CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Is anyone else really excited to see it? I probably won't even see it until it hits second run theaters. But it sounds exciting. I think it reminds me of a story I wrote recently, and I want to see if it's actually similar. Because I would love to see my story as a movie!

My story was about children in a virtual world/game. I'm not sure that this will be similar at all, but I want to see it and find out. This is a surprise because usually I think, "Let's wait for the video."

Meh...I'm sorry, but 3-D movies are so very, very 50's. And last time I checked the current popular trends, doing things from the 50's isn't among them. So I'm going to pass on this one.

I LOVE THE 50s!!!!!!!

Um, but that's not why I want to see the movie.

You don't have to see it.

Bah. This director has been not-so-good since the first Spy Kids. The second one was pretty bad, but the third is on my list of Worst Movies Ever Made. So...I will not be seeing this movie.

I actually didnt think it looked too promising. To put it quite frankly I thought that it looked like a pathetic attempt to ride on the sucess of spy kids, and that any merit it had would be coverd up by inferior graphics. But all I am basing this on is a 2 minute preview, so I could be completely off the mark.

When I first saw the ad for this movie, I thought it was a joke. Truly. I don't want to spend money on it when there are so many cool movies out there! Like Kingdom of Heaven and Star wars. Not even watched those yet.
The idea of a virtual world I find cool, but what kinda person thinks up such random characters to put together like Shark Boy and Lava Girl? It seems like the man was desperate or something.

I thought it looked interesting - kind of cute. I'm thinking the vast majority of CAA is out of the target audience, though, so I'm not surprised by the general mood of the responses. Let us know what you thought of it after you see it.

Ok. That might be a while, though.

I like kiddy stuff sometimes, and it looks like it could be a fun romp.

But the thing I'll actually judge it on is whether the characters are done well. (Developed well, thought through, etc.) Not the special effects.

I know the chance of that is probably small, but I go into everything hoping there will be that character development. In the end, action may make me watch, but character development will keep me interested.

Rob Rod is insane.

First he makes one of the best trilogies; El Mariachi/Desperado/Once Upon A Time In Mexico.
Then the Spy Kids trilogy. O_O
Next he makes the awesome Sin City with Frank Miller & Quentin Tarantino.
And now this.

Why?

Maybe Sam Raimy will make Hello Kitty next.

Impact Alberto wrote:Maybe Sam Raimy will make Hello Kitty next.

You know, I would go see that solely for the purpose of seeing where Bruce Campbell would cameo.

[quote="Impact Alberto"]Rob Rod is insane.

First he makes one of the best trilogies]

Here's a reason: Money.

Family movies regularly make more money than any other genre, not just in general but per movie. (At least that's what I've read.) It makes sense to create movies parents will take their kids to. Especially if he thinks he can do a better job than other people.

Despite what you may think, the first Spy Kids movie was actually pretty good, especially for its target audience. (The others were rather forgettable and sequel-y.)

Another reason might be (and I'm just throwing this out there), it's possibel that he now has children in his life, whether his own or relatives. (I don't know anything about him, so I'm just guessing here.) But that is often a reason why people venture into children's genres. (At least in the case of several authors I can think of.) He may have wanted to make some movies he thought children he knew would enjoy.

kaemmerite wrote:You know, I would go see that solely for the purpose of seeing where Bruce Campbell would cameo.

THAT WOULD BE AWESOME!

Alice wrote:Family movies regularly make more money than any other genre, not just in general but per movie. (At least that's what I've read.)

I think you read wrong. I just looked up the All-Time USA Box Office records, and here's the top ten. Tell me which of these you consider "Family" movies:

1. Titanic (1997)
2. Star Wars (1977)
3. Shrek 2 (2004)
4. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
5. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
6. Spider-Man (2002)
7. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
8. Spider-Man 2 (2004)
9. The Passion of the Christ (2004)
10. Jurassic Park (1993)

Shrek 2, yes, family movie. Same with E.T. However, all of the other movies contain language, violence, or nudity, that to me robs them of their "family" status.

So obviously, money is not the reason family movies get made, because family movies, though there are a few that do reasonably well, overall just don't make as much money as other films.

According to the site, though (imdb.com) the figures are not adjusted for inflation...but somehow I doubt that adjusting for inflation would put more family films at the top of the list.

Saying that 3D movies are so 50s is sterotypical since each 3D movie is different. It`s more 80s than 50s.

On the scale of one to ten, each Spy Kids:

Spy kids: 6
Spy Kids 2: 4
Spykids 3: 7

Now for creativity of each title.

Spykids: 8
Spykids 2: 3
Spykids 3: 4

My opinion, the 3rd was the best even though they copied Matrix.
"The guy....the one.....hmmm"

Ok, then I saw this movie and found the advertisement......PATHETIC. My opinion is that they knew they couldn`t make another Spy Kids movie so they decided to make another film series with the same feel to it. They suceeded because I felt a "Cheesey" feeling to those movies and this takes "Cheesey" to a new level.

Shark Boy and Lava Girl....what a creative title........and the advertisements are weak.

One last question, is the person who played the sister in Spy Kids and Lava girl related in any way?

Is the person who pl

So it stank? In what way? Maybe I won't bother after all.

And Kae:
Star Wars, SpiderMan, and Lord of the Rings have nudity and language? o.0

Many people *would* consider those family films. I'm not sure that I do... but "family" films are generally regarded as PG-13 or lower (in the thing I read), and things that people are willing to take their kids to. That is all.

They aren't always aimed at kids, (the way Spy Kids was).

Personally, I don't think children should see things that are rated PG-13 in most cases. Certainly not R-rated movies.

I went to see "Kingdom of Heaven" with my brother (which was rated R, I believe mostly for violence), and I was shocked to see how many children were there. Like ten year olds! In my opinion, that's completely inappropriate.

Okay, soooo off topic...

Oh, no I haven`t officially seen it. I misworded that. What i meant was "I saw the advertisements" but i`ll edit that message. I know the movie will be corny because i read a review. you can see it if you like lame children movie`s with a plot as creative as Color-Dyed Tunafish.

What Kae meant was the rest of the moves had at least one of those elements. Spiderman had violence and language. LOTR had violence. Star Wars had violence and we all know Titanic had nudity.

I would still say that the Star Wars movies (with the exception of Episode III) would qualify as family movies. Unless you have children who would be easily scared by some of the Star Wars creatures (kids that young would probably not understand the series anyway; my sister at that age found it boring) it would probably be OK.

As for Shark Boy and Lava Girl... I'm just repeating what others have said, but I'll throw in that to me it had the effectual look of Power Rangers. I'm sure young kids will like it, but I'm really not interested. Spy Kids never did much for me.

I found Episode II and III similar in how they were family-oriented.

[SPOILER] Oh no, he killed Younglings?! They actaully never showed the kids die and when Anakin killls those guys they don`t burst into blood. They just fall. yeah, I know the idea puts bad images into kids` minds of murdering people. Still it wasn`t horrible compared to Episode II. And the Princess wore a bikini in Episode 6 and that was PG. Oh wait, they didn`t have PG13 then so their only other choice was R....or G. Ok, off topic. [/SPOILER]

Yeah I second that. Little kids are bound to like it, but I doubt kids like me will be cheering and camping outside to get tickets.

Hmmm, I agree that the trailers don't look to promising, but I'm willing to give it a chance.

Alice wrote:And Kae:
Star Wars, SpiderMan, and Lord of the Rings have nudity and language? o.0

Many people *would* consider those family films. I'm not sure that I do... but "family" films are generally regarded as PG-13 or lower (in the thing I read), and things that people are willing to take their kids to. That is all.

They aren't always aimed at kids, (the way Spy Kids was).

I'm not saying family films are directed at kids. A good family film contains equal entertainment for both adults and children. Aladdin and Shrek are good examples of this, containing jokes for both the older and younger audiences, making them good family fims.

And Tom explained what I was trying to convey very well. LOTR has violence in it. Not only that, but unless they read a lot, most kids under 10 aren't going to be able to sit still through LOTR, making it a poor family movie.

And for the record, Spider-Man and Star Wars DO have cursing. Star Wars has a scene where Obi Wan cuts the guy's arm off at the cantina and there's blood. Titanic has nudity and cursing. Therefore, many parents would consider these poor choices to take children under 10 or 12 to, making them not family films. Like I said, of the movies on the list, only two are worthy of the label "family film" in the strictest sense of the word. If you have parents that are more lenient, then you can add a couple of more movies on the list to the "family film" genre.

Though I would be hard pressed to see anyone classify Titanic, LOTR, Passion, and Jurassic Park "family films." Yes, I know the latter has dinosaurs, and kids love dinosaurs, but it was a pretty violent movie.

Spiderman had cursing but I didn't think Star Wars did. The worst I heard was: "blast."
Or do you mean the newer ones? In the more recent movies there were one or two instances of "d@mn." Is that what you mean?

even though it looks...wierd at least it's clean

I know... I'm always shocked when I hear about little children who've seen Jurassic Park and it's their favorite movie.

But yes, certainly there are varieties of what people think of as family films. I, myself, would side on the stricter end... I'm just talking about what the staticians would refer to as family films, i.e. something a lot of people would take their kids to see.

kaemmerite wrote:I'm not saying family films are directed at kids. A good family film contains equal entertainment for both adults and children. Aladdin and Shrek are good examples of this, containing jokes for both the older and younger audiences, making them good family fims.

And Tom explained what I was trying to convey very well. LOTR has violence in it. Not only that, but unless they read a lot, most kids under 10 aren't going to be able to sit still through LOTR, making it a poor family movie.

And for the record, Spider-Man and Star Wars DO have cursing. Star Wars has a scene where Obi Wan cuts the guy's arm off at the cantina and there's blood. Titanic has nudity and cursing. Therefore, many parents would consider these poor choices to take children under 10 or 12 to, making them not family films. Like I said, of the movies on the list, only two are worthy of the label "family film" in the strictest sense of the word. If you have parents that are more lenient, then you can add a couple of more movies on the list to the "family film" genre.

Though I would be hard pressed to see anyone classify Titanic, LOTR, Passion, and Jurassic Park "family films." Yes, I know the latter has dinosaurs, and kids love dinosaurs, but it was a pretty violent movie.

I vaguely recall that ads for Star Wars, Spider-Man, and LOTR ran during family movies and cartoons.
Not sure about Jurassic Park ads, but violence aside, several factors made me think that they were trying to attract kids to it.

Make of that what you will...

MasterDias wrote:Not sure about Jurassic Park ads, but violence aside, several factors made me think that they were trying to attract kids to it.

Make of that what you will...

Which is interesting because the book was NOT written with kids in mind; rather, it was a story about how mankind's foolish tampering with unknown technologies will lead to our downfall, and that nature cannot be controlled or contained. The movie watered down those lessons though. Such is Hollywood, I suppose. I mean, c'mon, my favorite part of the book (where John Hammond gets his comeuppance) wasn't even there...so bleh.

At any rate, I suppose everyone has different ideas of what a "family" movie is like. Mine are a bit more stringent, which is why I stated many of the top-grossing movies weren't family fare, but I can see that many others have slightly different standards and would consider a majority of those to be family films.

At any rate, my main point is that Spy Kids is a children's movie, as I can't see how there would be anything in there that would appeal to adults...the 3D thing just clinches it. It's a cheap movie-making gimmick that most adults are going to say, "That's cheesy and lame," whereas most kids are going to say, "3D! Awesome!"

The only good thing I EVER saw in 3D was the Muppetvision thing at MGM Studios in Disneyworld...and the only reason that was good was that the producers knew 3D was cheesy and lame, and made jokes about that in the film.

And for the record Star Wars DOES have cursing

How dare you say that you scruffy nerf herder!

You are quite right Kae about Jurassic Park, it isnt a kids movie, and doesnt hold a candle to the book.

In general family movies do pretty well at the box office. However, could Shark Boy and Lava Girl be classifyed as a family movie? I dont think that the majority of parents could sit through it without going criminally insane (from the looks of the previews at least). The kids might like it, but I doubt it will do too well wiht any other age group.

My Dad fell asleep during Spy Kids 2. I tried my hardest and was upset that i forgot my Gameboy.

I hated Spy Kids, I mean I loathe Spy Kids. This will be ten times worse.

Heh, Tom, that ain't nothing. My mother fell asleep during at least one of the Star Wars movies. She didn't plan to or want to. I think she just falls asleep really, really easily. ^.^ We still tease her about it, though. Um, so that's off topic...

Really guys, if I see it, I'll tell you if it's any good. (And what my standards of "any good" are.) You all may just be too 'grown up' for all that stuff.

Sorry A. but that movie looks like one of the worst movies in the world, I mean "Sharkboy and Lava Girl"? when I first saw the preview on tv I thought it was a joke like somthing on "All that" or the Amanda show. when I found out it was real I nearly passed out.