(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpolarexpressmovie.warnerbros.com%2Fimages%2Fposter.jpg&hash=a0f8481391d74f3ab7602d70dfe37eccc4dd37a4)
Teaser Trailer here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/the_polar_express/)
Trailer here. (http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/polarexpress/teaser2/teaser_hi/teaser2_hi_a.mov)
Release Date: November 19th, 2004 (wide)
Cast: Tom Hanks (The Conductor), Chris Coppola (Toothless), Eddie Deezen (Know it All), Ed Gale (Elf Lieutenant), Nona Gaye (Holly), Josh Hutcherson (Hero Boy), Michael Jeter (Smokey and Steamer), Hayden McFarland (Lonely Boy, Billy), Connor Matheus (Toothless), Jimmy "Jax" Pinchak (Know-it-All), Julene Renee, Peter Scolari (Lonely Boy), Chantel Valdivieso (Holly)
Director: Robert Zemeckis (Forrest Gump, Cast Away, Contact, Back to the Future, What Lies Beneath)
Screenwriter: Malia Scotch Marmo (Once Around; cowriter of Hook); rewrite by William Broyles (Cast Away; cowriter of Apollo 13, Planet of the Apes, Entrapment and Unfaithful)
Based Upon: The children's book of the same title by Chris Van Allsburg, who also authored the book that inspired Jumanji.
Premise: Believing in Santa Claus isn't easy when all of your friends and family insist he's just make-believe. A boy's faith is rewarded one Christmas Eve when he's awakened by a steam train that pulls up in front of his house and takes him and other children to the North Pole to meet Santa. (Tom Hanks plays the train's conductor).
Hmmm...doesn't look that interesting to me
I don't like the way this looks one bit. You see things in the trailer that you recognize from the book...but they're barely recognizable behind all the pomp and nonsense.
But you know me, I'll see it anyway.
wow, the teaser had me alot more excited for it than this fuckin thing
Anyone catch the Back to the Future III reference?
directed by robert zemeckis??
"I've wanted to do that all my life" -- Ringing the bell in the locomotive.
I think it's kinda funny that Tom Hanks can't help but sounding like Tom Hanks, so all those magical adult characters just end up sounding like Tom Hanks with a high voice or low voice, etc. etc.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brown.edu%2FStudents%2FWith_One_Voice%2Fpictures%2F9697%2Fsleeping.JPG&hash=e69d138d0840b9da9817b76ac2fd56b211fe1d41)
:lol:
Even if it's just his voice, I am overwhelmed with joy at the prospect of Eddie Deezen being in a motion picture, let alone a movie with Tom Hanks!
This makes up for Deezen not being cast as Pvt. Ryan.
Perhaps my favorite children's book ever... I don't know how I feel about this. :?
Quote from: ThrindlePerhaps my favorite children's book ever... I don't know how I feel about this. :?
it's bad..?
Quote from: pacolisit's bad.
Quote from: ThrindlePerhaps my favorite children's book ever
really? where does "where the wild things are" go on your list?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegodforce.com%2Fart%2Frandom%2Fimages%2Fmz_hulk.jpg&hash=b7952ecbb5913700c06475a30b9695c725a89346)
I recall the illustrates being just a little too hardcore for mini-Thrindle.
Oh shit, I thought where the wild things are was the polar express.
no, you're thinking of the sequel, "The Polar Express 2: Derailed!"
Third Trailer here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/the_polar_express/trailer/)
Zemeckis Defends POLAR EXPRESS
While a media obsessed with the business of show business tallies up the ominous totals for Robert Zemeckis’ new holiday offering, the filmmaker prefers to focus on the script.
The Wall Street Journal, Premiere Magazine, the Los Angeles Times and countless entertaiment magazines have all simultaneously addressed what they perceive to be the main issues for this holiday season's other animated offering. Namely, that The Polar Express - a CGI-animated movie arriving in theaters at a time when audiences are suspicious of movies with too much CGI - cost $170 million to produce. That it's costing at least another $100 million for prints and promotion. And that it’s an animated holiday movie coming to theaters less than a week after Pixar's latest, The Incredibles, opens on November 5th.
“Ultimately, at the end of the day, what those newspaper and magazine articles seem to leave out is [the] screenplay,” argues Robert Zemeckis, who wrote, produced and directed The Polar Express based on the popular Chris Van Allsburg novel of the same name. “They talk about it like it’s some manufactured hardware product rather than [a film]. I think that everybody’s who’s involved with the movie, from the studio to the creative team and everybody in the marketing of the movie, obviously they didn’t say ‘Make the movie’ until they read the screenplay.”
“We did everything really, really responsibly,” continues the filmmaker, speaking at a New York City press conference on behalf of Warner Bros.’ Nov. 10 release. “We did a test of our system that was a minute and a half long. Everyone at the studio looked at it and said, ‘Man, this really works.’”
Zemeckis adds that one of the hidden benefits of doing a performance capture movie is that you can decide after spending only 20 percent of the budget whether or not it’s worth making the remaining 80. “When you make a live-action movie, you send the director and a bunch of actors off and they spend 80 percent of the money and come back and you ask, ‘OK, do we have a movie here or not?’” he explains. “So this was very controllable and very responsible. What we did was realize the script we said we [would]. So there were no problems.”
The Polar Express tells the tale of Hero Boy (Tom Hanks), who’s at that stage in life where he’s losing his belief in the existence of Santa Claus. On Christmas Eve, however, a giant steam engine pulls up in front of his house, and its conductor (Hanks again), invites him on board for a ride to the North Pole. Hero Boy initially begs off, but then relents, joining several other children who, like Hero Boy, need to regain their holiday spirit.
From there, it’s a high speed, music- and adventure-filled ride to the North Pole, followed by more exploits in Santa’s realm and a life-altering encounter with the big, bearded guy himself. Hanks also voices Santa, not to mention Hero Boy’s Father and a Hobo who hangs out atop the train.
In order to pull off some of the cinematic magic, Zemeckis filmed his voice cast - Hanks, Nona Gaye, Peter Scolari, Eddie Deezen and the late Michael Jeter – much like Peter Jackson filmed Andy Serkis for the Lord of the Rings trilogy, putting them in blue suits and covering them with sensors, then sticking them in front of blue screens and shooting them in the motion-capture process. Live performances in hand, Zemeckis and his team of animators then digitally erased the actors and created the characters, some of which resemble those who played them; the Conductor, for example, is clearly in Hanks’ image.
Zemeckis notes that not too much ground needed to be broken for The Polar Express. Rather, it was more a matter of tweaking the existing technology and pushing it to its extremes. “Well, we had to perfect the system and we had to figure out what the limitations of it were, which aren’t very many,” he says. “And I guess the thing we had to do was figure out how you take a traditional 2D movie and imagine, like in a lavish set, like the North Pole, for example, and then grid it down into 10 x 10 chunks of volume and make the movie in 10 x 10 pieces at a time.”
“But once we had that laid out, that really went like clockwork,” he continues. “We figured out a system that, if we were doing a scene in this ballroom for example, what we would do is have the crew come in, measure everything and break it up into 10 x 10 squares. And if I had an actor who had to walk from this end to that end, you’d just do it in these increments. But now, in the current performance capture movie that’s being done, the volume is 20 x 30. So it’s getting bigger and bigger.”
Zemeckis knows better than most about technical challenges. Everyone remembers that he directed Forrest Gump, but it somehow manages to escape many people’s memory that he directed the revolutionary live-action/animation hybrid Who Framed Roger Rabbit? But the director points out that The Polar Express and Roger Rabbit were two vastly different experiences.
“Roger Rabbit was an insane endeavor,” Zemeckis says. “That was probably the hardest movie I ever made. This, in comparison, was an absolute dream. Roger Rabbit had a team of animators that had to be directed for two years after we finished doing a live action film noir movie and I walked away from every setup hoping that it was right and it couldn’t be changed.”
“Decisions had to be made before you even saw the rabbit’s performance, which took like a year maybe to do a minute’s worth of his performance, that sort of thing.”
By contrast, Zemeckis was able to split The Polar Express into two distinct phases, working first exclusively with the cast on their individual performances. “When we were done with that, in the comfort of an office, you did the cinema part. And it was just great. You didn’t have to worry about the elements, the rain, whether the trucks were going to get stuck in the mud, whether the generator’s going to run out of gas, any of that stuff. It was wonderful.”
Back in 1988, Roger Rabbit charmed and elicited chuckles from both kids and adults alike. If Warner Bros. hopes to recoup its sizable investment on The Polar Express, kids and adults will have to embrace the film’s heart, playfulness and sense of adventure. However, Zemeckis – despite the fact that The Polar Express will roll into theaters with a G-rating from the MPAA -- insists that he never set out to make a kiddie movie.
“I have a very simple philosophy about movies and kids, and that is, when I was a kid I never wanted to see a movie that was made for kids,” he explains. “I only wanted to see a movie that was made for adults.”
“I believe that all the great kid movies that have been made, like the ones Walt Disney was making, they were all made for adults,” he continues. “My approach was to make this movie for adults because kids get everything. I think one of the things that they resent is when they're being talked down to.”
So once again, when making The Polar Express, Zemeckis steered completely clear of the well-worn tracks of a kids’ movie. “I just made the movie that I would enjoy and that other people would enjoy. Obviously, you have certain boundaries because you don't want kids offended or disturbed by the movie.”
“But I wouldn't even know how to begin making a movie that a kid would kind of understand,” he concludes. “So I just did it and hoped that the kids would enjoy it.”
I saw this this morning in IMAX 3D. It's not on the level of, say, The Grinch, but it's still all too obviously and laboriously stretched out to fill the 90 minute running time, and all the excessive developments just get tedious. And the Christmas Spirit message is very heavy handed. There are some stunning individual action sequences, but this is a story that didn't need action sequences at all -- the gorgeous simplicity of the book has been ruined.
Also, the North Pole looks like some sort of corporate nightmare universe...it's strikingly off-putting. And the elves are very...um...odd.
The animation is pretty -- the characters are a bit wooden, some more than others, but overall it works. However, I don't know if it would have looked as good in 2D, so I strongly recommend seeking it out on an IMAX screen if you're going to see it. This is the first narrative film I've ever seen this way, and it was pretty impressive. I'm excited about James Cameron's eventual 3D sci-fi film.
I wish this had been a 30 minute short. Then it would have been very easy to recommend.
170 million to produce and another 100 for prints and to promote it?!?!?!?! jesus christ i had no idea these animated shits were that much.
Isn't this two Tom Hanks bombs in a row?? :shock:
Quote from: CinephileIsn't this two Tom Hanks bombs in a row?? :shock:
"The Terminal," while not the huge box office numbers Spielberg's films make, was not a 'bomb'.
Quote from: MacGuffinQuote from: CinephileIsn't this two Tom Hanks bombs in a row?? :shock:
"The Terminal," while not the huge box office numbers Spielberg's films make, was not a 'bomb'.
I was basing that call on the track record of Tom Hanks. I even forgot to include the Ladykillers so that's three in a row. The Terminal made double the money than that but it was also in about twice as many theatres and twice as much money put into the production and marketing.
So I would call those both Tom Hanks box office bombs.
No because we're always talking about domestic BO. I'm talking about his track record as an American actor starring in American movies making money in America.
I don't see how we're even arguing this. In the past 10 years, all of his films have exceeded over $100 million domestically (I'm excluding That Thing You Do!, in case you wanna pull a Bush-like "you forgot Poland!" thing). Ladykillers made under $40 million. And we all know it had a ton of marketing, same with The Terminal which made under $80 million.
Again, why are you arguing with me about this? You don't think Tom Hanks would call those unsuccessful? Fuck, I wasn't trying to compare the guy to Ben Affleck or anything.
EDIT: Oh, you deleted your post. Figures.
Quote from: GhostboyAlso, the North Pole looks like some sort of corporate nightmare universe...it's strikingly off-putting.
I always thought it looked like those Coke commercials with the polar bears that looked like mongoloids
Quote from: CinephileNo because we're always talking about domestic BO. I'm talking about his track record as an American actor starring in American movies making money in America.
I don't see how we're even arguing this. In the past 10 years, all of his films have exceeded over $100 million domestically (I'm excluding That Thing You Do!, in case you wanna pull a Bush-like "you forgot Poland!" thing). Ladykillers made under $40 million. And we all know it had a ton of marketing, same with The Terminal which made under $80 million.
Again, why are you arguing with me about this? You don't think Tom Hanks would call those unsuccessful? Fuck, I wasn't trying to compare the guy to Ben Affleck or anything.
EDIT: Oh, you deleted your post. Figures.
ahh, the mystery reply.. the paradoxical victim and victor of self-deletion.
How the F can this cost 170 million dollars? That's just insane. Did they pay Tom Hanks 20 million for each role he played or what?
damn zemeckis and how he always seems to disappoint me in some way
nobody see this till after thanksgiving. that is all.
MINOR SPOILERSQuote from: Ghostboythe Christmas Spirit message is very heavy handed.
I completely agree. Tom Hanks was obnoxious, the music was obnoxious, the action/suspense cliches were obnoxious, but in the end, the Christmas Spirit Message is what really made me turn against this movie.
Quote from: Ghostboythe North Pole looks like some sort of corporate nightmare universe...it's strikingly off-putting.
I know... that was really creepy. Especially the rainbow-colored polution pouring out of smokestacks. And I was imagining the elves slaving away sweat-shop style. I also thought it was creepy when Santa dramatically whipped the raindeer.
And as a witness of the Northern Lights, let me put this myth to rest... they are not multi-colored.
how did you expect to feel the christmas spirit in mid-november?
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanAnd as a witness of the Northern Lights, let me put this myth to rest... they are not multi-colored.
Haha. Sorry man, but for someone who sees it pretty much every day this time of year, that's a funny quote.
Quote from: themodernage02how did you expect to feel the christmas spirit in mid-november?
Maybe the question is... how did this movie expect me to?
But really, what is this elusive "Christmas spirit" and why are we slaves to this season of prescribed emotions? Is it family and togetherness? Generosity and being thankful? Color and celebration? Why must these sentiments be etched into a calendar?
Maybe I have a problem with movies in general that try to capitalize on the "Christmas spirit." It's a ready-made atmosphere just sitting there prepared to be exploited by lazy movies (I guess they needed it though, because Tom Hanks is like the enemy of atmosphere in this movie). People say that Christmas and Santa and everything provoke the imagination and inspire people, but Christmas is the enemy of imagination. If the annual sameness of Christmas celebrations doesn't prove it, the yearly sludge of Christmas movies surely does. For God's sake, if Chris Columbus does it, nobody else should.
And that's really what this movie was, the tireless exploitation of two big boring cliches. The Christmas spirit and suspenseful train action.
OH MY GOD IT'S CHRISTMAS AND WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE
And another thing... I'm sick of hearing that LOTR pioneered this technology. It was Final Fantasy.
ACTUALLY, just to indulge my CG-dork side, it was around way before either of those, stretching all the way back to the Young Sherlock Holmes days (I won't get completely anal and reference the rotoscoping done for the early Disney pics like Snow White).
But LOTR pushed the boundaries of what it could do far more than Final Fantasy, which, if I remember correctly, didn't attempt to map facial expressions.
Quote from: GhostboyFinal Fantasy, which, if I remember correctly, didn't attempt to map facial expressions.
Are you sure? I thought it did. :(
Anyway, the beginning of this movie with the kid's eyes really reminded me of Final Fantasy.
edit: I think you're right (http://star-techcentral.com/game/story.asp?file=/2001/7/10/putting_the_reality_into_fantasy&sec=news&sid=195)...
The most difficult part of animating the face is of course, moving the lips so that they synchronise with the dialogue spoken by the voice talents.
To do this, the animators watch video of the actors reading their dialogue and then move the lips of the digital character to match.
However, this doesn't always work well.
"A lot of times the director wants the digital character to have a different facial expression when delivering a piece of dialogue than the way that the voice talent originally acted out that piece of dialogue. For example, in one scene, Ming-Na delivers her dialogue in a very serious manner and director Hironobu Sakaguchi wanted Aki to deliver the lines with a sarcastic expression on her face. In this case, Ming-Na's video reference becomes useless and I end up having to look at my own face in the mirror as a reference!" said Sato.[/list:u]
I'm backing this up a bit... a little off topic
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanMaybe I have a problem with movies in general that try to capitalize on the "Christmas spirit." It's a ready-made atmosphere just sitting there prepared to be exploited by lazy movies (I guess they needed it though, because Tom Hanks is like the enemy of atmosphere in this movie). People say that Christmas and Santa and everything provoke the imagination and inspire people, but Christmas is the enemy of imagination. If the annual sameness of Christmas celebrations doesn't prove it, the yearly sludge of Christmas movies surely does. For God's sake, if Chris Columbus does it, nobody else should.
Curiosity, what makes Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life" so different? (one of my all time favorite gooey, lovey, awesome movies).
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanOH MY GOD IT'S CHRISTMAS AND WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE
Yeah, but will my 3 year old niece enjoy the movie nonetheless?
Quote from: ThrindleCuriosity, what makes Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life" so different?
The difference is that I haven't seen that movie. So there you go.
Quote from: ThrindleYeah, but will my 3 year old niece enjoy the movie nonetheless?
If she enjoys violence and Christmas, then yes, definitely yes.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanIf she enjoys violence and Christmas, then yes, definitely yes.
Sweet, I'm so there.
Let's see here.
Which genius decided to release this movie while "The Incredibles" is out? I mean, if you spend $270 million dollars on a film, including marketing, why pick such an aweful time?
Quote from: MyxomatosisLet's see here.
Which genius decided to release this movie while "The Incredibles" is out? I mean, if you spend $270 million dollars on a film, including marketing, why pick such an aweful time?
Should they have waited until March?
Quote from: MyxomatosisWhich genius decided to release this movie while "The Incredibles" is out? I mean, if you spend $270 million dollars on a film, including marketing, why pick such an aweful time?
here's my guess. and its a couple reasons...
number one: the past several years, the christmas films released early in november have gone onto make tons of money. santa clause 2, nov 1st, elf nov 7th, the grinch nov 17th. all massive hits. this prompts studios to believe that A. people dont mind having christmas shoved down their throats as early as nov and B. releasing these so far in advance of christmas gives the opportunity for lots of repeat business. there are only so many xmas movies every year, so when parents are out shopping and maybe need to drop off the kids or something, they can go see polar express again!
number two: the studio got freaked out about the technology being used. the fact that the characters might come off as lifeless and the fact theyre spending a shitload of money to make and market this film. and its not a sure thing like the incredibles, because it is a gooeyer more old fashioned (i'm assuming), not hip and whatever type of movie. whether theres even a big enough audience that wants to see this type of movie is questionable? so they're really counting on that repeat business and giving people as much time as possible before christmas to get around to seeing it.
however, it is my belief that christmas should not and cannot be endlessly stretched forward until it touches halloween. a few years ago, when disney was releasing santa clause 2 (which was a massive, MASSIVE shit pile) on NOVEMBER FUCKING 1st, they decided to celebrate HALLOWEEN by running christmas specials all day/night. i love christmas, okay, i love it. but nobody fucks with my halloween. and that is downright horrible. christmas can be a wonderful time if people werent so antsy to get started with it in october.
Quote from: themodernage02nobody see this till after thanksgiving. that is all.
Are you on HSX too, mod?
Quote from: themodernage02christmas can be a wonderful time if people werent so antsy to get started with it in october.
But Christmas is an industry... it makes sense to milk it. I think "people" would be fine with 12 days of Christmas.
yes, i understand that. and i realize that its more the studios/corporations/businesses who are rolling out christmas early and not the publics demand for it. cant watch 30 minutes of tv without seeing half a dozen christmas themed commericials already! and try walking into a drugstore in late october without seeing the halloween stock dwindling and the christmas stuff sitting in a nearby isle. i realize theres not much we can do about it, except in cases like Surviving Christmas where the public spoke that october is too early for a christmas movie by not going to see it. thats the only voice we have about this stuff.
also, a third reason for its release is wanting its own space between oct's surviving and thanksgiving weekends sure-thing hit christmas with the kranks.
Quote from: themodernage02i realize theres not much we can do about it, except in cases like Surviving Christmas where the public spoke that october is too early for a christmas movie by not going to see it. thats the only voice we have about this stuff.
Do you think people are making that kind of statement with Polar Express now? Will it change things? Because really, I think people are seeing the movie for the technology, not for the Christmas.
And seriously, I didn't even know this movie was about Christmas. I may not have seen it.
Quote from: themodernage02i realize theres not much we can do about it, except in cases like Surviving Christmas where the public spoke that october is too early for a christmas movie by not going to see it.
Or it could be the public saying, 'We are so over Ben Affleck.' I think that's the bigger reason. The movie just didn't look good.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI think people are seeing the movie for the technology, not for the Christmas.
'Polar Express' Sets Record for Imax ReleaseTORONTO (Reuters) - Tom Hanks' holiday movie "The Polar Express" has set an opening weekend record for a Hollywood film released in Imax Corp.'s giant-screen format, the company's co-chief executive said on Monday.
Brad Wechsler said the film grossed $2.1 million over the weekend in 59 North American Imax theaters for a total of $3 million in receipts since Wednesday.
"We're extremely pleased in terms of its absolute performance in Imax. We've set a new weekend record for us ... we've had a ton of sold out shows and our advance sales to consumers have been great," Wechsler told Reuters.
In the battle of computer-animated cartoons, "The Polar Express" pulled in at a distant No. 2 at North American weekend box offices after "The Incredibles," according to studio estimates issued on Sunday.
"The Polar Express," which reportedly cost $270 million to make and market, opened with a modest $23.5 million for the weekend, distributor Warner Bros. Pictures said. Since its release on Wednesday, it has grossed $30.8 million.
But Wechsler said the movie has outperformed other Hollywood films released simultaneously in the Imax format and regular theaters, including the "Harry Potter" and "Matrix" sequels.
Shares of Mississauga, Ontario-based Imax, which is run largely from New York, were up 10 cents, or about 1 percent, at $7.15 on Nasdaq on a volume of more than 300,000. In Toronto, the stock rose 25 Canadian cents to C$8.65.
"Polar Express opened to impressive Imax box office and is likely to have legs in Imax, in our view. We believe the films' performance will make exhibitors and studios take more notice of Imax," Soleil Research Associates analyst Marla Backer said in a note to clients.
"We reiterate our 'buy' rating on Imax shares and expect them to respond positively to the 'Polar Express' data."
In recent years, Imax has made deals with Hollywood studios to release potential blockbusters in the Imax format at the same time they hit regular theaters. The strategy is designed to fuel its main business of leasing and servicing its big-screen movie theater systems.
Wechsler said the company has had "serious" talks with Hollywood studios about releasing four to six new movies in the large format. He would not disclose which titles, but said the upcoming "Star Wars" prequel and Peter Jackson's "King Kong" remake are the types of movies Imax hopes to release.
The firm has not disclosed its financial arrangement with "Polar Express" distributor Warner Bros., but said it ultimately benefits if the studio and theater chains make money.
"Obviously, we're delighted with the financial performance of 'Polar', and it should translate into the sale of more Imax systems and the growth of our network," he said.
"There is almost always a participation in the box office. It's a licensing transaction where we receive money up front, and then a minimum royalty, and then an overage depending on the performance of the theater."
Why is the $170-million 'Polar Express' getting derailed?
A huge budget, new technology and tough competition have the film on a precarious track.
Source: Los Angeles Times
Sometimes people invent cars no one wants to buy. Sometimes people dream up soda pop no one wants to drink. And sometimes filmmakers make movies with an exotic new technology that no one wants to see, like, ahem, "The Polar Express." A hugely expensive gamble that has landed with an Edsel-like thud at the box office, the $170-million Robert Zemeckis-directed film finds itself sandwiched between two other family movies, Pixar's wildly successful "The Incredibles" and "The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie," which is getting a big rollout from Paramount Pictures this coming weekend.
As is often the case in Hollywood, the body was barely cold when the postmortems come flooding in. Last Friday, when "Polar Express" had been open for all of about 45 hours, a rival studio executive assessed its chances of success: "It's a disaster." By Monday, everyone was on the phone with typical expressions of faux concern. "Oh, that's so horrible about 'Polar Express,' " one agent said. "Warners must have black crepe in all the windows," which is Hollywood-ese for, "Thank God I don't have a client in that movie."
If nothing else, "Polar Express" is a cautionary tale about how there are no sure things in Hollywood, even when a big star like Tom Hanks and a top director like Zemeckis are at the helm. Having bought the rights to the slender 29-page book years ago, Hanks teamed up with Zemeckis, who made "Forrest Gump" (1994) with the actor. The director has been one of Hollywood's leading exponents of special-effects wizardry, dating back to his magical marriage of live action and cartoon thrills in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" (1988).
What went wrong? First off, special effects don't come cheap — and neither did the "Express" talent. When Hanks and Zemeckis took "Polar Express" to Universal Pictures, where there was a deal with Castle Rock Entertainment, the film's producers, the studio was unenthusiastic about making a movie for which the two men would get not only $40 million in salary but 35% of the first-dollar gross — 20% to Hanks, 15% to Zemeckis. The studio was also nervous about making such an expensive film with performance capture, a largely untested new technology that uses real actors whose facial and body movements become the template for digitized characters.
At one point, Universal and Warners considered making the film together, but when the talent refused to cut their prices, Universal bowed out.
Warners eventually found a partner in Steve Bing, a real estate heir who is one of the many well-heeled outsiders who have been investing in movies in recent years, often to the detriment of their bank accounts (just ask Phil Anschutz, who lost untold millions bankrolling the flop "Around the World in 80 Days"). Bing put up about $85 million of his own money to co-finance the film, which barely made $30 million its first five days of release, far short of anyone's expectations.
Even worse, the technology takes the star out of the movie. He may play five parts, but there's no Tom Hanks in the film. Not only is his face gone, but the performance capture somehow leaches his trademark charm and everyday humanity off the screen as well. The technology also brings out the worst in Zemeckis. Earlier in his career, he made irresistibly airy, exuberant comedies, but his more recent films have been increasingly chilly and soulless, qualities that deaden "Polar Express" as much as its technology does.
Then the film's performance-capture technology turned out to be a bigger turnoff than Warners imagined. Kids who saw the film's TV spots had trouble identifying with the characters, who appear not only remote and zombie like, but oddly old-fashioned, as if they'd escaped from a Norman Rockwell etching. As Wall Street Journal critic Joe Morgenstern put it: "It's not just an epidemic of dead eyes, but deadened features that make the kids look bleak, sleep deprived or simply sad." When you're competing against the lively, cutting-edge technology of a Pixar film like "The Incredibles" or a film with the playful charm of "SpongeBob," sad and sleep deprived is a tough sell.
The biggest cause for second-guessing has come from Warners' decision to release the film five days after "The Incredibles," which is sort of like a guy taking a girl out on a date right after she's spent the night with George Clooney. Pixar is a tough act to follow.
On the other hand, what was Warners to do? If you have a Christmas movie, you can't wait until Christmas to release it, because after the holiday your business drops off a cliff. Warners could've waited until Thanksgiving weekend, but that would have given the film a shorter run and put it opposite another holiday film, "Christmas With the Kranks." Although it seems hard to believe, Warners was actually more concerned about coming out after "SpongeBob" than "The Incredibles," in part because the studio thought the Pixar film might underperform. Warners' thinking may have been influenced by the fact that "Incredibles" director Brad Bird's last film, "Iron Giant" (1999), was a flop for Warners, which perhaps made it easier for the studio to take a dim view of his new film.
Warners is putting a brave face on things, saying it's way too early to declare defeat, noting that exit polls have been strong for "Polar Express." Studio executives also point to "Elf," a New Line film that had a $31-million opening weekend last year, yet went on to make $173 million in domestic grosses. Alas, "Elf" cost about $140 million less than "Express" and got far better reviews. Warners discounts the high-profile bad reviews for "Express," saying that elite media publications like the New York Times and Entertainment Weekly (the Time-Warner-owned magazine that gave the film a C-plus) are out of touch with heartland moviegoers.
However, a quick search turned up negative reviews in such towns as Austin, Texas, and Charlotte, N.C. Writing in the Charlotte Observer, Lawrence Toppman said that while the film "would have made a superb half-hour TV special, Zemeckis has created a steroidal monster with a heart about one size too small."
What really seems like wishful thinking is Warners' belief that the film's box-office performance will somehow improve as the holidays grow near. This ignores the fact that studio tent-pole movies don't build an audience from word of mouth, the way independent films do. Warners doesn't grow its movies; it uses marketing to create an opening-weekend juggernaut, knowing the audience will drop off steeply immediately afterward when some other studio shells out $40 million to seduce moviegoers into seeing their blockbuster. Since the first "Harry Potter" film arrived in November 2001, Warners has released 10 Big Event movies. All 10 have dropped off at least 36% in their second weekend; seven of the 10 have dropped off at least 49%. Not one of them had as low an opening-three-day-weekend total as "Polar Express."
The overseas prospects for "Express" aren't especially encouraging, even though Warners' "The Last Samurai" (2003), which was prematurely labeled a flop by the media, ended up making a ton of money across the globe. Christmas movies don't travel so well. "Elf" made $173 million here, but only $46 million overseas. "Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas" (2000) made $260 million in the U.S., only $80 million abroad.
Is there a lesson to be learned here? Not really. No matter how poorly "Express" does, it will hardly be Warners' biggest flop, a distinction, at least recently, that belongs to "Looney Tunes," a would-be franchise financed entirely by the studio that showed up dead on arrival at almost the same time last year. Hanks may be in a slump, but if he survived "Joe vs. the Volcano," he'll surely survive this.
Bing may have ignored the oldest maxim in Hollywood — never spend your own money — but he has plenty more money to lose.
It could be argued that it's crazy to spend $170 million to make a movie, but you can always point to "Titanic" as proof that the most extravagant bet can sometimes pay off. "Polar Express" simply stands as yet another reminder that, no matter how much today's sprawling media giants try, they'll never be able to take the risk out of the movie business.
QuoteEven worse, the technology takes the star out of the movie. He may play five parts, but there's no Tom Hanks in the film. Not only is his face gone, but the performance capture somehow leaches his trademark charm and everyday humanity off the screen as well. The technology also brings out the worst in Zemeckis. Earlier in his career, he made irresistibly airy, exuberant comedies, but his more recent films have been increasingly chilly and soulless, qualities that deaden "Polar Express" as much as its technology does.
I noticed this from the clips I've seen as well.
I thought this movie was amazingly beautiful and probably Robert Zemeckis' best movie since Forrest Gump.
Quote from: Small Town LonerI thought this movie was amazingly beautiful and probably Robert Zemeckis' best movie since Forrest Gump.
i'm beginning to see why no one in ur town wants to socialize with u.
Quote from: Pubricki'm beginning to see why no one in ur town wants to socialize with u.
hahahaha
small town loner is the king of the one/two sentence(s) reviews
ha, very clever :wink:
But I do think this movie got way too much bad buzz.
i liked the message it sent about how much fun can ensue when kids accept rides from strange men with moustaches.
Can we now officially say that this is the most overbudgeted movie in history?
I think I can: Slow build fuels 'Polar'
By Nicole Sperling/Hollywood Reporter
While it would be an overstatement to call it a proverbial Christmas miracle, Warner Bros. Pictures' "The Polar Express" is confounding expectations. After a disappointing opening, it rebounded last weekend at the boxoffice and now is on track to perform significantly better than its naysayers originally predicted, becoming a rare example of a film whose future isn't determined by its opening weekend.
Director Robert Zemeckis' animated film, which debuted Wednesday, Nov. 10, pulled in a weak $23.3 million in its first weekend Nov. 12-14. Hollywood's instant judgment was that the $170 million spectacle was virtually dead on arrival. Executives at rival studios theorized that Warners, which bankrolled the high-tech adaptation of Chris Allsburg's popular children's story, might have to write down its $85 million production investment, in addition to the $125 million it is spending on worldwide marketing.
Some critics were equally harsh, arguing that the characters had a "dead-eyed" look and comparing it unfavorably to Pixar Animation Studios' "The Incredibles," which opened five days before "Polar" and ignited the boxoffice with a $70.4 million debut frame.
Amid all the criticism, Warners held firm with its faith in the film. Warner Bros. president Alan Horn went public with his belief in the movie as well as Zemeckis and its star Tom Hanks.
With "Polar's" release sandwiched between that of "The Incredibles" and Paramount Pictures' "The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie," the studio argued that the Christmas-themed film needed to open as early as possible in mid-November to build momentum before the holidays. Armed with an A+ from CinemaScore exit polls and strong screening reactions nationwide, the studio was convinced that the film would pick up steam.
Now that the dust has settled after the Thanksgiving holiday, "Polar's" fortunes are looking more hopeful. In its third weekend of release, the film rose 24%, taking in an additional $19.3 million. Its domestic cume now stands at $84.3 million. The film still pales in comparison to "The Incredibles," which has garnered $214 million after four weeks in release.
But with no more family-oriented pics entering the marketplace until Dec. 17 -- when Paramount's "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events" opens wide -- "Polar's" domestic gross, once predicted to rise to only $80 million, is now expected to grow to at least $115 million-$120 million.
"This may not be what everybody wanted, but Warners won't have to hang their heads in shame over this boxoffice," said one industry insider. "In the end, if they do $300 million worldwide and with DVD and everything else, the spin will be that this movie will have to be judged on a five- to seven-year curve, and I agree with that."
"Polar" producer and Castle Rock CEO Martin Shafer believes that the movie will eclipse initial predictions domestically.
"There wasn't panic at all," he said of the opening-weekend numbers. "We were distressed by a lot of the press coverage that presented the film in a way we didn't believe. ... Our belief is born out of our exit polling, which was along the lines of CinemaScore's and was as high as any movie Warners has had. We believed people would find it, and that's what is happening."
With many kids having already sampled "The Incredibles" -- in some cases with repeated visits -- parents are now likely to take their younger moviegoers to either "Polar" or "SpongeBob" as their next movie outing. And since "Polar" plays to seasonal Christmas themes, it's in a position to take full advantage of prevailing holiday cheer.
Warners recognized that a Christmas-themed movie may not have been what parents were looking for just two weeks after Halloween, when it opened. As a result, its initial launch campaign focussed more on a journey to the unknown rather than a visit to Santa in the North Pole. In fact, according to one Warners marketing executive, the pre-launch campaign featured only 20% of holiday content, while the campaign that launched the week of Thanksgiving was 50% holiday, and the one entering the marketplace this week will be 95% holiday content.
And while most marketing dollars are spent on films before they enter the marketplace, Warners planned a concentrated flow of media dollars throughout the first three weeks of the campaign from Nov. 10 through the Thanksgiving holiday.
"There was as much weight targeted toward families and kids the few days prior to Thanksgiving as there was going into the launch of the film," said the marketing executive, who declined to be identified. "We knew the film was holding and the audience was going to go, so we concentrated our buys throughout that period."
One major factor that has contributed to "Polar's" turnabout is its 3-D performance on Imax's screens. Playing on 61 screens, the film has grossed more than $11 million in three weeks of release. During the Thanksgiving holiday period, the Imax version generated $3.8 million, for a per-screen average of $62,700.
Imax filmed entertainment president Greg Foster attributed the movie's success to positive word-of-mouth, a broader-reaching audience and a carefully integrated marketing campaign. The 3-D version also seems to be connecting more with older audiences, who are as interested in the projection technology as the film itself.
"The movie is absolutely working heads and tails in Imax," Foster said. "The 3-D element is a really exciting thing. It's bringing in a different crowd -- not just moms and kids, but it's luring in more teenage and college crowds as well as cinephiles and opinion makers who are spreading the word to others about how great the movie is."
hmm.... a christmas movie playing well after thanksgiving? who knew!?? hollywood executives really didnt see this coming?
so i saw this today finally after a month of waiting. so, despite my girlfriend being a fan of van allsburgs work and my parents having read this story to my two siblings every year since they were little kids i've never read the book and dont know anything about the story. so, i went in knowing very little about it. i thought the first 5 or 10 minutes were perfect, everything until he gets on the train. after that, perhaps the movie has a few too many action sequences, (i cant imagine trying to translate those to the book! :wink: ), and loses its footing a little bit. but overall i think the movie was very good. even when it gets sidetracked with a bunch of visually stunning chases, the spirit of the piece comes back around at the end and i think it works. i would've loved this thing if i could've seen it when i was little. and considering the xmas films of recent years, i'd say this is probably the best in almost a decade. (almost) untouched by cynicism or awful hipness and tie-ins, (steven tylers HORRENDOUS 10 second elf cameo aside), i'm really glad the movie stayed away from those trappings. i thought some of the physical sequences were great though with the feather and the train engineers, just really well thought out stuff, but it was still a little too much by the final ride through town. when the movie got back to the story of the book and the simplicity of the bell, it got back on track and ended wonderfully i thought.
The choo-choo that grew legs
Slow-starting 'Polar Express' defied skeptics by finishing 2004 among the box office top 10.
Source: Los Angeles Times
As "The Polar Express" cruised into the top 10 movies of the year at the box office, executives at rival studios marveled at the computer-animated film's stamina and the way Warner Bros. handled the film.
"When this movie came out, with the opening weekend, the reviews, everybody thought it would just disappear," said Jeff Blake, vice chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment.
Bruce Snyder, president of distribution for 20th Century Fox, said: "This movie did not in any way look like it was going to hit $100 million, and it just keeps going. Tom Hanks, Bob Zemeckis, all those elements, and they worked. People liked it."
Within the industry, the odds against "Polar Express" succeeding seemed so long that one executive at a rival studio, who did not want to be identified, made a bet that the movie wouldn't get past $80 million. As of Sunday, the film had grossed an estimated $155.2 million, and Warner Bros. expects it to reach $170 million and possibly more.
"By the end of this week," said Dan Fellman, president of distribution for Warner Bros., "it could hit 160."
As of Thursday, "we just crossed the $26-million mark in the Imax theaters," which Fellman predicted "may bring another $5 [million], maybe $8 million, that gets you to $170 million." As far as its final domestic total, "I've certainly got my eye on that $180 [million]," he said. Not bad for a movie that in its all-important first weekend earned $23 million, "obviously not as high as we had hoped," Fellman said. Analysts, competitors and the media all predicted a very short run for the film.
"In this business, we focus all our attention on the first weekend," which commonly represents a third or fourth of the final take for a big studio event movie, Blake said. "If it doesn't live up to expectations, we tend to write it off and move on."
But a strange thing happened with "The Polar Express."
It did not follow the usual pattern of dropping 40% to 50% in its second weekend. Instead, figures posted on tracking firm Box-officemojo.com show that it declined about 33% in its second weekend, then business went up about 24% in the third, which was Thanksgiving weekend. It accomplished that without adding any theaters. The only other films to post increases that weekend had added screens.
In every other weekend after it opened except for its fourth, "Polar Express" posted the smallest decline in business of any of the top 10 movies. It has also taken in roughly $101 million so far in foreign markets, according to Warner Bros.
"We reached out in our group sales effort to schools, religious organizations and corporate groups," Fellman said. "The response was overwhelmingly from schools." At the current rate, revenue from foreign, home video, TV and other ancillary markets should mean the film — which cost an estimated $170 million to make, not including marketing — could possibly break even.
"In the end," Fox's Snyder said, "they made a movie that people love."