UAIOE

I guess I don't like the visual style, but it's been so long that I can't really remember a specific reason for being underwhelmed with the movie.

The visual style, the plot, the songs, none of it appealed to me.

Drop

Coraline was just as good as Nightmare. And I also thought Corpse Bride was just as good as both of them. So to me it seemed like Burton and Selick still had the soul. But I still feel Nightmare is fairly clear collaboration and reflection of both of them.

UAIOE maybe you should see it again, you might like it atleast like it a little more. Or not, but that's fine. I think the film appeals to specific tastes and yours may not be one of them.

islandclaws

I gotta agree. Goth kids took this and made it their own thing, which ruined its original appeal, IMO. I'm a huge Disney buff, and it bothers me to no end that they re-do the Haunted Mansion every year to be Nightmare-themed. The endless merchandise doesn't help either. Honestly, the film seems to annoy me more than anything. When a film or TV show gets too saturated, I step back for a while, wait for it to dissipate and then I can enjoy it again. But this thing never goes away, so I still can't bring myself to watch it again.

Drop

Why is it so hard for some of you to separate the film from it's fans or the culture around it? It seems in every case really easy to avoid. At most in the real world, you'll see people wearing a hoodie or shirt, but that's it. People aren't going out of their way to sing the songs anywhere in public and get in other's people way. And internet sites are even easier to ignore. And still none of this stuff is in the actual film, or has any bearing on what Selick or Burton made.

I just never got this idea that fandom or awful sequels effect how one views a film. The brilliance is still there and nothing should change that. When I watch I a great film I forget all about anything that it's spawned and just enjoy what I'm watching. If it's that good of film that is what it should do.

UAIOE

I think this will be impossible with my dislike for Tim Burton's art style, which I tend to believe this movie has a lot of.

But I'll also agree that it probably doesn't appeal to my tastes. That is probably the only reason I can think of why I was totally underwhelmed with the movie.

islandclaws

Because it's everywhere, and it annoys me. Maybe if I didn't go to Disneyland all the time I wouldn't see it so much, but I do and it's so commercialized and merchandized and cutesy that I just get irritated. I know that I probably love a thousand other things that could fit into that category, but for some reason this irks me more than anything else.

yoshimi

Still one of my favorite films. I even have some of the merchandise and I have never smeared white paint on my face and drawn on a frown with black lipstick. I also like Scarface and don't let the fact that a bunch of wanna be gangsta rappers love it ruin it for me.

toddly6666

I can't stand Tim Burton, I can't stand goth/emo/death-related stuff, and I can't stand themes in which something is labeled as "dark for the sake of being dark".

So I just blind-bought the blu-ray of Nightmare Before Christmas the other day for 12 bucks, and this is one of the best blind buys I have ever done. I had never seen the film in 1993 nor did I ever want to rent it for the above reasons, but this movie is phenomenal! A totally excellent film with great character, story, animation, and especially the music!

I probably liked it too because it didn't have Johnny Depp or Helen Bonham Carter doing the voices. I totally forgot about how in the old days (pre-1995) that animated films actually used real voice actors and not movie actors as they do now.

Groucho

Sounds like you have a closed mind, so I stopped reading there and added you to my ignore list.

If you ever grow up a bit I suggest you at least give the movie a try, perhaps it won't be to your tastes -- but at least you'll have an informed option.

Dash

I’m glad you enjoyed it. I still think it’s a phenomenal movie even though with merchandising it’s been a little over saturated. As far as voice acting goes, Danny Elfman was the singing voice of Jack Skelington.

majorjoe23

I don't know about that. Chris Sarandon, Catherine O'Hara, William Hickey, Paul Reubens, Glen Shadix (though he later transitioned to voice work) were all definite movie actors. It didn't have the star power of modern animated films, but I wouldn't call them voice actors.

mmconhea

It's one of my favorite movies... maybe because it's original. Traditionally I watch it twice a year. Halloween and then around Christmas.

Mabuse

It's a great film, but I too am bugged how Henry Sellick gets the shaft. His genius is only further proven when you see the stop motion film that Burton did direct (Corpse Bride) and it's a pale shaddow of Nightmare.

It has also always anoyed me how Disney clearly didn't like the film upon initial release, tagging it with "Touchstone Pictures" and giving it comparitively little publicity. 8 to 10 years latter when it snowballed into a huge hit suddenly they love it, with annual revivals and re-releases, tons of merchendising, rides at the theme parks, etc. If they'd lavished that attention on the film when it was new it would have been a much bigger hit. Their reversal just shows such hypocrisy. They don't really want to foster anything new.

toddly6666

Read on because your post makes no sense if you continued reading my post!


I'm talking more on the lines of actually telling the audience who is voicing the characters in the trailers such as "starring the voices of.... Eddie Murphy, Johnny Depp, Cameron Diaz, Bruce Willis, Meryl Streep!"


It's because you can't relate to the anorexic protagonist?

Guru Askew

"Coraline" is as good as it is because of the source material. Henry Selick is skilled at animation but he needs someone creative guiding him and that's what Burton did on "TNBC". Burton was essentially the creative director and Selick was the technical director and if anything Burton is the one who has suffered by constantly having "TNBC" excluded by obsessive nerds who give too much weight to an official credit. I'm sure this is why he actually took the co-director credit on "The Corpse Bride" when there was a very similar arrangement with the animation director.

Take Neil Gaiman, Tim Burton or Wes Anderson out of the equation and Selick gives you "Monkeybone". I mean, the guy is good at what he does but what he does is bring the vision of others to life.

majorjoe23

Good point. I remember being reading the credits after watching the movie.

Giles

it's a "modern American classic"

it's in my top ten movies list.

UAIOE

I actually watched some of "Beetlejuice" recently and I didn't run into any problems with it, but that might also be because I liked the movie as a kid.

I'd still pass on "Nightmare"...."Batman Returns" as well.

Tom Creo

What's the deal with Beetlejuice.........................

Sonic

It's one of the reasons I can't watch the entire movie for some reason I lose interest.

----------------

Now Caroline that was a cute movie.

nando820

Do you like "The Beatles" less because they are advertised and merchandise everywhere as the best band that ever was?

Jay G.

Tim Burton also directed the stop-motion short "Vincent," so he had the chops for it at one point (back when TNBC was first conceived).

I don't think it was that Disney "didn't like the film," but that it was too dark a film to fit in with the image of "Disney" at that point. The last "dark" Disney animated film before that was The Black Cauldron, and that didn't do well.

From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightma...istmas#Release
I also remember the film being fairly well marketed, I remember seeing a number of ads for it on TV and such. It's just a hard sell. Kids may love it, but parents are uneasy about taking them to "dark" films. And then there's people who don't like "dark for the sake of being dark" who may ignore the film for decades before watching it. Its success was definitely a slow burn.

If they didn't want to foster anything new, why did they produce the film in the first place? Props should be given to Disney for at least taking the chance.

Besides, I'd rather have a movie studio "hypocritically" celebrating a film later on when it's a success than sticking to its guns and ignoring it forever. Should we be mad that The Princess Bride didn't break the box-office when it was first released, or happy that it's now considered a classic?


Burton came up with the story and designed the characters for TNBC, but he wasn't very hands-on during the actual production. From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightma...mas#Production
I don't think the arrangement was similar. From all accounts, Burton actually was a co-director on Corpse Bride. Also, the DGA won't allow someone to be listed as a director, co or otherwise, unless they actually did directing (to prevent producers arbitrarily given themselves or others credit).

You do realize that Monkeybone is an adaptation as well, right? And you forgot about Roald Dahl.

Mabuse

Disney financed it as part of a multi-picture contract they had with Burton that also included Cabin Boy, Ed Wood, and James and the Giant Peach. When a studio enters into a first look production contract with a producer/director of the level of Burton they throw away their ability to say no. They can pass, but they can't pass too many times. Disney wanted to get into the "Burton business", so they were obliged to finance what he brought them. Later they dump the product with minimal marketing when they decided they didn't want to put good money after bad. It happens all the time. In the case of Burton's Disney deal they dumped all the films he developed there, even though two of the four are arguably his masterpieces (Wood and Nightmare).

Jay G.

Did they pass on anything? What happens if they pass too much?

Mabuse

In theory the studio can pass all you want. But the filmmaker can then take the project somewhere else. If the studio passes too much they simply run the risk of pissing off the filmmaker and souring the relationship.

The following is all my conjecture: In the case of TNBC, think about 1992. For animation, Disney was the only game in town. Fox, Dreamworks, and Warner would all jump into the animation game later in the decade, but in 1992 Disney was the only place to take an animated project. Burton pitches these two pojects (Nightmare and James) and Disney picks them up because a) they "know" animation and b) even if they dump the poject and lose money on it they control the rights and they'd rather control the rights to any and all animation properties than let another studio get the jump on R&D. If another studio took nightmare and made it a big hit right out of the gate, that would extinguish Disney's flame as the "kings of animation" just a little bit. This is effectivly what happened when Dreamworks began having hit animated features in the late '90s.