When the final film from Robert Zemeckis’s ImageMover Studios, Mars Needs Moms bombed in spectacular fashion this weekend there was much speculation in the comment section on the industry laden site Deadline Hollywood this might he a harbinger to come for the Steven Spielberg/Peter Jackson flick The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn which is scheduled to come out this December.
The theory being floated is that while motion capture films have excited filmmakers like Spielberg, Jackson and Zemeckis for years now, most of the films look horrible and audiences don’t want to watch them. These doomsayers believe that early motion capture films like The Polar Express got by on their curiosity factor but that the declining box-office results from subsequent motion capture films like Beowulf, Monster House and now Mars Needs Moms prove that audiences are voting with their feet regarding this format and the verdict is a negative one.
For those who haven’t seen the box-office results, Mars Needs Moms was an unmitigated disaster for Disney this weekend. The film had a production budget of $150 million, is estimated to have pulled in $6.8 million dollars on slightly over 3,000 locations. That’s $2,100 a screen. And it was released in 3D!!
To get an idea how bad the weekend’s totals actually were for Mars I did a little math dividing this, subtracting that and multiplying here and there. When you look at the estimated box-office, the average movie ticket prices for a 3D movie (which is the only way Mars Needs Moms was shown) and the number of theaters (3,117) I come up with approximately 14 people on hand at each viewing this weekend. 14 people a screening. On opening weekend. Ouch!
So what does all of this have to do with the Tintin? Well, have you seen the early images? All you have to do is replace Seth Green with Jamie Bell. Same dead eyes. Same creepy motion capture look. The only real addition is a kind of retro Astro Boy type hairdo that Tintin has on his head.
A lot of people are now saying Universal was being smart when they pulled out of the film back in 2008. The Uni argument was that the costs of the film were too high (the current projections are $200 million plus), the box-office totals of similar motion capture films were too low and there was no way the movie could make any money despite the involvement of Spielberg and Jackson. Because the film will still have that creepy motion capture look that audiences are shying away from.
Others are now taking it a step further after the complete flameout of Mars Needs Moms this weekend. They argue some parents who insisted on taking their kids to The Polar Express and other motion capture films over the years have received firm and committed push back from their own children. That might be one of the biggest indictments of all against motion capture films.
Kids don’t really care about Steven Spielberg or Peter Jackson. Nor do they give a darn about the $200 million copies of Herges’ books that have been sold over the last century. If they’re creeped out by what they see on the screen when the trailers come out, they’re gonna tell the parents they don’t want to go and see the film. When it comes to family films it is the kids who control the family purse strings.
I have to say that’s a pretty compelling argument. I know how kids react to these films because my friends are all parents now. They’re the people you see out in front of the theater with gaggle of youngsters buying tickets to Alvin and the Chipmunks or Harry Potter. Then coming back the following week with a different pack of tween girls to see Twilight. They’re among the few adult tickets I accounted for in those Mars Needs Moms estimates above.
One of my favorite stories of all time involved a good friend of mine going to see The Polar Express with his son and daughter. It was the first motion capture film they had ever seen and the kids were already squirrelly halfway through. That’s when the elf played by Steven Tyler appeared on screen. When it happened his son stood up in the crowded theater and announced loudly, “That’s it! We’re out of here.” Sister and brother exited the theater. My friend was forced to follow their lead.
Those arguing that Spielberg and Jackson will be successful like to point to the phenomenal success of Avatar and to a lesser extent the popularity of the character Gollum in Jackson’s Lord of the Rings films. But neither Gollum nor the Navi are actual humans. That’s where the Uncanny valley theory comes in. The reason motion capture looks so creepy is because it’s more lifelike than normal animation, but there’s something a bit off that causes an alarming distraction. If it were more caricature-ish then people wouldn’t be so creeped out, and my friend’s kids wouldn’t want to flee the theater.
So here’s the question for the audience. Who’s right about the Tintin movies?
Are Paramount and Sony flushing their money down the toilet? Is there no way The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn will be able to make back the money it will have to make to break even because children will hate the look of the motion capture animation?
Or will it succeed simply because of the talents of Spielberg, Jackson, Edgar Wright and Stephen Moffet? That Jamie Bell isn’t nearly as scary when motion captured as Steven Tyler and Seth Green.
And a bonus question. If The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn does indeed tank as some have suggested, what will Paramount do with the second Tintin film that is already in production?
