Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Cadaver · Nov 13, 2004, 02:52 AM

These reviews compare the facial expressions of the characters to "Children of the Corn." Hehe, that's funny.

york28 · Nov 14, 2004, 04:55 AM

I saw Polar Express last night, and it blows. I read the book as a child every year on Christmas Eve, and the movie has so little to do with the book it's insulting. Instead of being faithful to what was a magical classic, they're bastardized it into a Hollywood action movie piece of crap. The CNN article nails it- no character development, really stupid "dramatic" events, and the rollar coaster thing at least three times. Not to mention the ghost that lives on the train. Or the emphasis on presents as being the best part of Christmas. Or the fact that every child on the train would have been in the hospital, if not dead, from the ridiculous train ride. Even Tom Hanks can't save it. I almost left the theater I was so dissapointed.

The visuals are excellent, though, and pay a tribulte to the art of the book. So if you can find some screenies online, just look at them. You won't miss much.

I also saw the Incredibles the same night, and it is so much better it's embarassing. Pixar is simply the best mainstream animation house out there right now. This has nothing to do with being a 'fanboy'- Pixar films have excellent original plots, well crafted characters, and of course, state of the art graphics. If you liked any of the previous Pixar films you will like the Incredibles.

Dreamworks is getting closer to Pixar visually, but I think that they are focussing on the technology too much and ignoring the fact that a movie can look fantastic and still suck. The Polar Express proves this.

Atomic Rooster · Nov 14, 2004, 03:09 PM

It's already been designated a 'Christmas Classic' by 'Ebert and Roeper'.

Haven't seen it but I suppose kiddies will love it.

Stradlater · Nov 14, 2004, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Evan_11:
So it's 1 good review away from being considered fresh. How does that make this a bad film?

Stop being so defensive; your counter-Pixar arguments are, by the way, laughable. If you remember the recent Cars thread, plenty people think it might flop.

Eug Wanker · Nov 14, 2004, 04:13 PM

Holy crap!

The Polar Express
Production budget: $165 million
Weekend gross: $23.5 million

The Incredibles
Production budget: $92 million
Weekend gross: $51 million (but it got $70 million its first weekend)

I had no idea The Polar Express cost so much to make. Marketing costs for both movies aren't included.

Turias · Nov 14, 2004, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I had no idea The Polar Express cost so much to make. Marketing costs for both movies aren't included.

I wonder how much they had to give Hanks.

Apple Pro Underwear · Nov 14, 2004, 06:48 PM

from the interviews zemekis and their producers do, you'd think this is the movie that all computer animation will stem forth from now on

good to see that they should get back to basics and back to reality

i never thought of myself as a Pixar fanboy, but i suppose I am in that they consistently produce quality movies. so yes i am.

i hope disney takes notice that once Pixar leaves, making their own films is not just a matter of "animating disney stories"

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Nov 14, 2004, 08:41 PM

This damn movie cost $270 MILLION to make? Is that the most expensive movie ever?!!!

Either way Incredibles is kicking its ass even though it has been open for a while.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movi...eut/index.html

Eug Wanker · Nov 14, 2004, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
This damn movie cost $270 MILLION to make? Is that the most expensive movie ever?!!!

No, it was $165 million to make, with a $105 million advertising budget.

It just goes to show you how ludicrously high the advertising budgets are these days. It cost more to advertise The Polar Express than it did to make The Incredibles.

I have no idea how much The Incredibles cost to advertise though.

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Nov 14, 2004, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
No, it was $165 million to make, with a $105 million advertising budget.

Still, I can't remember any other movie that was over $120 million.

At this rate I don't think it will break even.

Eug Wanker · Nov 14, 2004, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Still, I can't remember any other movie that was over $120 million.

There are several. Waterworld is one of them at $175 million. Titanic cost $200 million. Spider-Man 2 also cost $200 million. And the list goes on.

Interestingly though, to market Spider-Man 2, they spent less than half of what it cost to market The Polar Express. To market Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, they spent about a quarter of that. Why the frick is The Polar Express so expensive to advertise?

Rev-O · Nov 14, 2004, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
There are several. Waterworld is one of them at $175 million. Titanic cost $200 million. Spider-Man 2 also cost $200 million. And the list goes on.

Interestingly though, to market Spider-Man 2, they spent less than half of what it cost to market The Polar Express. WTF is The Polar Express so expensive to advertise?

...The Phantom Menace would've cost anyone but Lucas over $200 mil as well, so you can toss that hat in there as well.

mrtew · Nov 14, 2004, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Rev-O:
...The Phantom Menace would've cost anyone but Lucas over $200 mil as well, so you can toss that hat in there as well.

How does he do it for less that everyone else? Sweatshops? Robots? What's his secret? And wouldn't the second one be more than the first? It seemed to have better, more elaborate special effects.

Rev-O · Nov 14, 2004, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by mrtew:
How does he do it for less that everyone else? Sweatshops? Robots? What's his secret? And wouldn't the second one be more than the first? It seemed to have better, more elaborate special effects.

Um... ILM, Skywalker sound studios, THX, he owns 'em. Gets it done at cost.

cpt kangarooski · Nov 14, 2004, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Rev-O:
Um... ILM, Skywalker sound studios, THX, he owns 'em. Gets it done at cost.

Of course, the funny part is that Pixar used to be the computer graphics division of ILM, so Lucas used to own it too.

Eug Wanker · Nov 17, 2004, 12:52 AM

Saw The Polar Express. It would be good if you were overly stoned, alone, and in the dark. Lots of creepiness. The should have gone all the way and had Takashi Miike direct it.

Eeeeeeeelves!!!

Xeo · Nov 26, 2004, 01:15 AM

Saw Polar Express tonight. Overall, I'd have to say for a Christmas movie it was alright. The animation was decent except when it came to any facial expressions. As long as the characters were straight faced, they looked good. Tom Hanks as 5 characters was not all bad. The main characters were the kids so it wasn't like just Tom on screen or something. Nothing super impressive though.

Oh yeah, if you like roller coaster scenes, you'll love this movie.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Nov 27, 2004, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
It's already been designated a 'Christmas Classic' by 'Ebert and Roeper'.

Ahh well, someone has to hold their nose and get the DVD front-cover 'blurb-review' in.

MacGorilla · Nov 27, 2004, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Ahh well, someone has to hold their nose and get the DVD front-cover 'blurb-review' in.

Zimphire · Nov 27, 2004, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by olePigeon:
It's a sad attempt for Christians to counter all the evil Harry Potter movies.

Zimphire · Nov 27, 2004, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Of course, the funny part is that Pixar used to be the computer graphics division of ILM, so Lucas used to own it too.

Not only that, the people that work for him get payed hardly anything from what I heard. They do it just so they can add "I worked on a star wars set" to their resume.

Ghoser777 · Nov 27, 2004, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by york28:
I saw Polar Express last night, and it blows....

I also saw the Incredibles the same night...

Man york, we must have been separated at birth, because I saw them on the same night too!

Apple Pro Underwear · Nov 27, 2004, 06:46 PM

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?pag...larexpress.htm

almost forgot I started this thread

up to 70 mil, hahah...

I hope they don't make 165 mil in the US

Atomic Rooster · Nov 27, 2004, 07:02 PM

It's the eyes. The eyes are dead.

Apple Pro Underwear · Nov 29, 2004, 01:04 AM

http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/cha...knd=48a&p=.htm

solid trouncing once again by the Incredibles

33 compared to 27 over the thanksgiving weekend

it seems that the Incredibles is losing momentum and polar express is consistent but even if the Incredibles drops more, it would still be equal to PE (and PE is losing moomentum too at a slower rate)

Xeo · Nov 29, 2004, 01:11 AM

Oh, and did I mention that when my mom, sister, and I all went to see it, we were the only ones in the theater? Yep, had it to ourselves.

mitchell_pgh · Nov 29, 2004, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by york28:
Dreamworks is getting closer to Pixar visually, but I think that they are focussing on the technology too much and ignoring the fact that a movie can look fantastic and still suck. The Polar Express proves this.

I couldn't agree more. I'm a big fan of Pixar and Dreamworks (especially Shrek) but this film is anything from a classic.

I would put it on par with the horrible "cat in the hat" and "the grinch who stole christmas" book knockoffs.

Eug Wanker · Nov 29, 2004, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/cha...knd=48a&p=.htm

$32 million for Christmas with the Kranks??!! It's one of the worst reviewed movies this year at 4 positive reviews out of 88. 4 frickin' + out of eighty frickin' eight. And judging by the amazingly stupid trailer, I can see why.