|
Sheldrake posted:Not gonna lie, I'm kinda amazed at the positive reaction it's getting here. The trailer is about 90% explosions, and most of the human animation looks like it comes directly from Monsters vs. Aliens-- the Lois Lane knock-off especially.
|
| # ? Aug 22, 2010 08:48 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 01:57 |
|
|
mexicanmonkey posted:90% explosions? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't understand how percentages work... Yeah, I just rewatched the trailer to double check, guess my Monsters vs Aliens PTSD was kicking in. Still 
|
| # ? Aug 22, 2010 09:36 |
|
|
I think Dreamworks is just trying to establish a likable, non-Disney style. I can respect that, even if there are some bumps along the way.
|
| # ? Aug 22, 2010 10:47 |
|
|
I'm a big fan of Tina Fey, but her voice just isn't grabbing me so far. Same with Brad Pitt. Will Dreamworks never learn? Now, Amy Pohler--she's got an interesting voice. She was great in Horton Hears a Who. Probably wouldn't be right for this particular role, though. Anyway, the only voice that really grabbed me in that trailer was David Cross'. Tartarus Sauce fucked around with this message at Aug 22, 2010 around 15:49 |
| # ? Aug 22, 2010 15:45 |
|
|
Sheldrake posted:Yeah, I just rewatched the trailer to double check, guess my Monsters vs Aliens PTSD was kicking in. I think the same team within Dreamworks that animated Monsters Vs. Aliens are working on Megamind. edit: Perhaps the same character designers, because it's directed by the guy who did Madagascar and it's sequel for them. TheBigBudgetSequel fucked around with this message at Aug 22, 2010 around 16:21 |
| # ? Aug 22, 2010 16:18 |
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:I think the same team within Dreamworks that animated Monsters Vs. Aliens are working on Megamind. Actually, when I first saw the Megamind trailer, I thought they were re-using the villain from Monsters vs. Aliens, because all I could remember is that the villain in that movie had a large forehead. Well, and four eyes. So much for my visual memory.
|
| # ? Aug 22, 2010 16:53 |
|
|
Tartarus Sauce posted:Actually, when I first saw the Megamind trailer, I thought they were re-using the villain from Monsters vs. Aliens, because all I could remember is that the villain in that movie had a large forehead.   Nah, you have a point. It does borrow heavily from the character design.
|
| # ? Aug 22, 2010 17:07 |
|
|
Well, and when I thought that Megamind was going to be "The Marvelous Misadventures of the Villain from Monsters vs. Aliens," I was actually intrigued, because I thought they were looping back around to fully flesh-out a previously-ho-hum character. But, maybe the focus groups weren't able to empathize with a quadriocular anti-hero. Or, maybe Dreamworks is just obsessed with blue aliens with swollen heads.
|
| # ? Aug 22, 2010 17:36 |
|
|
Sheldrake posted:Yeah, I just rewatched the trailer to double check, guess my Monsters vs Aliens PTSD was kicking in.
|
| # ? Aug 22, 2010 18:42 |
|
|
I'm not sure about the comparison to Monsters vs. Aliens. The problem with that one is that it's a kids' movie that's meant to keep 'em quiet for two hours. It's ugly, the voicework is phoned in, and there's no plot to speak of other than what's in the title. Aside from the giant main character rampaging through the bad guy's ship, nothing interesting happened at all. Just from the trailer, I can see MM has an interesting plot, looks good and has some jokes that actually work, and assuming I haven't just seen EVERY good part of the film, it should be a lot of fun. Fingers crossed 'cause I really want to like it. E: and yeah, Tina Fey's character looks kinda bland.
|
| # ? Aug 22, 2010 19:34 |
|
|
Megamind's character designs are hideous. It's mainly in the eyes. They're huge and cartoony, but the details in the pupils and irises make some vague attempt at realism. The results are awful. Look at Tina Fey's character. loving look! She's grotesque! Same deal with the Monsters VS Aliens character. It's like they want to make their female characters sexy, but also cartoony, but also vaguely real. All at the same time. Megamind himself looks like a botched attempt to add cuteness to a non-cute design, and the result is just plain awkward.
|
| # ? Aug 22, 2010 19:48 |
|
|
Well, obviously I disagree but it's all down to personal opinion.
|
| # ? Aug 22, 2010 19:53 |
|
|
Pick posted:I think Dreamworks is just trying to establish a likable, non-Disney style. I can respect that, even if there are some bumps along the way. "Giving one of our main characters from another movie a haircut to be a new main character" isn't what I'd call respectable. If Pixar had made Up with Woody the Cowboy in the main role with his hair colored gray, it'd be insulting.
|
| # ? Aug 22, 2010 19:57 |
|
|
Sheldrake posted:"Giving one of our main characters from another movie a haircut to be a new main character" isn't what I'd call respectable. If Pixar had made Up with Woody the Cowboy in the main role with his hair colored gray, it'd be insulting. You could make this complaint about every white Disney princess. I still get Aurora and Cinderella confused.
|
| # ? Aug 22, 2010 20:20 |
|
|
Pick posted:You could make this complaint about every white Disney princess. I still get Aurora and Cinderella confused. Its so easy, the short hair blonde works like a man while the one with long blonde hair takes a nap after spinning yarn and wakes up to a husband. The short hair one needs a female authority figure to doll her up so that a landed gentry will want her, while the long blonde one has loving parents and a husband who murders a sorcerer-dragon independent woman. Its all about subtext. Barudak fucked around with this message at Aug 22, 2010 around 23:26 |
| # ? Aug 22, 2010 23:23 |
|
|
Ooh, is this the part of the thread where we discuss the Disney Princesses and their impact on Third Wave Feminism?
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 01:35 |
|
|
MindTheGap posted:Ooh, is this the part of the thread where we discuss the Disney Princesses and their impact on Third Wave Feminism? I can help with that! 
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 02:10 |
|
|
I love the Disney Princesses, even the ones that aren't real princesses. The Disney "Girls".
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 02:25 |
|
|
Technically that doesn't list them all, since Mulan, Tiana, and Pocahontas are all official Princesses as well.
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 02:37 |
|
|
And what about Princess Kidagakash Nedakh??? WHAT ABOUT KIDA??? I only saw Atlantis once like 8 years ago so I don't actually remember what role she played in the movie. I'd kinda like to see it again just because I remember a big Mignola designed monster fight and that had to have been rad.
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 02:56 |
|
|
Soy Sauce Beast posted:I can help with that! You mean to tell me that characters in stories reflect the values of the time period they were created in?  As terrible as the subtext of some of the older Disney movies may be at least they seemed to try and make a conscious effort to address it from the 90s onward. Pocahontas may have fallen victim to the trappings of the noble savage but everything after that was pretty progressive: Mulan made a conscious effort to give all the character voice actors of actual asian descent and made her a war hero without resorting to the "98-pound woman can beat up a hulking brute because GRRRRRL POWER" trope, all while the plot was a direct commentary on traditional gender roles. Lilo & Stitch was an outright endorsement of non-nuclear families and compared to Pocahontas' "coffee-colored Barbie doll" look Lilo and her sister were much more ethnic-looking and, in her sister's case, had a much more realistic figure. I mean, it's not perfect but considering over the course of one generation we've gone from a slanty-eyed siamese cat playing the piano with chopsticks while singing ching-chong bing-bong and hitting gongs to a Chinese peasant girl defeating the Huns by shrugging off the patriarchy and using intellect it's a good start.
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 03:30 |
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:You mean to tell me that characters in stories reflect the values of the time period they were created in? And the newest addition, Tiana! A young, black woman who wants to start her own business and turning into a frog isn't going to stop her.
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 03:38 |
|
|
Pick posted:Technically that doesn't list them all, since Mulan, Tiana, and Pocahontas are all official Princesses as well. I don't know why they've been pushing this in their stuff lately. Mulan is not a princess. Not even in the "marries a prince" sense. Her boyfriend is a general and head guard to the Emperor, not a prince.
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 04:28 |
|
|
I'm not sure either, Vargo, but "Disney Princess" is an official title, and Mulan achieved it. I always thought it was pretty BS that Kida isn't one while Pocahontas is, since Kida's a solid character as well. And actually a princess.
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 04:32 |
|
|
Pick posted:I'm not sure either, Vargo, but "Disney Princess" is an official title, and Mulan achieved it. I always thought it was pretty BS that Kida isn't one while Pocahontas is, since Kida's a solid character as well. And actually a princess. Daughter of a chief makes Pocahontas a princess, dammit! Also, the princess from Dark Crystal doesn't count apparently.
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 04:36 |
|
|
Vargo posted:Also, the princess from Dark Crystal doesn't count apparently. Uh, but Dark Crystal isn't traditionally-animated, so I wouldn't expect that. It would throw off the look substantially. Also, she's not human. And I don't think it was Disney.
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 04:46 |
|
|
Pick posted:Uh, but Dark Crystal isn't traditionally-animated, so I wouldn't expect that. It would throw off the look substantially. Also, she's not human. And I don't think it was Disney.  Not only was it not Disney back then, but it is one of the properties that Disney still does not own (the Jim Henson Company only sold off the rights to The Muppets and Bear In The Big Blue House - Fraggle Rock, specific Sesame Street characters like Bert & Ernie and Elmo and Big Bird and so on, Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, all those properties and characters are still owned wholly by JHC).
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 04:54 |
|
|
Soy Sauce Beast posted:I can help with that! HOWEVER, the Beast's redemption is purely dependent on the whims of his female counterpart, which is a radical departure from the heroic prince who, while standard in almost all Disney films up to the 1970's, merely serves to swoop in and save some dumb broad from the pickle that she got herself into. The enchantress who changed the prince into a beast could have very easily made the conditions of his curse that he absolve himself by donating his fortune to the poor, or aiding travelers in need, or generally working to better his soul, but no, she chooses "the kiss of true love". So, in essence, it's his desirability to the opposite sex that's integral to his salvation. The message is pretty hosed up in either direction you slice it, really, but at least it's hosed up for the man as well as the woman in this case. It's... progress?
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 05:03 |
|
|
Pick posted:Uh, but Dark Crystal isn't traditionally-animated, so I wouldn't expect that. It would throw off the look substantially. Also, she's not human. And I don't think it was Disney. Yes....The Dark Crystal.... Which is NOT The Black Cauldron. Which is what I meant to say.
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 05:05 |
|
|
Ooh, gotcha. Eilonwy. Well, I think Disney was pretty embarrassed by that horrible film, and rightfully so. It's almost unwatchable  .
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 05:15 |
|
|
Pick posted:Ooh, gotcha. Eilonwy. Well, I think Disney was pretty embarrassed by that horrible film, and rightfully so. It's almost unwatchable Unless I'm mistaken, it was directed by Richard Rich. It lets you know how long he's been producing stinkers. (Though, he co-directed Fox and the Hound. Maybe the two others balanced him out?)
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 05:30 |
|
|
Pick posted:Ooh, gotcha. Eilonwy. Well, I think Disney was pretty embarrassed by that horrible film, and rightfully so. It's almost unwatchable It was a necessary growing pain to make it so that instead of making a single movie every few years they'd have several teams working on different films, so I can't complain.
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 05:32 |
|
|
Pick posted:Ooh, gotcha. Eilonwy. Well, I think Disney was pretty embarrassed by that horrible film, and rightfully so. It's almost unwatchable Wasn't that because gutting the production staff was pretty much the first thing Eisner and Katzenberg did upon their arrival?
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 06:49 |
|
|
Pick posted:Ooh, gotcha. Eilonwy. Well, I think Disney was pretty embarrassed by that horrible film, and rightfully so. It's almost unwatchable Every time I remember this exists I get a little sad that this is the only cinematic version of the Prydain Chronicles. I had read the entire series when I found out the Disney movie existed. The school library had the artbook, or at least a book with scenes from the film in it, for it. I kind of wondered why I had never heard of the Disney adaptation before that point. I mean it's Disney, I'd seen pretty much every major Disney release to that point in some fashion and yet I'd never heard of this one. Then I never got to see it until it got released on DVD in, I want to say, the late 90s. Abject disappointment followed 
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 07:45 |
|
|
Some Ghibli News from an interview with Hayao Miyazaki: Miyazaki is developing two projects for other directors to helm, and if they're good, he's going to make Porco Rosso 2.
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 12:13 |
|
|
MindTheGap posted:I like this a lot, but to be honest, I think Belle inhabits a distinctly gray territory here. Yes, her main asset is ultimately her good looks, and all of the "awww, look at how book smart she is!" plot elements aren't really going to reconcile the fact.
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 13:37 |
|
|
Kojiro posted:Belle always came off as having Stockholm Syndrome to me to be quite honest. Pretty much, and the staff of the castle played on this to get her to fall in love with Beast. gently caress. I've never really thought about it that much before. That's sort of creepy.
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 13:59 |
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Pocahontas may have fallen victim to the trappings of the noble savage I always thought Pocahontas got away with that because it actually allowed the indians to be just as racist as the settlers (thus making them more realistic and above all, human). Hellbunny fucked around with this message at Aug 23, 2010 around 17:18 |
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 17:13 |
|
|
MajorB posted:Some Ghibli News from an interview with Hayao Miyazaki: Miyazaki is developing two projects for other directors to helm, and if they're good, he's going to make Porco Rosso 2. I am excited for this, even though I shouldn't be, since Porco Rosso is the only Miyazaki film I haven't seen.
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 18:10 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 01:57 |
|
|
anaaki posted:I am excited for this, even though I shouldn't be, since Porco Rosso is the only Miyazaki film I haven't seen. I'm more worried that in the unlikely event the next 2 movies don't do well Ghibli is shutting its animation doors.
|
| # ? Aug 23, 2010 21:07 |
|
