The Chipmunks

[KremlingWhatnot]

DrTooth said
They're clearly trying to screw Saban because Saban owns its own products.

and Saban has every right to do so, seriously, there the ONLY COMPANY in this decade, that actually owns the rights to their own programming without getting it owned by the network, that's the only thing that annoys me about Networks, is THAT REASON RIGHT THERE, the fact that every show HAS TO BE OWNED BY THEM, yeah, that's the problem I have with Networks, that reason right there, they take your show, just so they can get the money, this is why I'm currently producing shows independently, so it doesn't have to be owned by the networks themselves.

 

[KremlingWhatnot]

DrTooth said
(probably Winx... I don't follow it)

Actually Winx Club was not renewed by Nickelodeon, likely due to low treatment and low ratings.

 

[Drtooth]

that's the problem I have with Networks, that reason right there, they take your show, just so they can get the money, this is why I'm currently producing shows independently, so it doesn't have to be owned by the networks themselves.

That's the double-edged sword. If the network owns your show, you actually have a place for it. If you own your own show, you have to pretty much shop it around, and you wind up with this Chipmunks situation where it airs everywhere BUT the US.

And even then, that's no guarantee they will show the episodes all at once in the US. Increasingly, they show the episodes overseas first and then months later show it here... to poor ratings because the fans pretty much pirate the darn episodes to actually see them. Way to screw yourselves guys.

 

[D'Snowth]

A few more still shots and screencaps from the new show have surfaced on the internet, and... well, if we made a fuss about ARTHUR switching to Flash, the animation for this show looks remarkably cheap and underwhelming, almost like 90s-era CGI: they all look like walking, talking PVC figures, there's no texture to their hair, fur, clothing, or anything.

We do, however, get a better idea of how big they'll be: they're considerably larger than they were in their CGI-movie form, but they're also obviously shorter than they were as cartoons... which pretty much makes sense; design-wise, they're genetic experiments of their cartoon and CGI designs, so I guess that would effect their sizes too.

 

[Mr Snrub]

For Dave, it seems they're going off his appearance in the 80s cartoons

Something tells me it's not official, though. At least, I hope not

 

[D'Snowth]

Yeah, one of the screenshots that's been released has Jeanette and Eleanor having Dave tied to a chair with ribbons, and putting bows in his hair and cold cream on his face... this is pretty much what he looks like. My only issue is his swinger's haircut. Other than that...

But apparently the new show's continuity is similar to the movies' in that The Chipettes live with Dave and Miss Miller isn't part of the show.

 

[Drtooth]

A few more still shots and screencaps from the new show have surfaced on the internet, and... well, if we made a fuss about ARTHUR switching to Flash, the animation for this show looks remarkably cheap and underwhelming, almost like 90s-era CGI: they all look like walking, talking PVC figures, there's no texture to their hair, fur, clothing, or anything.

CGI costs a crapload of money, actually. And I have yet to see what this Chipmunks show looks like, but I've been watching Jimmy Neutron lately. No matter what anyone thinks of current CGI cartoons, we've come quite a way from that. There really seemed to be a lack of gravity (characters bounced around when they walked like they were on the moon), there was strobbing where blurs were supposed to be, overall stiffness, things like that. But it was pretty advanced for it's day and there were no polygons to be seen. And that was just last decade. Now, we have a real sense of gravity (as in the characters move more realistically and are weighted down), squash and stretch, motion blurs and animation smears to give it more movement. And it's still a far cry from a Pixar movie. Even high quality ones like Transformers Prime and Star Wars Rebels (and Rebels is the best TV CGI I've ever seen).

 

[mr3urious]

CGI costs a crapload of money, actually. And I have yet to see what this Chipmunks show looks like, but I've been watching Jimmy Neutron lately. No matter what anyone thinks of current CGI cartoons, we've come quite a way from that. There really seemed to be a lack of gravity (characters bounced around when they walked like they were on the moon), there was strobbing where blurs were supposed to be, overall stiffness, things like that. But it was pretty advanced for it's day and there were no polygons to be seen.

Jimmy Neutron-- both the show and movie-- were made with commercial-grade software, and the guys at O Entertainment and DNA Productions really made the most of it.

 

[Drtooth]

Yeah. It was advanced at the time, and was moreso advanced than, say, Beast Wars. The technology is there, but it's never going to be quite as powerful as movies are. Jimmy Neutron looked great in its day, but doesn't hold up with the Dreamworks shows or TMNT. And said Dreamworks shows are quite good, but not the same quality as the movies. I'm glad that CGI on television is advancing. Heck, looks better than some of the CGI they have in kiddy movies where the characters pasted in on live action. That said, the care and detail to CGI characters in the Transformer movies are wasted. Say what you will about those movies, but the robots look great.

 

[D'Snowth]