Looks…fine to me? The art style isn’t something I’m necessarily thrilled about, but I see nothing of the incongruity everyone’s shouting about. There’s way too little in the teaser to draw any sweeping claims about the movie except maybe the graphics, and those look perfectly good. I imagine the movie will have a lot of beautiful sweeping vistas.
Ralph Bakshi tried to do it; his stuff was hit and miss but his visuals were amazing and he at least made the attempt. But there haven’t really been any others to speak of. I think this is bullshit and wish it would change.
Hey, it worked for Jim Carrey when he made Cable Guy.
Didn’t it?
This isn’t true on the level I think you mean, and it isn’t true on the literal level either. Just because something is appropriate for children doesn’t make it a children’s story. That said, there have been many…inappropriate for children movies made by American studios. Not recently, true, but that has more to do with the rising cost of doing business and the general floppiness of said movies than desire to make them.
How about Richard Linklater? Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly?
As others have said, in the US animation has always been considered a children’s movie art form and it’s going to be difficult to convince a movie studio to produce a big-budget movie for adults using animation.
Was that supposed to say “inappropriate animated for children movies”?
Yeah, good point. Although those films were really live-action overlaid with animation, and not true animation like what Pixar does, they at least attempted to use a different visual medium.
Sorry, animated movies that are inappropriate for children is what I meant.
Come on, let’s be reasonable. Pixar doesn’t make “genuinely sucky movies.” Even their worst movie is better than the majority of animated (CGI or otherwise) crap that comes out of the studios. You might not like a particular Pixar film, but to call any of them “genuinely sucky” is a little extreme–even, given their previous track record, one that hasn’t been released yet and we’ve only seen a teaser trailer for.
So, can John Ratzenberger fake a Scottish accent?
Don’t know why not. He’s been faking an American accent for years.
Maybe they’ll have him do all the Bear’s lines.
Argent Towers:
Trey Parker and Matt Stone? Matt Groening?
I’m talking about animated feature films. (Built from the ground up as such, not continuations of shows.)
Again, there isn’t a huge market for that in the states. But that doesn’t mean that movies intended for adults haven’t been made. Wall-E is a good example. Sure, it’s appropriate for kids, but I don’t know anyone under the age of 10 who would get through the first 15 minutes, let alone the first half hour. It’s an adult movie that happens to be rated G (or PG or whatever the rating is.) I would say that *UP *and *Ratatouille *are also both movies that, while appropriate for children, are really best appreciated by adults.
Moving away from Pixar, Iron Giant is very much an adult movie, though again one appropriate for children. But you aren’t going to get Iron Giant until childhood has passed you by. This stuff exists. No, it’s not all Heavy Metal and Fritz the Cat, but honestly does it have to be? Bakshi bankrupted his studio trying to do Lord of the Rings, and that was when animated movies were a lot less expensive than they are now. No one is going to bankroll something they don’t think there is an audience for, and frankly most of those “adults only” animated films were huge flops. Remember Bebe’s Kids? Cool World? Prince of Egypt wasn’t even adults only and it didn’t do well.
At the end of the day making movies is still a business and animated ones are very expensive so the risk is high. You don’t get a lot of indie animation studios anymore.
Oh … like Avatar.
I know, that’s why I said “genuinely”. The first few posts in this thread were very weirdly hostile to Pixar, which I agree is one of the most, if not THE most consistently excellent group of filmakers in the business. So I was differentiating genuine suckitude from the odd-out opinions that were being shared in this thread.
I love Pixar and am looking forward to this movie. Not crazy about the way her face was rendered but I’m sure you won’t notice it after ten minutes or so but please, please, PLEASE no more “camera flying over the cliff” shots. Ever.
Without the camera flying over the cliff shot, thousands of eagles will be put out of business.
Seems to me that when you’ve got really pretty landscapes, as they do here, you want to show them off. And the camera flying off the cliff is a tried-and-true method for showing off pretty landscapes.
This ain’t your mothers goldilocks…