My expectations were pretty low, so I came away from this one pleasantly surprised. Like anything else animated and Japanese, it ended in a tangle of incoherence and protoplasm. But I enjoyed the way the story unfolded sans tedious exposition, the production design (tres Aliens, thankyouyetagain Syd Mead), and even the halting attempts at character development.

I'm still not at all convinced that you can create life-like humans using animation. Even with Aki's freckles and occasional pangs of subtle facial emotion, there was never a moment when I wasn't aware I was looking at a stilted rendering of a person. It didn't help that a lot of the voicework felt inconsistent and forced, which was due not to the actors, but the way lines were shoehorned into the action rather than the action being built around the line readings a la Pixar, Disney, etc.

But overall, easily one of the summer's better blockbustery movies. Which isn't saying much, come to think of it...

-Tom

Well, I think it was something you see because of the animation and not because the story is grandly told. On that level, it delivered.

I thought the doctor was particularly well done - better than Aki. Overall, I think the coolest sequence was the shuttle launch into orbit, mainly due to just how good the pyrotechnics looked.

When compared to Ghost in the Shell or Appleseed, I don't have a problem saying it was of equal quality in the story dept. I think american audiences that aren't "used" to anime beyond Robotech or Dragonball Z are going to "get" the story though. Oh sure, they'll understand the premise, but it'll be blown off as a bizarre artifact of Japanese animism. In short, they'll call it silly. I'm borderline on that myself, but I can respect it due to the conditioning I've undergone in 30 years of Godzilla and Shirow.

I just kept waiting for Biolante to burst out of the ground and tentacle rape Aki.

God, does tentacle rape have to come up every single time we discuss anime?

Tom, one great thing about not having a significant other is that you can go see movies like this without a lot of cajoling and emotional bartering.

Eg, guess what I get to see next week? America's Sweethearts.

"I'm still not at all convinced that you can create life-like humans using animation."

Yeah, the very idea of animation replacing real actors is, to me, ludicrous. Maybe as a novelty and in action movies alone, but you'll never be able to artificial create the magnetism of a De Niro or Spacey or the volitily of a Gary Oldman with ones and zeros. And you'll always need voice actors, won't you?

File the "compu-animation will replace human actors" under the heading "Journalistic angle" and ignore it. Compu-animation is going to replace traditional animation only, and it won't even do that completely...

-Andrew

"Yeah, the very idea of animation replacing real actors is, to me, ludicrous."

To a certain extent I disagree. I can imagine a time when motion capture and computer animation allow us to render animations that are completely indistinguishable from real humans. However, those figures would need to be animated by real actors; they'd essentially be visual shells over real people. We'd still need good actors to run them, it just wouldn't matter what the actor looked like or sounded like; just how they moved, reacted, and the inflections and subtleties in their speech.

It would raise the bar on acting, I think. No more could actors coast by on good looks and a great voice. They'd need to actually be good actors, because good looks and a great voice can be generated by computers and artists.

Excellent point, Bob. I hadn't considered that, but you're right. Think of it as revenge for video killing the radio star.

I thought Princess Mononoke was better... with a similar theme... sorta similar to Akira and Ghost in the Shell... don't all the anime stuff have that pseudo new age/Taoist feel to them? the end of Final Fantasy felt almost like the end of FF7, the "lets get back to nature" theme.

Anyway, yeah, its better then pretty much most of the movies i saw this summer. FF and AI are the only movies i was interested in. The rest of this summers mvies dont seem to grab my attention.

actually, the new previews for Spider Man (AWESOME) and Lord of the Rings rate as the best of cinema this summer!

Also, the old man in Final Fantasy looked pretty real so did the guy that James Woods played. I particularly thought that girl doctor looked the most fake! Something about her animation seemed forced.

overall, i was expecting more action in FF... i was mildly dissapointed, but its worth a matinee for the special fx alone. and i chuckled alot with Steve Buscemi's character, kinda like Hudson in Aliens.

etc

I just heard on the radio... FF really bombed. It made like 11 million dollars (thats it?!?!) opening weekend, OUCH (in the US). Legally Blonde was # 1 this last weekend! wtf?!?! oh well, FFIX should make up the slouch for Square.

etc

>File the "compu-animation will replace human actors" under the heading "Journalistic angle" and ignore it.

Yup. Along with the "TV will kill movies" from a few decades back. The largest box office receipts in history has been this summer, after all.

I thought the movie, though the screenplay was by a talented american author (Al Reinar, who wrote the Apollo 13 script and truly excellent the From the Earth to the Moon miniseries), it suffers from the same problems most Anime does, even the good stuff. That is, there's a neat idea for a story, but not a good way to tell it. So every 20 minutes or so, a character has to have a major revelation, aloud, so the audience can kinda know what the hell is going on. It's about giant meta-events that are almost clumsily involving people. Most good movies are about people, who happen to be strung up in some larger events. And there's no strong villian, though the ROLE for one is there.

Maybe that comes from Hinorobu Sakaguchi, who wrote the story.

Having said all that, it's an entertaining film, worth seeing. The artistry and technical brillance are truly impressive, and so consistantly that you're just kinda used to it by the end of the film. And the plot and dialogue and such are a damn sight better than most of the crap they've pushed on us this summer (except for Shrek).

The people don't look truly real. Sometimes they're quite real indeed, but something's usually just ever so slightly...off...that it's obviously not a real person. The bit-players are particularly wooden, at least by the standards set in the lead roles. But the entire setting is so surreal that it works okay. These are surreal, almost-believable characters in a surreal, almost-believable environment.

Sid, however, was remarkable. He had the most human-like movements and facial expressions of the bunch. And the best voice acting, but then, Donald Sutherland is cool like that.

The film could really have benefitted from a stronger musical score.

I'm totally impressed by the fact that they didn't use a million fancy camera tricks (Matrix stuff, in-flight shots, and so on) which would be trivial in a CG movie. They stick almost entirely to camera movement you'd see in a standard movie.

"I'm totally impressed by the fact that they didn't use a million fancy camera tricks "

But thats the advantage of making a CG movie... alot of the best parts of Iron Giant and Titan AE were because of the stuff they showed that DID go above live action movies. I like the concept of making a "fantasy" movie that appears real yet is sci fi (?). But after that, wouldnt it be wise to try to go as far as you can with the tools you have? i mean the possibilies are there... FF did have some of the best animation ever, and yeah im glad as well they didnt have any cheesy matrix/john woo gunplay (good in there own right)... but i left the movie thinking it could of had alot more awesome effects... or moreso a better story. i felt FF was going quickly through the motions of an anime meets aliens movie but with real expensive computer doohickys.

BTW, did any of you see the recent Warcarft 3 video on the latest CG mag? THATS what i wanted to see in FF... though FF is a sci fi movie, not rpg fantasy...

etc

"To a certain extent I disagree. I can imagine a time when motion capture and computer animation allow us to render animations that are completely indistinguishable from real humans."

What I can't imagine is the day when that will be easier or more cost effective than simply filming live humans and, if necessary, compositing them into CG effects. I mean, you need to hire the actors either way. It's neat from a technical geeky perspective, but will it ever be "the norm?" I really, really doubt it.

Personally, I thought that the characters in Shrek looked and acted a lot more natural, perhaps because they weren't trying so hard to be "real." FF was still really impressive, though, and some of the characters were more convincing than others (particularly Sid).

"But after that, wouldnt it be wise to try to go as far as you can with the tools you have?"

No. Most of the time you are going to end up with a sequence that comes across as technological showboating, similar to the stuff that they used to do in 3D movies (where they purposely had stuff flying at the camera all the time to remind you that "THIS IS IN 3D!!!!").

"Because the story requires it" is usually the only really good reason to shoot a scene in a particular way. "Because we can" is almost always a terrible reason to do so.

"I thought Princess Mononoke was better..."

There were some influences there from PM, and from Nausicaa. Both of which had far, far better characters and stories (although I enjoyed Final Fantasy for what it was).

Ironically, my biggest problem with FF was the sound. I thought there was too much dead time. Granted, many of the scenes were in space or in dreams, but I could have done with more background noise and voice effects (reverb, etc.).

As an aside, why is it that CG people never have wrist joints?

- Alan

"Because the story requires it" is usually the only really good reason to shoot a scene in a particular way. "Because we can" is almost always a terrible reason to do so.
-----

Brilliant!
I totally agree with this statement.

Tack this on the wall of every game studio on Earth. (Or, just to the front door of GOD's church HQ. We'll call you Ben Luther.)

-Andrew

I'm surprised that they didn't do a close up of a tear running down somebody's cheek. With all the "Look how real it looks!" hype, I was really expecting to see one.

Paraphrased quote from one of my friends who works at Boeing and saw it with us: "It must be great being able to design something that doesn't actually have a chance of flying."

Overall, I think it was a pretty good movie. Probably the best movie I've seen all summer, though that really doesn't say very much. I agree that the music could have been better, and the movements of the characters still looked forced.

As far as it only getting $11 million, maybe the problem is that people hear "animated" and think "cartoon" (i.e. kids stuff).

"As far as it only getting $11 million, maybe the problem is that people hear "animated" and think "cartoon" (i.e. kids stuff)."

Not necessarily. Shrek handily bounded over the $200 million mark this summer. I seem to recall Toy Story 2 opening with a $70 million weekend.

I think Final Fantasy's $11 million is yet another illustration that Games Are Not Mainstream. People go see Tomb Raider, which is petering out at around $120 million, because of Angelina Jolie/Indiana Jones/cool commercials with techno soundtrack and action sequences. What did FF offer to draw in people who weren't familiar with the video game series? Nothing except a series of dippy articles about animation So Lifelike It Will Replace Real Actors.

-Tom

Yeah, good point Tom. I guess people weren't really drawn in or blown away by the previews. I don't know if I would have been either, since I don't have cable and my TV reception sucks. I had seen some of the early "demos" (?) of what they were capable of making a while ago, but I never got a good look at a trailer for it.

I'm avoiding Tomb Raider as much as possible.

I've recently discovered that ANY movie sponsored by Taco Bell = ASS

Godzilla comes immediately to mind, as do the last several batman movies.

I'm sure that you'd include The Phantom Menace as well?

Bah. I think I'm the only left that liked it...

Well, me and my wife. We'll stick together...

I just saw Final Fantasy. I thoroughly enjoyed it, though the plot did get goofier as the movie wore on. The animation was astonishing. It's the first animated movie where I kept comparing it to live action movies instead of other animated movies.

As to it being an example of games not being mainstream, I'll disagree. It could have been called anything else and not been associated with games and it wouldn't be doing any better. It's just not a mainstream movie, period. Being a Final Fantasy movie hasn't pulled it down. Being weird has, and I don't think it's doing all that poorly anyway. It's certainly going to do quite a bit better than Wing Commander.

>I think Final Fantasy's $11 million is yet another illustration that Games Are Not Mainstream.

I think it's more likely a lack of star power. Stars draw people to opening weekends. They had some stars doing voices, and big ones, but none of them were "major movie opener" megastar types. And more importantly, the marketing doesn't promote the stars at ALL. I think they'd have done better if one of the TV commercials made it clear that the movie stars Alec Baldwin, Ving Rhames, Donald Sutherland, James Woods...

"I think they'd have done better if one of the TV commercials made it clear that the movie stars Alec Baldwin, Ving Rhames, Donald Sutherland, James Woods..."

Exactly. Instead, I think they relied on a bunch of kids bugging their parents to take them to see it a la Pokemon, along with hordes of college students who play the FF games. But the name "Final Fantasy" just isn't enough to create a box office draw.

Hence the Games Are Not Mainstream comment.

Mark wrote: "It could have been called anything else and not been associated with games and it wouldn't be doing any better."

Egad, it would be doing much *worse*. Since the stars weren't promoted, I'm guessing the bulk of its business was from fans of the game. Probably a few strays wandered in curious about the animation, but otherwise, I see the $11 million weekend as what sort of return you get when you rely on a friggin' video game's name recognition to generate an audience.

-Tom

Ah, so gaming (or at least Final Fantasy gaming) is just mainstream enough to help a film reach $11 million, but not much more than that?

I think it's performing the way it is for two reasons.

1. The film isn't generating any overwhelmingly positive word of mouth beyond: "it looks great!" This is a genre film and genre films don't do well whether they're based on games or not.. at least they don't without (Star Wars quality) word of mouth.

2. For the exact same reason Titan A.E. floundered. America doesn't want cartoons aimed squarely (pun intended) at grown-ups. Even really good animated fare that's only partially aimed at an older audience, like The Iron Giant, has a real hard time finding an audience. Shrek did well because it looked cute enough for kids, yet twisted enough for adults. It REALLY helped that it was exactly the way it looked and folks talked it up after they left.

Final Fantasy will kill in Japan, and will probably do well world-wide. It'll be easy to dub at least. I doubt it'll be a failure in the long run. Plus, now Square has a fully functioning compu-animation department. A situation where only the first film really costs lots of money (according to Cinefex).

-Andrew

"It's certainly going to do quite a bit better than Wing Commander."

Ack, you mentioned the Wing Commander movie. I blame you for the rising taste of bile in my mouth.

Isn't is also that animation for adults is something we in America simply do not fully get? FF is really more geared toward an older audience, and I don't think we have ever gotten to the point in our society where we see "adult situations" (balancing the check book, waiting in line at the post office, harvesting souls) and animation as compatible. At least not the way audiences do in other parts of the world (read: Asia). Disney has trained us not to.

The two examples you mention, Tom--Shrek and Toy Story 2--both had kiddie hooks as prominent features in their market schemes. Both had much more than that in execution, but it was the children, and the opportunity for parents to bring their children to see something appropriate, that drove the grosses on those films, at least initially.

Even the worst films geared toward kids seem to do well (or well enough...example: Snow Day). I don't necessarily think it is just the kids that are being fooled either, but also parents looking for something to do with their kids on the weekend.

Also, and I know we've talked about this before, but do you honestly believe that marketing the star voice work of Alec Baldwin, et al would have made that much of a difference? Come on. I am just not convinced that who does the voices makes any difference if people aren't interested in other aspects of the production. People go to see the stars they love, not to hear them.

Of course, to be fair, I have my doubts that a live action version of FF would have done any better.

Amanpour

"Even really good animated fare that's only partially aimed at an older audience, like The Iron Giant, has a real hard time finding an audience."

Iron Giant was a victim of marketing. That film had all the elements that should have made it a huge success, but the studio backing it (WB,I think) totally screwed the pooch in marketing the picture.

I have a feeling they are going to do likewise with Osmosis Jones. Not that I am commenting on the quality of that film, but I have been unimpressed with its marketing thus far.

Amanpour

Perhaps the exception to the "people go to see the stars they love" comment above would be those Look Who's Talking Movies and Bruce Willis.

Amanpour, covering his bases

"Iron Giant was a victim of marketing."

I'm not sure that's entirely true. It was a semi-serious riff on prejudice and paranoia and a few other hot-topic issues better left unmentioned cause of spoiler factor. But not good for kids under 10, really.

No music. No glitz. No flash.NO CUTENESS! No singing. No elves. No protracted action scenes. etc.,

MORE marketing could have helped it do a bit better, and word of mouth helped the DVD QUITE a bit, but the ads themselves were pretty good as I recall.

The commercials made me want to see it. But I don't get to theaters much anyway.

-Andrew

Bub,

Yes, it's entirely true.

There's been a lot of ink spilled in the fallout of Iron Giant's failure. The marketing was very clearly botched. Whether you liked the ads has no bearing on the fact that they didn't get them out there enough. They were basically pulled shortly after the movie opened. They didn't do a fast-food cross-promotion. And they did a piss poor job of targeting their ads. Iron Giant, which has *plenty* of appeal for kids, was all but scuttled by WB, who had no faith in it, before it even came out. I'm not wumpus, so you'll have to find you own links, but you can do a Google search and Read All About It.

As for FF, I think it would have done better if its star power was given higher billing. A lot of people will go see Osmosis Jones because it's being billed as a Chris Rock movie. Getting Baldwin, Rhames, Sutherland, whomever to do a few talk shows before it opened would have helped FF. Putting their names in the ads would have helped. Square clearly relied on the name recognition from the games and look where it got them.

And Bub, if you think an $11 million take on a major summer release with a $140 million production budget is indicative of "mainstream" (whatever you decide that means this week)...well, don't quit your day job before you decide to pursue a career in marketing. :)

-Tom

I must've missed all that spilled ink there Tom.
I saw plenty of Iron Giant commericals before it came out. I was well aware it existed and what it was about. I can only imagine WB dropped the campaign after it came out because the first weekend gross was dismal?

"Iron Giant, which has *plenty* of appeal for kids"

I'll take your word for that, you being a noted Kid Expert and all. But it's still a hard sell for the older set and too intense for the younger.

"Getting Baldwin, Rhames, Sutherland, whomever to do a few talk shows before it opened would have helped FF."

I've seen them on The Daily Show (not a big deal, but good targeting there). And my wife claims that a couple of them have done the Morning Show circuit as well. I'm not surprised if they couldn't book Leno and Letterman though....

Billing? Maybe. It's not that impressive or A-list a cast though.

"well, don't quit your day job before you decide to pursue a career in marketing. :)"

Haha!
Actually I quit a career in marketing for my "day job". But, really Tom, you might want to quit your self-styled Entertainment Analyst hobby if you don't know the difference between per screen average and total weekend gross.

Still, I hadn't read that their budget was $140 million. Ouch. They still could recoup it in the foreign market I think, but... ouch. The Cinefex article concentrated on how they can make sequels for a lot less, now that the technology has been bought.

Disney's Dinosaur apparently lost money, because of the ramp-up tech needed.

-Andrew

"I'm sure that you'd include The Phantom Menace as well? Bah. I think I'm the only left that liked it..."

No, I liked it, too. I think people are way too harsh on the Phantom Menace, which is actually just as good a movie as, say, Return of the Jedi. Which wasn't the best of the Star Wars movies, certainly, but it was still quite good.

Peoples' expectations for the movie were just way to high. I don't think ANY movie would have satisfied them.

---

Quote:

People go to see the stars they love, not to hear them.

---

---

Quote:

Of course, to be fair, I have my doubts that a live action version of FF would have done any better.

---

"I must've missed all that spilled ink there Tom."

Apparently. WB's fumble of the Iron Giant campaign is legendary. Of course, out here in LA, that kind of thing is all we talk about. You seeing a few commercials doesn't mean it was successfully marketed.

As for the appeal to kids, you don't see it? C'mon, Bub. The protagonist is the classic Misunderstood Kid, for Pete's sake! I guess you're the kind of guy who thinks Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is really just an adult fable and Lion King is simply Hamlet with animals.

For the record, I'm the oldest of eleven. I know what kids like. Little boys like giant robots that shoot laser beams out of their eyes. Duh.

How do per screen averages fit into whatever point you're trying to make about FF? Per screen averages don't mean dick to the studio when they're counting their money. If they can't push their movie through to the theatres, they're already screwed anyway. And if you're trying to tell me Columbia had distribution problems with FF, well, that's news to me.

-Tom

With Iron Giant, you have to define "kid" within an age group. If you're saying kid = age 3-8, then it absolutely is NOT for kids. If kid = age 9 and above...then yes it is for kids.

Iron Giant deals with some very hard issues for small children to understand. The hero also turns into a very evil, very wicked beast at one point in the film. This is not "kid stuff".

Sure, there are tons of parents that don't give a rat's ass what their kids watch so their kid (from age range one) might see it. But for me...this film is much too harsh for the likes of my three year old son and likely until he's around that 9-10 range of the boy in the film.

--Dave

---

Quote:

...Lion King is simply Hamlet with animals.

---

All I know is WIlly Wonka scared the heck out of me when I was little. I love it now, but that fat kid going up the pipe? *shudder*

Michael,
I think Tom thinks that I think Scar married the Lion kiddos mommy or something. But I can see how Timmon and Pumba might be Rosencrantz and Guildenstern... except for their unfortunate off stage ending of course. (Then again, after that song, I'd hang 'em.) In truth, I never thought about it... now it'll haunt me. Lion King = Hamlet... shudder.

Wonka is a classic children's story and "Gene Wilder's Best Role" I don't think it's an adult fable. It's dark, and so are children.

I agree with Long. Iron Giant is absolutely appropriate for above 10 "kids" and I agree with Tom that older kids dig on "laser shootin' robots" but I've read many times that Iron Giant also failed because "kids over 10 don't like animated movies." So there you go, that had to be a factor.

Now, since Tom brought up his siblings I'll throw in my 4 male above 10 cousins who were unimpressed with Iron Giant until I forced them to watch it. Marketing wouldn't work, but seeing was believing. They even cried at the end. I was so proud...

-Andrew

---

Quote:

The flip-side of course, what if Wing Commander had been done entirely in CG?

---

Come on Bub, everyone knows Gene Wilder's best role was in Blazing Saddles or maybe Stir Crazy. :)

My point about Iron Giant was that Bub was silly to deny it had appeal to kids. And I don't care how many cousins he has. Interesting that he notes marketing didn't work on his cousins, but otherwise, it worked fine because he's "seen plenty of commercials".

And no, by kids, I don't mean ages 1-18. There's a reason it's rated PG.

As for the Lion King/Hamlet connection, I assumed it was pretty obvious. King's throne usurped by evil brother. King's ghost appears to wayward prince. Prince avenges father's death. Elton John sings Circle of Life. Finis.

It may just be that I'm one of those annoying guys who looks for the Shakespearean/Biblical references in everything. As Alan Rickman drolly notes in Die Hard, 'Benefits of a classical education...'

-Tom

No Tom, the Lion King/Hamlet thing wasn't just you, and was even a marketing point back when the film first came out. The various voice actors were all gooey that they could "almost" do a Shakespearian role while working for the Mouse.

"It may just be that I'm one of those annoying guys who looks for the Shakespearean/Biblical references in everything."

Yep, you are. And so is my wife.

Frickin' literates.

It probably has more to do with you guys wanting that edjamacation to have actually been worth something, so you torture the rest of us by dropping William and Old Testament references with abundance.

"My point about Iron Giant was that Bub was silly to deny it had appeal to kids."

Sort of like Tom was silly in claiming Final Fantasy had no "talk show support"?

Still Chick goes on to note that his definition of kids is 1-18, yet he also notes the film is PG, which implies, to me, teens. Given that my definition of a kids film is under 10. Tomato - Tomahto, I guess I'm just a big silly.

"And I don't care how many cousins he has."

And I don't care how many siblings Tom has... touche!

"Interesting that he notes marketing didn't work on his cousins, but otherwise, it worked fine because he's "seen plenty of commercials"."

I only mentioned that because I felt the Iron Giant release wasn't botched "entirely" by it's marketing campaign as had been noted previously. Animation aimed at a PG audience is always a hard sell, regardless of how well it's marketed.

Still, this opinion WAS formed well before Tom clued me in on the the "legendary"-ness of the "spilled ink" concerning the subject. Somehow I'm still not sure it was entirely the fault of poor marketing. The DVD was a huge success (I'm heard - but I can't remember where).

A film harmed by poor marketing to me was Waiting For Guffman. I never saw an ad for it, never. By comparison I was INDUNDATED with Iron Giant ads.

Still, I'm now convinced that marketing did a bad job with Iron Giant, especially if they pulled ads soon after release and didn't aggressively pursue the target demographic (kids who like robots and are related to Tom Chick and Andrew Bub).

Ok...
I have this hankering to rent that DVD again.

-Andrew

Bub,

What are you talking about? I would reply to your message, but you're not making much sense. I expect your next post will just be something along the lines of how your dad can whup my dad.

Point 1: WB fumbled the marketing for Iron Giant

Point 2: Iron Giant has an appeal to kids of the appropriate age

Point 3: Final Fantasy was marketed based on the name recognition of the games, not the box office draw potential of the actors

If you'd care to dispute any of those points, feel free. Otherwise, I'll leave you to your shadow tit-for-tatting.

-Tom

"Point 1: WB fumbled the marketing for Iron Giant"

Yes, I conceded that already.

"Point 2: Iron Giant has an appeal to kids of the appropriate age"

Yes, but that age group has: "demonstrated it isn't interested in PG animated movies." According to Entertainment Weekly. My point being it was a movie that probably wouldn't have done well even if it had been marketed better. But you've proven it wasn't marketed well. I really hadn't heard that before this thread.

"Point 3: Final Fantasy was marketed based on the name recognition of the games, not the box office draw potential of the actors:"

Right, I'll dispute this though. None of the marketing mentions the games. Anyway, I only brought it up because you said FF would have done better had the stars appeared on Talk Shows. I pointed out that they did appear on talk shows.

"I'll leave you to your shadow tit-for-tatting."

That's just precious. ;>

-Andrew

>Shrek did well because it looked cute enough for kids, yet twisted enough for adults.

I don't think that's it at all. I think Shrek did well because they promoted the hell out of Eddie Murphy, Mike Meyers, and Cameron Diaz.

>As for the Lion King/Hamlet connection, I assumed it was pretty obvious. King's throne usurped by evil brother. King's ghost appears to wayward prince. Prince avenges father's death. Elton John sings Circle of Life. Finis.

Well, I guess that's Hamlet, except for the evil slut mother screwing the uncle, and the prince contemplating suicide, and falling in love with a crazy girl, and talking to gravediggers, and the poisoning of drinks and weapons at the end which gets the prince, queen, king, and best friend all killed inside of two minutes.

But yeah, other than that, yeah, it's Hamlet. ;)

Are Timone and Poomba supposed to be Rozenkrantz and Gildenstern? (I'm sure I spelled all those names wrong)

"I don't think that's it at all. I think Shrek did well because they promoted the hell out of Eddie Murphy, Mike Meyers, and Cameron Diaz."

I think that's a big factor Jason... for the opening weekend. But positive word of mouth did a lot more for Shrek than star power. Also, I think Shrek would have done well with nobody voice talent. Not as well as it did (has done), maybe, but very well for an animated film.

-Andrew

Speaking of marketing, how about that trailer for Ice Age--was that the title?--before Jurassic Park III. That's the most fun I've had watching a preview in years.

Combine that and the MovieTickets.com
"LEAVE HIM!" commercial and you've got an evening's worth of entertainment.

Amanpour