The Worst CGI Kid Films In Recent Memory

[Drtooth]

They used to show it sporadically on holidays on my PBS stations, but they stopped after like 3 years. I only caught the halfway point of the movie at the earliest. It's not a bad movie, but the CGI is of the floaty, non-weighed down video game cutscene type as I recall. It's an odd look, but not as bad as you'd think. It just feels like an 11 minute episode of Arthur stretched out to movie length, and then there's some unfittingly cartoonish bits here and there. And somehow the writers didn't get what Mary Moo Cow was other than D.W. liking it.

As for Norm, sure...it's hilarious to say that it opened terribly and made pocket change, but pocket change is all it needs to make back its budget. It basically made back half of its pathetic 18 million budget, I wouldn't be surprised if they blanketed streaming sites and rental boxes with an even cheaper DTV sequel.

 

[mr3urious]

As for Norm, sure...it's hilarious to say that it opened terribly and made pocket change, but pocket change is all it needs to make back its budget. It basically made back half of its pathetic 18 million budget, I wouldn't be surprised if they blanketed streaming sites and rental boxes with an even cheaper DTV sequel.

From what I've heard, but they're already planning on DTV sequels.

 

[MuppetSpot]

When you thought Rob S. career wouldn't seek lower.

 

[Drtooth]

From what I've heard, but they're already planning on DTV sequels.

Of course they are because they're Lionsgate and they suck at kid's movies. Norm has absolutely nothing original or even interesting and it feels like it's from 2005. And not just because of the animation. Just the "let's try to be edgy like Shrek" thing.

When you thought Rob S. career wouldn't seek lower.

It was always low. He's never been funny, and at best he's a sidekick in Adam Sandler movies. Even in SNL he sucked. It shouldn't be a big surprise he's sunk to dubbing bad Russian CGI movies and voicing the Netflix/Redbox equivalent of shovelware. I'm kinda bummed Ken Jeong got roped into this garbage, though. It's not his fault the studio forced sequels to Hangover into production when even the film makers basically said "a sequel to this is illogical."

 

[cuppajoe95]

Of course they are because they're Lionsgate and they suck at kid's movies. Norm has absolutely nothing original or even interesting and it feels like it's from 2005. And not just because of the animation. Just the "let's try to be edgy like Shrek" thing.

I don't mean to tempt fate or something, but if Lionsgate's next CGI movie (and I find it hard to imagine what that will be about) actually fails at the box office... I wonder how it will go down with them?

Speaking of which, I found a press-release from 2005 when they announced a pact with RichCrest (which mentioned Arthur's Missing Pal). They actually started off with a three-movie deal, including a film based on a book by the author of Shrek.

I'm not sure if we should be glad that never happened or not.

 

[MuppetSpot]

I think we should be thankful that never happened.

 

[cuppajoe95]

I think we should be thankful that never happened.

I guess so.

Dumb question, but do you think Lionsgate needs to find better CGI studios to work with, better writers to work with or better people with actual business sense?

I know Lionsgate will no doubt do none of those things, but I just wanted to get that out of my system.

 

[D'Snowth]

Isn't Lionsgate more-or-less a distribution company rather than a production company?

 

[Drtooth]

Dumb question, but do you think Lionsgate needs to find better CGI studios to work with, better writers to work with or better people with actual business sense?

Obviously, they only going with cheap firms that can crap out cheap garbage because they know that's the only way they can make any money off these bad movies. Make them cheap, make them disposable. They're never getting "Inside Out" money, might as well get Ouijia money (a movie that was filmed on a 6 or so million dollar budget that somehow got just lucky enough to get a 70 mil run). It's clear quality is the furthest thing from their minds.

 

[cuppajoe95]

Obviously, they only going with cheap firms that can crap out cheap garbage because they know that's the only way they can make any money off these bad movies. Make them cheap, make them disposable. They're never getting "Inside Out" money, might as well get Ouijia money (a movie that was filmed on a 6 or so million dollar budget that somehow got just lucky enough to get a 70 mil run). It's clear quality is the furthest thing from their minds.

Well, unless it's the newest movie franchise based on a YA novel franchise, well, technically it's Summit, but still.

No doubt, the next good kids' movie on their hands will be the upcoming MLP:FiM movie.

On another note, I recall when it was mostly an "indie" studio from Canada. I even remember seeing one of their Stickin' Around tapes at a Wal-Mart I used to go to as a kid.