Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Again??

I donno, maybe it's because I'm at freaking DisneyWorld and my brain is mushier than usual. But crap. Do we really need this?

...now these white-capped, blue dwarfs are getting set for the silver screen: Paramount Pictures is currently developing a CGI 3D Smurf feature through its Nickelodeon Films unit which would bring the mischievous creatures to a whole new generation...

TIME is talking about the Smurfs. The g*ddamn Smurfs. It's not like they weren't fine in their time, or that kids didn't love them. But sweet mother of Mosesthey've been beaten into the ground already, haven't they> And we've had Alvin and the other Chipmunks. We've had Rocky and Bullwinke (with DeNiro, no less). We've had Scooby Do and those other freaks he ran around with.

Can't we go do some new property now? One that doesn't have those short blue people, or Yogi, Booboo and Ranger Smith in it?

13 comments:

Feri-san said...

Excuse my language but...

What the crap!?

First: turn fantasy books to movie fad. (don't get me wrong, I like some of them, like Harry Potter or Narnia, even if a few newer 'other's look like ripoffs of one another)

Now: Butcher childhood memories by placing them in 'real world' out of their 'toon universe?

Alvin looked good, but it barely retained the spirit and 'magic' the show always had for me. It was pretty cold in comparison to the original. I hardly recognized the characters at times. Underdog... forgive me, barely did any justice.

Wherever did originality go? As merely an spectator and an aspiring character designer, I've seen plenty of people with juicy, creative, show/movie ideas, and yet... we get this instead?

Come on, people can do better than that. They need to stop depending on age-old childhood fanactism buried deep inside people to ensure their movies get seen. It's like an 'easy' way in. People are already familiar with the characters, they know them. PEople will obviously be curious as to how their 'childhood memories' got depicted so they're gonna go see the movie...

I miss originality. I didn't even bother watching the recent realistic Underdog movie (saw the behind the scenes once I think, but I was not impressed, only disappointed), Alvin was all right but I didn't feel I was watching Alvin and the Chipmunks, but watching one of those CGI-fad animal flicks. Garfield.... while I did like it, I barely felt I was watching a movie based on the famous, fat, sleeping orange cat in the comic strips.

Now the smurfs?

Whats next? My little Pony? Snoopy? (they better not touch snoopy!) the Carebears?

The saddest thing is that not only movies but TV is resorting to 'previously' known characters to attract the audience.

I really really miss 'new material'. Luckily they still show great cartoons in tv like Kim Possible, or Fairly Oddparents, Danny Phantom, or Ying yang yo, amongst others.

That's the kind of shows and movies that I like, where we're introduced to brand new characters, worlds and storylines....

This "childhood" remakes, sadly, fail at that.

But that's my humble opinion on the matter, I apologize if I offended anyone with it.

Robert Peterson said...

Why won't they leave classics alone? I just hope they don't screw their characters up.

Anonymous said...

Whoa...did he say CLASSICS?!?!
Now I've heard everything....hahahahahahahahahaha

robiscus said...

because hollywood is full of spineless dolts.

THATS WHY.

it used to be "no risk, no return", but now that pop culture is eating itself, executives have proven properties before they are even invested in!

i just can't wait for when the worm turns and they run out of remakes(and they will).

Benjamin De Schrijver said...

Hasn't this been in development/production for years? I heard news about a 3D smurfs movie 3 years ago.

Usually, I'd be against this, but if it serves UNICEF, I'm all for it.

anon: yes, Classics. If not the animated series, the comics surely were.

Anonymous said...

Dont forget the GI-Joe
movie coming soon!!

This happens because nostalga sells.
People continue to vote with their dollars. The monetary success of Alvin ensures a sequel.
Stop buying it peoples!!

Anonymous said...

I didn't see anywhere in the quote provided where it said the Smurfs were being "taken out of their cartoon universe" and brought into the "real world". That may in fact be true, but based on what's said here, it's jumping to conclusions.

Repeat after me: "NO ONE can 'butcher' your childhood memories if you don't let them." Don't go see a movie if it "reimagines" a property that holds a special place in your heart. I loved Underdog as a kid, and I'd completely forgotten that a live action movie was made. Know why? BECAUSE I DIDN'T GO SEE IT! If you go see this stuff, you're as culpable as the filmmaker and studios for what it does to your memories of the original. Moreso, in fact, because you gave the impression that you approved of and supported the decision.

Oh, and don't ever forget that the cartoon you hold so dear was originally created for the purpose of making money, just as these sometimes-ill-advised remakes are.

Anonymous said...

They'll never run out of things to remake, because there's no limit on how many times you can remake something.

Anonymous said...

I think some people need to take a film history class. The "can't those dolts in Hollywood do anything original", is just naive, (respectfully). Almost every story or idea is derivative of something already made, written or drawn. Quick example: We all love Walt Disney's "Sleeping Beauty"...uh, only it's not Walt's. Sure he made a great animated film version, but only after Charles Perrault wrote the book...in 1697! Remakes, sequels, "ideas based on" have been the staple of Hollywood film making since...forever! So, relax, see a movie, don't see a movie...it ain't ever gonna change. BTW, this comment was inspired by an article I read in The New Yorker fifteen years ago...=) Cheers, Bob

Stone said...

What? And have studios going around taking risks on untested properties all willy-nilly and such? FOOEY, GAFRUMPLE and BULDERDASH!

Oh and just because Walt made movies based on classic fairy tales that existed before he came along you might wanna remember that they hadn't yet really been executed in the new medium of animation (let alone film) in such a beautiful way.

The context is that Walt did it in a way that emphasized entertainment value and craftsmanship. Snow White was destined to bomb according everyone that knew he was making it at the time (even nicknamed the project Walt's Folly) so there wasn't the "guaranteed to sell" thinking that we KNOW is going on behind the decision-making for "Smurfs" and "Alvin and the Chipmunks."

There are people that wanna make good movies even if they're based off of pre-existing stories and there are people that think something that sold in the past will sell again. Saying, "It's just movies" and "that's how it's always been" really just justifies and allows people to make shallow, soulless crap. I'd be "ok" with a 50/50 ratio of shallow crap and quality entertainment and the saying "it's just the movies, if you don't like it, don't see it" IF that were the case. But the ratio is more like 90% shallow "quick buck" crap 10% genuine entertainment and it only gets more lopsided each year.

Studios like Fox release their "guaranteed sells" under their main banner and release anything "risky" under specialty departments like Fox searchlight (more than half of so-called "specialty" films being made, not just by Fox but other studios as well, were canned before completion). The system is in place specifically to make shallow "quick buck" films.

"It ain't ever gonna change"... Brother, it's BEEN changing and not in the audience's favor.

Anonymous said...

While I agree with the last comment for the most part, I'll just add that any artform is a reflection of the society which created it. In this case 90/10 percent ratio of shallow vs. quality you mentioned might also reflect the audience's taste.

There's little we can do to change that.

R.

Anonymous said...

"But the ratio is more like 90% shallow"quick buck" crap 10% genuine entertainment"

Wow, that's an amazing percentage to throw out...I must pretty "shallow", because I see a lot of motion pictures every year,(live action and animated), and I enjoy, if not LOVE a lot more than 10 percent. I know my young kids have a great time at the theater, (they especially enjoyed last years,('07) crop of animated films). I think a quick look back and you'll be able to find great, good and bad films in every era. I'll agree the bar has been set pretty low as far as mainstream comedies go, but not 90/10. Not even close. Bob :)

Anonymous said...

Hollywood fears original content. Very lazy.

Site Meter