Those stupid CGI talking-animal movies...

[Redsonga]

With Chicken Little it was'nt the fact that the massage was simple that made me not like it, it was the fact that it was not simple enough. It was trying too hard to be a hip 'cool' movie and a sweet movie at the same time to me, and felt like two writers that were at war had written the story. Once the sky fell it seemed like all the depth went out of the characters IMHO .

 

[wiley207]

"Chicken Little" was basically trying to imitate DreamWorks. I'm glad this phase Disney's doing will roll over next year with their upcoming "Rapunzel" movie.

 

[frogboy4]

With Chicken Little it was'nt the fact that the massage was simple that made me not like it, it was the fact that it was not simple enough. It was trying too hard to be a hip 'cool' movie and a sweet movie at the same time to me, and felt like two writers that were at war had written the story. Once the sky fell it seemed like all the depth went out of the characters IMHO .

That's an interesting perspective. I'll watch it again with that in mind. There does seem to be a strong beginning and ending but it does get a little lost in the middle. I personally don't feel that Chicken Little was trying to be Dreamworks PDI.

Film critics and the Hollywood-minded sort tend to over-categorize films. With CG features it's Pixar, PDI and then everything else. That is changing and I feel that Chicken Little and especially Meet the Robinsons are films that are changing that perspective. Robinsons isn't a perfect film, (much of it is the same Chicken Little team) but there seems to be less creative yanking about as before.

Being adopted myself Meet the Robinsons really touched me in the right way. Many films handle the subject matter so poorly and in unrealistic ways (probably because they are created from writers or directors who haven't lived it over dramatizing the wrong bits). In every adopted person’s life there comes a point where you let go and it doesn’t matter where you came from – it matters where you are and where you are going.

That “wondering” aspect fizzled early for me in my own life. Many of my friends don’t get it, but this film beautifully illustrates why it doesn’t matter. When finally given the chance (through time travel technology) to meet the woman who gave birth to him, the lead character chooses not to. This is not out of complacency or disrespect, rather out of the fact he didn’t feel that was necessary to move forward in his life. Anyway, that’s how I feel about Robinsons. It has a unique viewpoint not seen in many films.

Back to CG films. It doesn’t matter what the method, characters or film stock a director uses to make a film – it must have a reason for being that exists beyond the medium from which it is created. Usually that means a good story. I’m glad the writers’ strike is over. Now let’s see them produce better ideas in CG and all other motion pictures.

 

[KermieBaby47]

I'm glad this phase Disney's doing will roll over next year with their upcoming "Rapunzel" movie.

Three cheers for Muppet Dude!

I cannot WAIT for Rapunzel (Unraveled?) to hit theatres! From what I've seen online, I know it's slight pastel-like CG over the hand-drawn animation, but that's close enough to traditional animation in my book. I totally agree with your first post (excuse the part about Ratatouille, great flick) and wish Hollywierd would STOP throwing actors into voiceover CG movie roles just for the **** of it.

I like a story with my movies, a GOOD story, and animation that looks like the artists actually cared about their craft. I hate that CG has taken over, but I can stand it as long as it's done well, with heart (like any good movie, are you listening Hollywood?).

I'd really love to see what PIXAR could do with traditional hand-drawn animation. Their films are always so beautifully written (I guess I'm in the minority, I liked Cars), they should revive the Disney Animated Classics and get the glory days back on track.

 

[Drtooth]

Personally, I do want to see Robinsons, but I'm very angry at Disney for releasing it too soon after TMNT. That really hurt it's BO performance. I'm a little biased being a life time TMNT fan.

Anyway, Some of them have their charm. Shark tale was pretty pointless a film, but I did like the small self satire of Dreamwork's constant use of catchphrases from other movies while OScar was fighting the shark. Especially the "You had me at Hello!' used completely out of context. Jack Black and the 2 Jelly Fish characters were the only thing really interresting in the film. And maybe the Hermit crab with the puppets.

Chicken Little was a very adorable film. Maybe because I fell for the same ultra adorableness of Zach Braff, who was really well cast here... or maybe it was the Disco quoting pig guy. The characters looked pretty cute, though I didn;t like the look of the alien things.

But what gets on my nerves? Not CGI talking animals... Live action talking animals. Specifically Dogs. I hate talking dog films with a passion. A stretch, because animated talking dogs (Huckleberry Hound, Goofy, Rantanplan- see avatar) are some of my favorite cartoon characters.

But these films are always the same boy and his wise cracking dog. There's something annoying about a wisecracking live action dog. Imagine Brian from Family Guy as a live action speaking dog. It's not funny, it's annoying. I really want to see less of these kiddy flicks. I especially hate the new Air Buddies commercial that keeps coming on. And the characters are all idiotic stereotypes- there was even a hip hop puppy (with dialogue clearly written by a white guy and one that's at least 40 or 50 years old). I was frustraited they turned the Underdog cartoon into one of those.

 

[wiley207]

I'd really love to see what PIXAR could do with traditional hand-drawn animation. Their films are always so beautifully written (I guess I'm in the minority, I liked Cars), they should revive the Disney Animated Classics and get the glory days back on track.

I bet if Pixar did a movie in hand-drawn animation, it'd still be hyper-successful. But that would be good. Maybe they'll experiment by doing a short in hand-drawn animation before going to do a full-fledged film.

 

[frogboy4]

I bet if Pixar did a movie in hand-drawn animation, it'd still be hyper-successful. But that would be good. Maybe they'll experiment by doing a short in hand-drawn animation before going to do a full-fledged film.

Pixar released a 2D short before the Ratatouille DVD. Also, here's a little something I saw on the web.

http://www.filmjunk.com/2008/01/29/will-pixars-next-project-up-be-a-traditional-2d-animated-film/

And did anyone else see the new Goofy short before National Treasure 2?

 

[Pork]

I think that 2D animation can be better than CGI at times. I would really like to see a well done 2D film be released.

 

[scottishpiggy]

I seem to be the only one that noticed that an unfortunate trend Hollywood's been doing since 2001 is doing CGI animated movies where the main characters are talking animals! These films often have celebrity/big name actors in the voice cast, crude "Ren and Stimpy"-style humor, pop songs throughout the soundtrack, and tend to follow a formulaic plot.

We've had too many of them since 2002. I've seen Hollywood release "Ice Age," "Madagascar," "Over the Hedge," "Valiant," "Chicken Little," "The Wild" (rip-off of "Madagascar"), "Hoodwinked," "Happy Feet," "Shark Tale," "Open Season," "Ant Bully," "Barnyard," "Flushed Away," "Surf's Up" (rip-off of "Happy Feet"), "Ratatouille," "Bee Movie," and several others I can't remember the titles of. Others will be coming out soon, like "Kung-Fu Panda" and lord knows what else? It's getting as bad as live-action remakes of classic cartoons (I hope "Muppet Babies" doesn't get that treatment!) And that's not the worst part. One of those annoying talking animal movies, "Ratatouille," WON THE OSCAR FOR BEST ANIMATED FILM! And "Happy Feet" won that award last year. Man, I hope Pixar never makes another talking animal movie after that "Dratatouille." If they do, I'LL GO CRAZY!

Sorry. I just needed to get that out

yaaay! someone has my views! but then, i was trained in traditional ( hand drawn) animation, and cant get a job doing that coz its all cgi now, so maybe im bitter! oh an IMO traditional is harder- i mean, its 250 drawings for 10 secs of animations, and i tried cgi, but it was just so computer based it bored me- you only draw basics like circles and the comp renders it and everything, so all this fuss over sullys fur in monsters inc is rubbish- they didnt hand draw the fur, the computer did it............argh!

 

[wiley207]

I saw that concept picture for "Up." The animation looks really good, and Disney-like as well! If they can do great CGI films, I am sure Pixar can do great traditional-animated films as well. It'll be good to see them do some variety.