|
Pixeltendo posted:Has there actually ever been CGI films for adults only? Final Fantasy is the closest I can think of.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
Avatar, but for whatever dumb reason people don't count that. If you want to make an animated movie for adults, you either have to dress it up with enough tech talk that people won't actually know they're watching animation, or just accept that you're aiming at a really small audience and have a small release in theatres and hope people pick it up on DVD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
I'm not expecting a lot from the Ratchet and Clank movie. Apparently the writer of the PS3 trilogy is doing the script and the story and writing of the PS3 trilogy was mediocre at best. Even Cars is written better than the R&C games. This movie will probably fail in theaters and finish off the franchise once and for all. Edit: Accidentally hit the post button Eggie fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jan 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:Avatar, but for whatever dumb reason people don't count that. Because it deals with less adult themes than the average Pixar film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:Avatar, but for whatever dumb reason people don't count that. 3d animation isn't mo-capped, it's all up to the devices of the animators. A voice actor's role is important, but in Avatar, and films like it, the motions and expressions of the characters are because of people's actual physical acting. I'll agree the line isn't entirely clear these days, but I don't think it's unreasonable to not include Avatar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
All joking aside, at some point you need to draw a line of intent, otherwise Gravity falls solidly in the category. "Ah, but it had real faces!" And Happy Feet had real people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
I think it really does depend on how the movie itself wants to be perceived.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Senior Scarybagels posted:What I meant is that they caused the perception of 2D animation being for kids, where as 3D Animation has the perception that it's for children as much as adults. Yeah, I don't see evidence for that really being the case. I'm assuming now Ratchet and Clank is going to suck. The writing for the PS3 games really mediocre at best, and generally pretty boring. I think the movie would have been much more timely in 2005.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Pixeltendo posted:Has there actually ever been CGI films for adults only? Beowulf and 9, if you want to count that. Though to be honest, modern blockbuster films are like 80% CG animation anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
9 could've used more story but dang is that a pretty film 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Speaking of perception and ratings, does anyone else think it's weird that Hunchback of Notre Dame has a "G" rating but Frozen got a "PG"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
It seems like The Nut Job commercials are now Psy-free. I think it was just for New Years/Psy's birthday which is on NYE.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Pick posted:Speaking of perception and ratings, does anyone else think it's weird that Hunchback of Notre Dame has a "G" rating but Frozen got a "PG"? I think in those days Disney wouldn't accept anything above a G and they had the pull to make sure that happened. These days I just don't think they care as much about getting a PG.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Saeku posted:I don't think 3D animation has any perception as being "for adults." Pixar movies, arguably. But this is also a medium that contains The Lorax, Nut Job, and a zillion cruddy shoestring-budget Saturday morning cartons. It's not so much about being "for adults" as something not embarrassing for an adult to like. I went to see Frozen and saw groups of teens without younger siblings or parents. CGI may have dodged that stigma that makes teens not like cartoons for a while because you have to show the world how grown up you are. Obviously everyone in the thread knows the distinction is hogwash, but I think the theory makes some sense. By the way, the Nut Job trailer attached to Frozen for me didn't have Psy, if it ever did for anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Pick posted:Speaking of perception and ratings, does anyone else think it's weird that Hunchback of Notre Dame has a "G" rating but Frozen got a "PG"? Anything that's not relatively close to each other you can't really compare that easily. Especially with stuff like the PG-13 rating gradually getting more and more explicit and the G rating basically being extinguished all together.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
neonnoodle posted:Disney is now an intellectual property clearinghouse and media empire, and they need to make probably one movie a year just to keep people thinking that they give even one iota of poo poo about their previous identity as a movie studio. Their last three animated movies have been as good as anything the company has put out, they'll be fine. redcheval posted:For that matter, it's fairly evident that Pixar is at least somewhat removed from what it used to be, post-Disney takeover. The atmosphere there is also apparently more corporate and a little more rigid than it used to be. Obviously that doesn't have much to do with Disney's abandoning 2D, but I don't know if Pixar's vast audience appeal will last forever; I think a lot of that came from a level of creative freedom they had that I'm not really sure persists. Yeah, with Newt you could joke around and pass the blame on Rio stealing its thunder but both Brave and Good Dinosaur having their directors swapped out mid-production (with obvious effects on the final film in Brave's case) combined with the avalanche of sequels and spinoffs says that there is definitely something up behind the scenes. Brenda Chapman has been fairly honest about her discontent with what the studio has turned into since she left Pixar for Dreamworks. Pixar has always been highly-demanding, anti-union, and paid less than its competitors because it was a prestige studio and they could choose to be picky. If they don't pick themselves up they're probably going to have a bad case of brain drain because there are more animation studios than ever before and Pixar doesn't have the monoploy on quality CGI movies anymore. Pixeltendo posted:Has there actually ever been CGI films for adults only? Sony is putting out the R-rated Sausage Party in 2015. Hey, at least it can't be worse than Foodfight!, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
I think Disney having gotten out of the 2D business might indirectly be the best thing that ever happened to the medium in the West. Take a look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_traditional_animated_feature_films When the Disney renaissance was going on, there were practically NO adult-audience animated features being made outside of Japan. After Disney stopped regularly releasing tentpole 2D features, here are some of the movies that have been made in the U.S. and Europe in the past 10 years: - Triplets of Belleville - The Illusionist - The Rabbi's Cat - Chico & Rita - My Dog Tulip - Idiots & Angels - Hair High - Sita Sings the Blues - Waltz With Bashir - Persepolis Granted they're all artsy indie releases and not mass-market, but I think there's a phenomenon that the biggest player in the business sets the public's perception of a medium and its audience. Right now there are practically no CG features for more adult audiences, and I think it might be for a similar reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
I think that has less to do with Disney getting out of traditional animation and more to do with the rise of indie films and it becoming easier to make an animated movie on a lower budget.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:I think that has less to do with Disney getting out of traditional animation and more to do with the rise of indie films and it becoming easier to make an animated movie on a lower budget. Yeah, this would be my suspicion. Computers changed traditional animation a lot, too. By the way, Jennifer Hager was on Frozen, and I remember her from her Youtube demo reel ages ago. She's on her way to the top it seems  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Pick posted:Speaking of perception and ratings, does anyone else think it's weird that Hunchback of Notre Dame has a "G" rating but Frozen got a "PG"? Not as weird as R rated movies getting kid shows and toys.  Through the closest thing I can think of in modern times is The dark knight coloring book, when the movie itself...is more for adult in themes and violences than the for 'ages 4 and up' book implies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
I also think the bean counters realized that a PG rating just for some dang reason gets more money, up to - I think it was Pride and Prejudice, or something Jane Austen where they had someone mouth "drat" in the background to bump it from G to PG despite having no story purpose for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Pick posted:Speaking of perception and ratings, does anyone else think it's weird that Hunchback of Notre Dame has a "G" rating but Frozen got a "PG"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
neonnoodle posted:I would guess that this is on purpose. Back in the day, they never ever wanted anything more than a G rating because they thought they'd alienate the children and people prone to fainting. Nowadays the golden rating is PG-13 because it's the "boy movie" rating -- it doesn't have the stigma of being for babies. Disney already renamed both its Rapunzel and Snow Queen movies to make them more appealing to boys, and I bet they deliberately got a PG for the same reason. I think the PG thing is more just that it's incredibly easy to get one. Like, Frozen is "Rated PG for some action and mild rude humor " according to the MPAA. There's not really a lot I can think of that fits in "rude humor" other than Olaf telling them to watch out for his butt, and while there's action it's not really any more than what's in (e.g.) Tarzan, a film that was rated G in 1999.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:This kind of thing is Blue Sky's curse (though I loved Horton Hears a Who and the first Ice Age). "Mediocre movie but pretty animation" should be their official slogan. Weren't they supposed to be doing a Peanuts movie or something? I remember hearing something like that a few years ago but nothing since. Yoshifan823 posted:Avatar, but for whatever dumb reason people don't count that. Well that was mocap blended with live action, so I could imagine people would consider it more a live-action movie with animated elements than the other way around. If you're going for pure CG though, there's Beowulf. raditts fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Eggie posted:I'm not expecting a lot from the Ratchet and Clank movie. Apparently the writer of the PS3 trilogy is doing the script and the story and writing of the PS3 trilogy was mediocre at best. Even Cars is written better than the R&C games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:I liked Kung Fu Panda 2 MORE than the first to be honest! Lord Shen was awesome, and the cannonball and raindrop scenes were so good Was it actually good? Bear in mind - I loving hate Madagascar with the fire of a thousand suns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
I think it's generally accepted around here that the Kung Fu Panda movies (alongside How To Train Your Dragon) are some of the best stuff Dreamworks has done. Seriously go watch it, it's a great movie. The celebrity voices I forgot were even celebrities pretty quick. As recognizable as Jack Black is, I hear him as Po, and not Jack Black. Same for all the other characters with maybe the exception of Seth Rogen as Mantis
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Kung Fu Panda is basically a really good Kung Fu Movie starring Jack Black in a capacity where even if you don't like him, he's still pretty likeable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
AnimeJune posted:I have a confession to make - I have *not* seen the original Kung Fu Panda. I adored Dreamworks' Prince of Egypt and later on, How to Train Your Dragon, but everything in between (except maybe the first Shrek movie) I've either avoided or hated. I took one look at the trailer for it with the stupid smirking panda and the Instantly Recognizable Celebrity Voices and was turned right the gently caress off. Yeah, there's obviously no guarantee that you'll like it but it's a really well-made movie and generally considered pretty funny. The designs are great and the animation is fantastic too. Definitely worth a single watch at the least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Kung Fu Panda is, in my mind, far and away the best thing Dreamworks has done. I like the second one as well, albeit less so. It's good, it just doesn't feel like it brings anything new to the table. That said... the hardcore do understand  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Big Hero 6 has directors attached. Chris Williams and Don Hall are co-directing and Roy Conli is producing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Can't wait for the trailer to come out so we can all complain about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Eggie posted:I'm not expecting a lot from the Ratchet and Clank movie. Apparently the writer of the PS3 trilogy is doing the script and the story and writing of the PS3 trilogy was mediocre at best. Even Cars is written better than the R&C games. Pretty certain this will happen. Ever since Tools of Destruction started aping animation movies (they actually had background music in cutscenes for the first time), I feared this would happen. Too bad R&C is not only badly written, but also always had incredibly bland and uninteresting characters, aliens, enemies and whatnot. Seriously. Like, 90% of all enemies are robot torsos. The true stars of the series have ALWAYS been the weapons, and I highly doubt they can make the entire movie about that. Also, the very first teaser actually made a god-awful "hur hur, don't piss off the animators, 'cause they are GODS" joke. Not a good sign, if you ask me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Torquemadras posted:Pretty certain this will happen. Ever since Tools of Destruction started aping animation movies (they actually had background music in cutscenes for the first time), I feared this would happen. Too bad R&C is not only badly written, but also always had incredibly bland and uninteresting characters, aliens, enemies and whatnot. I'm afraid to start a derail with this, but have we been playing the same games? I mean it's probably a difference in taste, but the way I saw it, everything in that series (the main series at least), from the weapons to the characters to the aliens, had this goofy charm that was always fun as hell. I remember seeing some behind the scenes footage where the developers designed several enemies in A Crack in Time to reflect stereotypical high school cliques, like with the big scaly warrior-race aliens acting like jocks that pushed around the big-headed, nerdy aliens. Stuff like that is why I love the series. Sure the aliens tended to be generic with less depth than one would find in, say, Star Trek. But it was always good light-hearted fun regardless. Hell, I thought A Crack in Time had some pretty decent writing and humor for a video game, especially with the plot surrounding Dr. Nefarious and Azimuth. I mean, I'm not expecting Pixar-level stuff from this movie, but if it's as fun as the games are, then that's fine by me. Plus I the trailer got a laugh out of me, as corny as it was. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Torquemadras posted:The true stars of the series have ALWAYS been the weapons, and I highly doubt they can make the entire movie about that. This might be the biggest problem with the Ratchet and Clank film. The franchise is known for its over-the-top PG-rated carnage and I'm guessing the film creators will tone back the violence because a straight-up adaptation of R&C's cartoony violence would be too controversial. Take out the violence and what you're left with is a cliche-ridden story that's not going to appeal to many viewers. Best case scenario is the creators do make the film as action-crazy as the games so parents can take their children to see Ratchet's Intergalactic Massacre.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Why is the tone for the Lego movie in the OP so negative? I love the pseudo-stopmotion animation style, the cast is talented, and all of the marketing points to an over-the-top comedic romp--something the director does well. Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Why is the tone for the Lego movie in the OP so negative? I love the pseudo-stopmotion animation style, the cast is talented, and all of the marketing points to an over-the-top comedic romp--something the director does well. Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs is hilarious. Because I've found all the trailers to be really unfunny and obnoxious. As I said in the OP, only the pedigree is giving me any hope at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
The only joke that I really liked was the Abe Lincoln one, if there's lots of that then I'm gold.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
I think it's pretty funny when you realize that the reason everything's so simple is because it's just a story some kids make up when they're playing with Legos.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
I think the Lego trailer looks pretty great and the people and voices behind it is just icing on the cake VV I was surprised by he negative description in the OP as well Probably the only joke I didn't like was the girl going "That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard" and then Morgan Freeman Lego going "Let me handle this. That idea was just the worst" but it was clearly not in response to the bunk-couch and was just cut weird
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 03:31
|
|