Meet The Robinsons

Post by **Ben** » April 18th, 2007, 5:55 pm

Bowler Hat Guy spoke in a British accent, not the American accent that he did as a kid...!??!!??!??

Yes, having the image of Elvis in there worked in Lilo. Maybe because he's so iconic and it wasn't trying to be photorealistic? (Yes, Einstein is just as iconic, but ironally I didn't have as much of a problem with that image because he was on a clock and it had been treated. But the Selleck one just felt like South Park to me, and Selleck is not an icon. The person I was with didn't even know who he was and asked afterwards why they showed a real person's picture).

The Rescuers example was a work of art, and one that was onscreen for two frames, so that doesn't count since it was a painting in a painted world.

Yes, you explained the Zazu "small World" very well. I'd buy that, but not Selleck's photo in a CGI movie.

Yep, got it that BHG used the time machine to bring Tiny. Check, no probs there. But has the time machine got a T-Rex sized trunk? I don't think so.

Post by **Sullivan** » April 18th, 2007, 6:15 pm

BHG doesn't have a british accent. Maybe you have british ears!

Ben, have you read the book? The reason I'm asking is that a friend of mine told me yesterday that she saw the film and liked it a lot, but didn't get why the future was so odd... I mean not just a standard future, but a kind of wierd one, with bubbles and stuff.

I showed her the book... and the frogs, the bubbles, the whole thing is there. Instantly she said, wow... this is really cool, and she appreciated that our future was different and not exactly like the Back to the future future, or the blade runner future or the Minority Report future.

Anyway, you might give it another viewing. People seem to settle into the story more the second time around.

Post by **Ben** » April 18th, 2007, 6:35 pm

Nope, I loved what the future was. I just didn't buy the change from our time now to all that happening and have being changed in less than 20 years from now.

My sister has the book, so I'm familiar with it.

Actually, it was my friend who pointed out BHG's British accent! And before the film came out he was getting lots of praise for being a "classic oily British villain" (not an actual quote, but I know I saw those words being used) like Terry-Thomas, or someone in that vein, and no-one picked up on it then.

Let's face it, the BHG of the future didn't have the same voice or inflections as he should have done as an American adult.

Post by **droosan** » April 18th, 2007, 7:06 pm

ShyViolet, in answer to your question:

Post by **droosan** » April 18th, 2007, 7:23 pm

And Ben .. I'll echo Sullivan's recommendation that you give the movie another chance. I had 'mixed' feelings about the film, myself, the first time through (especially the crazy randomness of the "Meeting the Robinsons" sequence). The second time I saw it, I was able to enjoy it more, since I knew what to expect. Then I finally read the book .. and it shed a whole new light on things; the "Meeting the Robinsons" segment is the book!

I've now seen the movie six times, and the scenes I'd found so 'perplexing' the first time through are now among my favorites.

Though, I have to admit .. I didn't have nearly as many 'problems' with the story during that first viewing, as you'd listed in your review on the previous page .. so, YMMV.

I didn't really get the sense that MTR was set in the 'real' world of 'today, 2007'. IMO, Lewis' 12-year-old existence could've been in any year, from the 1980's to today (or even the near-future); the specific year didn't strike me as important. That so much changes within the space of 20 years is due not just to Lewis, but all of the Robinsons; they are all inventors .. mad geniuses, of a fashion. The future thus becomes everything the young Lewis in the orphanage imagines, and more. I love that the Robinson family of the future seems to embody Lewis' words from early on: "With imagination, and a little science, we can make the world a better place". In fact, this playful childhood sentiment seems to be their credo; each of the 'adult' Robinsons acts as if they're 12 years old (or younger)!

As for the time machine/dinosaur conundrum .. notice that just before the machine leaps forward/backward in time, a 'bubble' of energy forms around the vehicle. Perhaps that bubble could be made larger .. say, big enough to encase a dinosaur. :idea: That's just 'speculation' on my part, though.

Post by **Therese** » April 18th, 2007, 9:53 pm

About BHG's accent -I'm from the midwest US and never thought of him as having a British accent, but here's a quote from Stephen Anderson about it:

“I’m not sure where that voice comes from,” Anderson admits. “I think some of it comes from the anger and frustration I feel during morning commutes in traffic! I’ve always found anger and frustration funny, as I think the root of a lot of comedy is angst. Originally, I gave Bowler Hat Guy a British accent, but as the character evolved, I started pulling back on that, although that same kind of bravado remained.”

Here's a link to the source article:
http://www.laughingplace.com/Movie-Meet ... s-Cast.asp

I don't have a cite for this, but I know I've read comments about BHG being a kid's idea of what a "Villain" looks/sounds/acts like, and Anderson talks in the link above about him being like a bad theatre actor, so I would take whatever he has in the way of an accent as a put-on part of the mwa-ha-ha I'm-so-evil! act.

FYI, the "flat" presentation has the Mickey/Donald/Goofy short "Boat Builders" in front of it.

Post by **Randall** » April 19th, 2007, 12:03 am

Ben and I usually are in agreement about things, so I was surprised that he didn't enjoy MTR more. I expect, Ben, that you may warm up to it more the second time around. Maybe you just weren't in the right mood for it, or were expecting something a little different?* I felt it was a fun fantasy film, and didn't feel it necessary to evaluate the plot points too seriously. Where I did have minor issues, my mind filled in the gaps satisfactorily. What I loved about it, though, was the HEART that it had, most noticeably in the last act. It was the emotion in the film that I thought showed the most promise for Disney. But I did enjoy it all the way through.

* I was vastly disappointed by Pocahontas my first time to see it in the theater; but now I think it's a gorgeous, beautiful film. After seeing it once, I adjusted my expectations--- not lowered, just adjusted. I often like movies more the second time around, once I know better what I'm getting.

Post by **PixarVixen** » April 19th, 2007, 12:12 am

Ben wrote:I just didn't buy the change from our time now to all that happening and have being changed in less than 20 years from now.

Impossible to accomplish in real life, but I let it slide for MTR.

~~=oP

Post by **ShyViolet** » April 19th, 2007, 3:27 am

* I was vastly disappointed by Pocahontas my first time to see it in the theater; but now I think it's a gorgeous, beautiful film. After seeing it once, I adjusted my expectations--- not lowered, just adjusted. I often like movies more the second time around, once I know better what I'm getting.

On Pocahontas, my feelings exactly Rand!

Post by **James** » April 19th, 2007, 6:53 am

I'm a little worried about Shrek because ogres, donkeys, and cats don't really talk.

Post by **Ben** » April 19th, 2007, 7:07 am

I'm sure on a second viewing, I'll like it more.

Like I said, it had a Blood Brothers effect on me in that the whole third act was SO right - and full of heart - that I'd sti through it again to get to that.

Interesting that BHG is said to have a British "influence", at least, since that's what we really picked up on in his voice, so that still doesn't make character sense.

Guys...I liked the movie, despite being really worried in the middle. Yes, I recognised those elements from the book, but with a book it's not so frantic and comes over with more charm.

I think the movie had rather large holes, but taken for what it was it was a fun ride. But I just don't think it was the home run that's put Disney back on top yet. Roll on American/Hollywood Dog and The Frog Princess...

Post by **James** » April 19th, 2007, 7:59 am

The film has many problems. And then it has sections that are almost perfect. Like I said in my review, it feels like it was done by two different groups.

I also agree on the name. We hardly get to meet the Robinsons so why that title?

Plot holes I'm more lenient on since they are fairly minor and this is a light-hearted movie. I didn't see anyone pointing them out in Shrek 2! Picking apart the time travel issues too much as if this were BTTF may be going overboard. And if we can't accept that they don't recognize him with his hat on then we have to complain that Clark Kent looks just like Superman even with his glasses on!

No home run, but the first time in awhile it looks like they are heading in the right direction.

Post by **Ben** » April 19th, 2007, 8:20 am

Yes, that's very true (about the direction).

Post by **ShyViolet** » April 19th, 2007, 1:18 pm

I'm a little worried about Shrek because ogres, donkeys, and cats don't really talk. Wink

Yes they do! :p

J/K

Post by **Ben** » April 19th, 2007, 4:17 pm

Yeah, I've seen 'em.