Talk:Treasure Planet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Treasure Planet article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale. Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Disney Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Disney on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

The 3D vs 2D argument is so superficial. Does the fact that Pixar's films actually had a better story count for anything?67.150.209.17 05:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. That list is ludicrous, and reads like excuses being made by a defensive studio exec. I've added some of the counterarguments floating around and introduced the idea that people simply didn't like the movie. --Misterwindupbird 09:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Pixar may have better story, but Treasure Planet's story wasn't a horrible, and in my opinion better then a few of it's previous animated films. I liked the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.158.71 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 21 September 2005

I think the argument is not that the film was awful, simply underwhelming, especially compared to the very high quality of Pixar's films and (some of) Disney's earlier stuff. It didn't get very many bad reviews, for instance, but most of the good ones were pretty marginal in their praise. --Misterwindupbird 18:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The film was merely released at the wrong time as fantasy was in and classic stories were out, it would probably do better today after the astonishing Corpse Bride, it is entirely different —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.8 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 November 2005

If you have sourced information about that (a quote or interview, even), it would be really useful. The whole "reasons for flop" section is mostly unsourced opinions and needs serious work. Though personally I have a major problem with the "fantasy is not hot" argument -- by that logic pretty much no Disney movie should have succeeded. It's not like we were in the midst of a talking-animals-in-Africa fad when The Lion King hit the market, and Hans Christian Anderson wasn't exactly sweeping the nation when The Little Mermaid came out. Frankly, in my opinion, it was a desperate and transparent attempt by a past-its-prime company to cash in on "cool" computer animation, and that's why it flopped. 24.81.13.220 19:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I took out the stuff about audiences not liking it (no source), and the metacritic reference, since shark tale, madagascar, and chicken little all got lower scores but did well. Pfalstad 19:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Ugh! 1.1 Video Games 2 Loss? 3 Credits? 4 Recent edits

[edit] Ugh!

I took the liberty to remove this entire section until someone wants to make it sound non-illiterate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.148.19 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 17 June 2006

Indeed my good sir! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.85.40 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 9 July 2007

[edit] Video Games

Different Treasure Planet games were released upon different video game consoles, and for PC Windows. There were three Treasure Planet games for the PC, Etherium Rescue, (others unknown for now). When all three were loaded onto the computer (or installed) a fourth game, Ship Shape, became available. McDonalds once gave away a Treasure Planet character figurine, or any of three previews of the games mentioned above with the order of a Mighty (Big?) Kids Meal. It has ended now. There was also another PC, Battle at Pyrceron (mispelled) which proved to be quite successful, as it got numerous good reviews. Treasure Planet was also released on the Playstation, Playstation 2 and the Gameboy Advance, each having different characteristics. The Playstation version was quite different from the Playstation 2 version, and the gameboy advance version had some added story elements probably to add more gameplay levels. The 2 Playstation games weren't very successful, but the companies gave a good effort

More merchandise information soon, we are sorry for the errors; and it seems as if some sections have been unfortunetly deleted.

[edit] Loss?

The article claims that TP resulted in a loss of about 125 million. Can this be explained a little better? If the film grossed 109 million but cost about 180 million (40 for advertising and 140 for production costs), then isn't that losing about 70 million? Also, does the gross include DVD sales and merchandise? From the numbers I can see how the studio lost quite a bit of money but losing 125 million? This really needs to be explained better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.221.96.202 (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Treasure Planet didn't lose 125 million dollars. The person who wrote it obviously didn't properly source it. The Biggest box office Bomb was Alexander, which loss 124 million. 70.145.110.92 14:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Credits?

Do we reaaaaallly need the credits here? I haven't seen them in any other Wikipedia articles. Should that section be deleated? ...oh, i changed "arternate" to "alternate" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.126.40 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 2 August 2007

Yes, cast and crew information should be included in the article, though there is a preference for having it written in prose format. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines for details. -- SilentAria ^talk 08:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Please take the time to actually read what the most recent revision of the article says; it merely states that "some critics have positive reactions to the film", and contains the quotes from those critics. It no longer contains general statements like the previous one about the film receiving praise for its visuals or anything like that. There's nothing imbalanced about it, it doesn't falsify anything, it isn't overtly biased toward one particular view on the film. Perhaps we can discuss this further and come to a compromise through the talk page before making any more changes so as to avoid winding up having an edit war. Also, please do not move the Reception section up anymore, as the article's structure is based on the article template provided by WP:FILM, which indicates that the Reception section should be placed below the cast/crew information section. --SilentAria ^talk 14:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I'm all about a compromise. I will allow the "some critics have positive reactions to the film" but I'm removing the 'weasel words' that say "despite poor performance" since the critic reaction has NOTHING to do with the box office financials of the film. It's apples and oranges and the two could not be any different. Unless you have proof that the critical reaction was so strong that it somehow made up for the fact that this movie was a flop, then this argument has no teeth. This film is not some cult hit like "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" or "Office Space." And just because two critics think the film is worth a second viewing does NOT mean that this film somehow redeemed itself. The movie was a huge disaster for Disney and it has not become some sleeper classic. And without some proof, your argument is pure speculation and wishful thinking at best. So when you mention the positive critic consensus as a way of distracting the reader from the reality that the film did poorly, then you are engaging in a form of media 'spinning.' That violates basic rules of logic and ethical journalism.

Again, included the first part of the sentence is a form of weasel words.

And here is the policy against that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

''A weasel word is used to avoid making a straightforward statement. Weasel words are also used to deceive, distract, or manipulate an audience. For example, the statement “up to 50% off on all our products” is attractive because it displays the highest decrease in price one may find at a certain store; however, it doesn't specify how many products are even on sale. In this example, the statement saying "Despite its overall negative reception, some critics had positive reactions to the film." is attractive because it displays the positive influence of the film; however, it doesn't change the fact that the film was a financial disaster which means it has no place in a statement about it.

So, I will keep the formatting the same (I won't change the placement of the reception part.) I will also allow the quotations to be removed from box office bomb since it's not necessary. But I will remove/reword the weasel words you are using to intentionally place a positive spin on the article. I know you like this movie but please leave your emotions out of this. This isn't a fan page, it journalism project for the public at large.

Thanx. 67.176.78.73 (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)