|
Post by babclayman on Feb 6, 2015 11:45:08 GMT -5
To Race; Apparently, Nick Park shall be shown as a Bird Watcher, in the Film. There should be an Image of his modl, some where on the Internet.
Also, Belchic, A Score of Seventy Percent, isn' really Ninety-Nine Percent, Eh? ^^"
I do wonder how the Story of Inside Ot, would be like, considering it seems like we'll be looking at a Normal Scene, only we're also seeing types of Feelings having some type of Riffs on it. What you think the Story shall be like, Pups? ;3
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Feb 6, 2015 14:49:47 GMT -5
Also, Belchic, A Score of Seventy Percent, isn' really Ninety-Nine Percent, Eh? ^^" Erm, where exactly did you get that number from? And how does it relate to what I said?
|
|
|
Post by Sweeney Terrier on Feb 6, 2015 16:32:29 GMT -5
I'm watching Animat's review on the film and he's giving it a positive look. As I said myself, I'm curious to watch it.
Though in terms of the villain, if he was too goofy perhaps, maybe instead of Antonio Banderas, (from Spy Kids 1-3, Shrek 2, 3 and forever, and of course Puss in Boots), maybe Danny Trejo, (aka Machete), would've been a more serious, dangerous antagonist.
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Feb 7, 2015 0:58:48 GMT -5
Well, AniMatt likes SpongeBob, so it's no big surprise that he liked it.
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Feb 7, 2015 7:13:55 GMT -5
Yeah I just watched AniMat's review and he likes it. We have a candidate for his Best List.
BTW there is a little thing I was thinking about when I read Sweeney Terrier's rant.
If I had to say the whole Krabby Patty formula thing reminds me of anything, it's like when I was reading on TV Tropes that they have an entry for the "Noodle Incident".
When I was a kid I enjoyed reading "Calvin and Hobbes", where this trope is named from. There may be times something would happen on TV and my brother would not fully get what it was about and his response would be something like "It's dumb because they don't tell what happened!" I would say "when you were reading "Calvin and Hobbes", do you know how they would always talk about the "Noodle Incident"? ...Okay... but what was the Noodle Incident?"
It's something that is left to your imagination, where it is something that is much more powerful than anything the filmmakers could hope to show you.
Another example is how on The Simpsons where they never tell you in which state Springfield is in.
|
|
|
Post by babclayman on Feb 7, 2015 10:06:02 GMT -5
One also has to note that, since the Film is more for humour, that is a possible reason why you don’ have Machett as the Antagonist. You Know?
Also, how does discussing this Film turn in to a discussion of your Politics, Lupus? O.O
The large question that I think on, with this Film is that…Didn’ they have an entire Episode that shows that nne of the cast can breath on Land or Air, but Sandy?
Should we really count SB as an Animation Film, since the Film is shown to be mostl Live-Action and CGI mix?
Also, jus checking, do we also discuss Europe or Japan Animations here too, or is it jus British or American Animations? ;3
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Feb 22, 2015 21:16:08 GMT -5
I found out a couple things, and this could explain AniMatt's list:
1. Kung Fu Panda 3 is being delayed to next year.
2. Pixels is actually a live-action/animated hybrid.
|
|
|
Post by Sweeney Terrier on Mar 8, 2015 0:29:17 GMT -5
At least a week ago the "Home" trailers have started popping up as ads in YouTube videos, and.....GOSH is it STUPID! I think there are video games who have had better teasers and results than this film clearly shows. (How long has it been since the first teaser-teaser-teaser of this 'film'? 2 years or so?) I'd rather watch the Nut Job over this film. (but then again, excluding Dragon 2, Dreamworks has really been sucking recently). Also Bab, AniMat did say the superhero portion is about only 1/3 of the film. And while it is a comedy/family-friendly film, that doesn't mean you can't have a serious, or sinister villain; look at Disney's villains. And also, that series, if you think about it, in classic spongebob alone has to some extent, contradicted itself since Sandy's intro episode involves Spongebob suffocating, BUT in a fairly later episode, Spongebob, Patrick, Squidward, and Mr. Krabs all go onto shore and breathe fine. While this does contradict itself, I think perhaps the reason they would suffocate without the bowl of water in Sandy's dome is because upon entry, any water in the doorway is 'rinsed' out, and the dome's interior is nothing but pure, fairly-fertile land, (not a single stream, pond, cloud, or puddle present, therefore outside of the hose, beverages, or…..in-tree plumbing of some sort, no water). However, on that dry land episode, they just flat-out walk out of the ocean, onto dry land without water being removed gradually, and also there is still water present, thereby allowing at least water vapor to be present, (it's like being next to a swimming pool just without the chlorine, you can smell or feel the cool H20 in the air or nearby). That, and all four of them are oceanic organisms that, if I'm correct, can be on at least a shoreline, without dying of suffocation in seconds, unlike fish, seeing as how Spongebob is well….a sponge, Patrick is a starfish, Mr. Krabs is a crab, (which, along with starfish, are typically associated with beaches and shorelines), and Squidward is an octopus or squid, (a cephalopod). None of them are directly fish that wholly rely on liquid water, (or salthingyer in their case), to thrive. Now as for the rest of Bikini Bottom, (excluding at least Pearl and Squilliam, and of course Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy perhaps), they'd be dead in seconds if they went to the surface.
|
|
|
Post by Sweeney Terrier on Mar 18, 2015 8:47:50 GMT -5
While I know this is a thread just for animated films, I thought up something to explain why films nowadays, least outside of animation, tend to be the same stuff, (same type of 'horror', same style of film-making, etc.), and the same could perhaps also be said for gaming to an extent. Yes, the main obvious reason is because such things as CGI films, haunted/possession horrors, and so on make loads of money but it's also perhaps, (and this can explain the many reboots and lack of GOOD or creative ideas Hollywood has nowadays), because the audience doesn't want to see anything different than what it has seen and enjoyed. Think of it this way.
HW = Hollywood; V = Viewer
HW: So, what do you want? V: I want something, fairly new. HW: So you want something different? V: NO! Not different it has to be the same, but not the exact same so it must be only slightly different. VERY very very vaguely different rather. HW: *blinks* So you want it so vaguely different or new that it's nearly impossible to tell that it's different in the basic setup? V: No! errr…..yes, that's it. HW: *sighs/groans and goes to make a reboot with some differences or a modern-remake of a film* There happy? V: Ehh…..not quite. HW: Ugh! Deal with it. It's what you asked for. -.-
Granted in some cases, directors/producers will decide to create their own interpretation/reboot/re-imagining of a film as Burton has done to Planet of the Apes. But anyway, the point in short is the masses claim they want something different but when shown it, they don't want it so they want the original thing but slightly different but not really different. In less of a tongue-twister, they just want the same dull stuff over and over again, regardless of anything.
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Mar 18, 2015 9:57:59 GMT -5
Sounds like double-thinking to me.
In all honesty, I don't know why everybody was so hyped over this SpongeBob movie. I've hated SpongeBob since day one, because he was EVERYWHERE! Also, from 2001 to 2006, I felt like my brother and I were the only people in the world who hated that show! However, later on, SpongeBob started getting more haters, but then suddenly out of nowhere, THIS MOVIE was announced, and expectations everywhere were ****ing high!
I guess I can't argue too much. SpongeBob has fans who have their reasons for liking him, just like how the Bronies have their reasons for liking MLP. We non-fans just don't understand.
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Apr 6, 2015 5:13:08 GMT -5
I finally got to see AniMat's review of the delayed 2014 animated film, Home. Right now on Rotten Tomatoes it's considered "Rotten", but he says:
The Story: 3/10 The Animation: 9/10 The Characters: 4/10
Home (2015): 5/10 - Mediocre!
Belchic and I both had some serious doubts about this film and our doubts were warranted. Despite him not really caring for the film AniMat does say he hoped the movie would succeed because well, DreamWorks kinda needed a hit, after the dismal returns on Rise of the Guardians, Turbo and Penguins of Madagascar. But it's kinda like a kids-only film.
|
|
|
Post by Sweeney Terrier on Apr 15, 2015 11:25:21 GMT -5
It's obviously a kids only film and personally, I'm at least glad the film got anything below or equal to a 6/10 cause I can't think of another film that so OFTEN, so EARLY advertised itself all the way until it actually came out, showing that it's clearly just for kids or simple minds, (or people who don't face palm or groan at seemingly stupid/cliche things).
Dreamworks imo is a fairly good animation company, (Rise of the Guardians looks good imo and we all know Shrek 1 & 2 at least were great), but if I were to name the three big-time animation companies ranked from best to worst imo, it'd be Disney, (I'm just counting their 90's to now films), then Pixar, {though that's a little unfair since it's still Disney}, then Dreamworks. Their films after Shrek may not be good, (or rather more often awkward/stupid than good imo), BUT they're memorable…even if they often just ripped off of Disney ideas, (Antz & Bug's Life for example). I still remember "Shark Tale", "Over the Hedge", and "Flushed Away" in general. (Shark Tale being perhaps the worst of the three imo).
|
|
|
Post by babclayman on Apr 15, 2015 11:41:21 GMT -5
Technically, Flsh Awy is an Ardaman Film, the ones who do Wallace & Gromit, or Chicken Run. Dreamworks mainly distribtes their Films, like with Disney distrubting Marvel Films, or how WB did with Oliver & Company, in the UK, evn though that's a Disney Film.
Though, you think Dreamworks would put more effrt in the Story or Characters, considering they hd an extr year to work on it! What they trying, in that year!?
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Apr 15, 2015 11:52:17 GMT -5
I will say, Dreamworks is a Hit/Miss studio. They have had some good films like Madagascar, Kung Fu Panda, and of course, How to Train a Your Dragon. Home is obviously one of their missteps.
This is kind of off topic, but I've noticed there are a lot of people who seem to have a lack of knowledge to animated films these days. What I mean is they seem to think Pixar and Dreamworks are the only studios out there. If they see a CGI animated film, they automatically think: "If it's Disney, then it's Pixar. If it's not Disney, then it's Dreamworks." Like I hear some people say Despicable Me is Dreamworks, even though it's obviously Sony. I also heard a couple people say Bolt was Pixar, and a lot of people think Planes is Pixar as well. You know, some people just don't take time to think.
|
|
|
Post by babclayman on Apr 15, 2015 13:05:48 GMT -5
Well, Planes is an understandabl mstake, since it is in the Cars Universe, which is a Pixar Film. So, you can' blme one, for thinking it's a Pixar Film.
Though, I don' think I hear some make the claim that, if it's Disney trying a CGI Film, it's Pixar, since Disney are knwn for their CGI Films too, and technically, The Foundr of Pixar is head of Disney Animation.
You also got Blue Sky, which sees one good film, and make so many Sequels to them. Wonder what their Peanuts Film is like?
|
|