Tomorrowland

[Vernadyn]

I think one of my main issues was that some of the set-ups had somewhat underwhelming payoffs. The backstory, to me, seemed more fascinating than the main story itself. By the end of the film, I was actually more intrigued about what direction a potential sequel could go. But still, there are some fantastic sequences, and I loved the look and concepts of this film's vision of the future.

I do think that Bird is more of a storyteller than someone with a unique visual stamp. Matthew Vaughn is another director who's a great storyteller and whose films do contain some striking sequences, but no real "visual trademark." (Or maybe he does, and I'm to obtuse to discern it.) On the other hand, as far as visuals are concerned, for every Edgar Wright, you have a dozen Zack Snyders.

And although "Geri's Game" is the only Jan Pinkava work I know, I will say that I felt much more Lindelof in Tomorrowland than I felt Pinkava in Ratatouille.

[Ben]

That's what excites me too.

Although I just saw the rocket-pack ride sequence and...I have to say...although I could easily pick out the Rocketeer like-for-like shots, I didn't really see the point of them (why not be more original?) and found the looking into the reflection of the glass building (and the "hey, this is actually cool!" reaction) was lifted right out of Big Hero 6, which has dampened a few hopes of true originality.

That said, I'm still intrigued for Tuesday to come around, though I get what you mean about Ratatouille (even if Bird does seem to have done a much more extensive rewrite on that film than he seems to have done with Lindelof's original "1952" ideas for Tomorrowland).

[Ben]

Well... I totally get what Vernadyn is saying, but perhaps not all for the same reasons...

Hmmm...there's certainly lots to process from the film!

Tomorrowland: A World Beyond (as the redundant extra subtitle has it here) is not a disappointment by any stretch, though I kept waiting for the basic concept to be explained (the clip we have seen about "geniuses" and Walt Disney being one of them), and it never came.

The opening wowed me...I loved being at the 1964 World's Fair (and seeing Giacchino - who provides an as expected great Meet The Robinsons-style score that I will get on CD - on the Small World gate!) and my eyes were everywhere taking it in and looking for other little eggs here and there, but we cut quite quickly inside and it didn't feel as big. I wasn't quite sure how that all was worked out underground, either, however you want to play with creative license...

The first trip to Tomorrowland is understandably the highlight of the film (yes, it is all kind of downhill from here), though I have mentioned above how the rocket-pack scenes felt a mesh of what we've already seen in Rocketeer and Big Hero 6, and it was surprisingly underpowered (with peppers of bad CG throughout the film). Thinking about it, there's no explanation as to why Clooney's boy character isn't listed as a missing person, since he was apparently gone for so long...

We then cut back to our world, where I was just as equally intrigued. Indeed, most of the film takes place in the real world, and the mystery was better than the payoff...when we finally get to Tomorrowland again the film, for me, also lost a bit of interest (not really a great thing when your third act relies on it!). And because of how Casey and Clooney's character fit in to what Tomorrowland has become, I felt we really never actually got to *see* Tomorrowland properly, save for the early moments and the "commercial" that Casey witnesses (I did like how they addressed the alternate dimension aspect that Casey *was* still in our world too, even if they didn't address the height angle...).

Then again, given the message of the film...maybe that's the point, to keep it tantalisingly out of reach so we all must work towards making our world the one we really wanted to see...?

Yeah...Tomorrowland is also deep. In fact, it just is maybe *too* full of Big Ideas, most of them hammered home with the subtlety of a heavy anvil on the head!

While the film isn't "boring" because of this, or a dud in the entertainment sense of the word, it's also certainly not the world changer I think Bird and Co were hoping for. For while it is packed with probably too many ideas, there's just not enough actually happens, and the Walt connection that has been played up in marketing is non-existent, save for the few opening shots at the '64 World's Fair that promise more than they deliver.

Not helping is that Tomorrowland is also a most frustrating dichotomy on many levels: too similar to other things with see before but wildly inventive on its own...sometimes feeling like an 80s Amblin movie (it features the best sci-fi movie store ever seen) but not as fresh or inspired...or always pushing forward towards its goal and coming to a crashing thud when it reaches it (I was reminded a bit of Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow here).

Then there's the subtext of mad old Clooney living on his own in the forest and taking off with these two young girls, which could be misconstrued for all the wrong reasons but isn't really chased up, and it's all a little bit off-kilter and odd. Accents come and go from some of the cast, too (Laurie and his "daughter" are American in the opening, more British later on?), which was distracting, though Britt Robertson was good, and I actually liked Clooney even if he was pretty one-note for a character with apparently so many layers and didn't really pull the emotion out of the bag until the final couple of minutes.

It's a film of so many contradictions, especially the way it's being sold. The trailer shows them leaping into bathtub and shooting into the sky...on their way to Tomorrowland, right? Nope...it takes them two more attempts, at least one of which involving the Eiffel Tower starts to try and whisk up the beginnings of the explanation I thought was long coming but then abandons it and ultimately is a completely superfluous sequence that's just in there because it's supposedly cool (it think it's too close to other things we have seen before) and even has to be explained away by another character later on because it has messed up the point of Tomorrowland being a big giant secret.

This Tower sequence is interrupted by a chasing gang of robots (I liked the nod towards Audio-Animatronics, although again Walt's touch is missing), who perpetually grin all the time...though I thought they should still be grinning when shooting or chasing as it would have given them an extra layer: when they grimace they look as if they are invested in what they are doing, but to keep them grinning would have made them look derangely delighted at the prospect of chasing, capturing and attempting killing people. That would have been fun.

As it was, there isn't really a lot of real carnage or damage to people or places in the film, though I was a bit alarmed at how "violent" it was in its representations: cars smashing into people is okay when they're all evil robots, but they still look like people and one shot in particular made me feel quite queasy, while another disturbing moment for Casey at the end didn't feel right in terms of who the character was (and giving audience members the wrong idea) either.

Paradoxically, Tomorrowland is probably its own worst enemy: for all the ideas and hope it has, there's an underlying streak of pessimism that the film is ultimately attempting to combat. What should be a fun, optimistic, imaginative (well, it has that in too many spades) and bright adventure turns out to be an admirable but ho-hum, shock-tactic, preachy sermon on how we all need to save our world. Huh.

[EricJ]

Well, looks like I lost that bet--
Although the project was constantly being redrafted (it never became the World's Fair story until they published that viral "1952" photo), from the hints being dropped by the Optimist game and record--"We've got secrets in our icebox...Secrets that can help extend life beyond the inevitable end..."--I would have put any unreasonable amount of sucker-money down that all the gushy Bird/Lasseter Disney nostalgia would have revealed that among their other higher ambitions, the Tomorrowland scientists

were the source of the myth that Walt was "on ice", and were going to revive him in the climax, where he has a big climactic scene explaining his future optimism to the characters, thus bringing Clooney's nostalgic '64 World's Fair subplot full-circle in the story.

But.....nnnnope. I don't see any mention of Tom Hanks, or other casting, in the movie, although I can't speak yet since I may not see it till next weekend.
And thinking back, the final version of Tron Legacy was nothing like the info revealed in that "Hack Encom.com" viral campaign either.

[Ben]

the Walt connection that has been played up in marketing is non-existent

[EricJ]

Sorry, missed that--That'll teach me to skim over 15 paragraphs.

But yeah, not the best sign when the setup leads the audience to write better movies in their imagination than the screenwriter delivers--It definitely sounds like a patch-up of the previous stories, although not too bad a one.

[Vernadyn]

Yeah, the way they edited the flying bathtub scene in the trailer was a real mis-direct. I was expecting that scene to take place near the end of the first act, or at that at least half the film would take place in Tomorrowland. Heck, some of the shots from the France sequence in the trailer I thought would take place in Tomorrowland. Then there was that shot of Central Park (I think) getting flooded that seemed to signify a film that had more ramifications in the real world, but again, it wasn't what I thought.

Laurie's speech at the end did go on for too long--I get what he was saying, but it was an awful lot of telling and not showing. And how crucial really was Casey to the climax of the film? I guess she figured out

the "evil computer," as Clooney aptly put it

but other than that, she was didn't affect too much at the tail end of the film.

I know I'm harping on the film, but I saw it a second time and actually enjoyed it a bit more because of my lowered expectations. I noticed that Britt Robertson had some gestural, almost animation-like (but not too cartoony) moments in her acting that I appreciated. The one that sticks out is after she first touches the pin and is getting ready to touch it again--that little move she makes when she makes fists and puts her arms at her sides in anticipation seems like something an animator would think up.

I liked Giacchino's score in the film but I actually appreciated it even more when I heard it on its own. I was able to pick out three major, distinct themes, but had only noticed one when watching the film.

But yes, I think the film is more a work to be admired than a work to enjoy from beginning to end.

[Ben]

I know I will enjoy the film more the second time seeing it, most likely on disc. As I was sitting in the theater I felt, well now I know what this actually is then I can enjoy it for that and not for what I thought it was (or what I might have hoped it could be).

Like the speech, I felt there was an awful lot of tell but not show, but I do agree that Robertson was excellent and often held things together with little moments as you describe.

I picked out two themes in the score, one of which I hummed on the way out and haven't stopped since! I have the soundtrack on order (the CD is annoyingly not actually out yet!), but even better sounding than the film is a book, Before Tomorrowland, that serves as a prequel to the film. I haven't read it, but it seems this might have made for a better film experience!

[James]

What I really enjoyed more than anything else in any other movie in recent memory was the fact that for the entire film I had no idea what was going to happen next. It may not have payed off the mysteries in a completely satisfying way. But the ride was a fun one since I had no idea where it was going. Even in films I really enjoyed you can figure out pretty easily where things are headed even if you don't know all the steps it'll take to be there. Not the case here.

Also that little girl was an amazing actress.

"Where have World's Fairs gone...
Was just wondering that myself, having been to the '86 Vancouver in its day--Ironically, in trying to be them, Epcot seems to have finished them off for good.
The last World's Fairs were in the 80's, back before the Disney (Parks) Decade revitalized the theme park industry in the early 90's, so there was less of a need to build an entire theme park and tear it down a year later, especially now that there was a permanent one standing.
Most of the World's Fairs in history, like '62 Seattle, '67 Montreal, '82 Knoxville, '84 New Orleans and the aforementioned Vancouver were essentially Chamber of Commerce stunts from overlooked emerging cities trying to buy world recognition and identity (Dubai, predictably, is trying to get dibs on a new one), but nowadays all they have to do is host an Olympics. At least you don't have to tear down as much when it's over.

[Unneccesary personal story incoming. Feel free to skip!]

I went to the '82 World's Fair here in my home town. The Knoxville fair was considered a pretty big success overall. And the park that housed the fair is still a major cultural center of the city. Back in my post-college/pre-marriage days when I was a pretty regular performer around town I did at least 50 shows down in the original fair amphitheater.

Even today I have a couple of ties to the fair. My church owns the only original fair building not on the park site. They bought a cool round building and had it moved to the church property. And there was an historic 100+ year old train station on the fair grounds that was converted to a restaurant for the Worlds Fair. About five years ago it was converted to an exclusive public high school for a small number of county students who want a more rigorous curriculum. You have to apply to attend and then hope you get chosen in a random draw for one of the limited number of slots available each year. My daughter will be starting 9th grade there in the fall.

Anyway, I'm obviously biased because I spent so much of my college years hanging out and working at the fairgrounds and will be spending the next four years taking my daughter to school there. But the Worlds Fair can be more than a gimmick and can benefit the city in the long run with the right circumstances.

I'll tell you what I would REALLY like to see: something like the Stark Expo becoming a reality!

[Ben]

It was better than Strange Magic, though...

But now I'm peeved because it sounds like Tomorrowland's bad grosses have put the stoppers on the in-prep Tron 3, according to rumors... Stupid Disney, but it's a bummer.

[EricJ]

Again, it's the Princess/Frog myth that the #1 movie this week made "only" $40M when nobody was going to the theaters, but Memorial Day weekend??
(Or can it be that the once powerhouse Memorial Day since the days of the first Star Wars now has us "movied out" by the end of May, now that we've been top-loading the month since the days of Phantom Menace?)
Still, 49% at RottenTomatoes and sinking, that does traumatize my hopes somewhat--Was too busy and cheap to go out to see it on opening, and the reviews gave me second thoughts this weekend.

(As for Strange Magic, finally saw the trailer out of morbid curiosity--I was happy enough to avoid it up till now, and take other people's word for it just from the design--and...oh, merciful heavens. )

[droosan]

it sounds like Tomorrowland's bad grosses have put the stoppers on the in-prep Tron 3

Whaddya mean..? It's in theaters this summer!

[Ben]

THIS SUMMER,
THE M.C.P. IS M.A.D.!

[Ben]

can it be that the once powerhouse Memorial Day since the days of the first Star Wars now has us "movied out" by the end of May

Nope, Pitch Perfect was doing gangbusters the week before and San Andreas is looking to have a big weekend after it, so it really is that Tomorrowland only got a B Cinemascore and word of mouth hasn't been great. Basically, the audience doesn't really want to "think" and has responded to the film in a perfectly legitimate way for the experience they had.

[Bill1978]

Basically, the audience doesn't really want to "think"

And until audiences do want to think consistently at the cinemas there will continue to be a large gap between those films that make big bucks at the cinema and those films that get given awards. Not saying Tomorrowland deserves award but audience seems to encourage no brainer movies from the studios and whinge when their favourite dumb movie is ignored at awards season. But I feel this rant is for another thread. I'm personally avoiding Tomorrowland cause of Clooney.