: Shaina

Shaina — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 04:32:06 +0000

I live animated kids movie and I’m a 28 mom of 2, but this was AWFUL!! The graphics were so bad my 10 year old put the movie in ands five mins later begged to change it….ugh Whata let down!

By: Michael Tarallo

Michael Tarallo — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 22:59:03 +0000

Rented it from Zune last night. It was horrible.

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:26:47 +0000

Personally, I’ve never been creeped out by any of Zemeckis’ experiments with motion-capture. I DO think, however, that it’s rather pointless to make actors where mo-cap suits only to create a computer generated person. In other cases, especially Mars Needs Moms, the CGI used for these films are flat-out terrible in terms of quality.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:40:55 +0000

Thanks for providing that comparison — I hadn’t read it, and I was curious how similar the movie and book were. Sounds like, not much.

By: J Leeds

J Leeds — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:17:52 +0000

“Mars Needs Moms” is one of my favorite children’s books. It literally brings a tear to my eyes every time I read it (heck, I’m getting misty just thinking of it). But the previews have no resemblance to that book, other than “Milo goes to Mars”. Most of the characters aren’t from the book, the Martians look nothing like the goofy aliens in the book, and the storyline looks to have been completely redone. I have no interest at all in seeing this movie, although I was interested before they started running previews.

By: Grant

Grant — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 02:47:57 +0000

“MoCap is more or less 3D rotoscoping. Its a tool, not a style.”

Right. The point was that what they did with it 4 decdades ago looks more interesting than Mars Needs Moms, Polar Experss and Beowulf.

By: Diana Green

Diana Green — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:39:58 +0000

Chuck Jones used to call limited animation “illustrated radio.”
What we have here is illustrated radio in 3D, and it’s a bunch of executives’ ideas of the way kids now talk. this thing was dated the minute it came out. It’s based on just about the only Breathed book I haven’t read, but I can’t imagine his source text being so snarky and full of faux-trendy dialogue.
@Lynn: Agreed on Yellow Submarine. No way that could have been an improvement!

By: Lynn

Lynn — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:04:28 +0000

I personally have a warm glow in my heart that Yellow Submarine has been axed. What possible purpose would a remake have?

MoCap is more or less 3D rotoscoping. Its a tool, not a style.

By: Grant

Grant — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:05:13 +0000

I’ve never liked any of the motion capture toons. On top of creepy they look horrible. I don’t even understand the point of it. Frankly, those Bakshi rotoscoped toons from the 70s were more interesting.

Also, why isn’t Disney adapting the Marvel properties they own into animated/pixar movies? I want to see that Rocket Racoon and Groot pixar movie like yesterday.

By: SKleefeld

SKleefeld — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:33:01 +0000

No, the movie couldn’t flop because they can’t even get the trailer to make it look good. No, it must be those graphics guys that screwed up. Because the executives that approved this, and made all their additions and “tweaks”, clearly knew what they were doing and couldn’t possibly have worked to the detriment of the idea. No, this movie is obviously a flop for the single reason of new-ish technology.

And this is why I never go to the movies.