Ferdinand

[Dacey]

I don't think we have a thread for this, but if we do, can someone with power please merge? Anyway, this ends the "flood" of topics we've been needing.

[Dacey]

The poster campaign for this movie has been great so far:

http://animatedviews.com/2017/beautiful ... -released/

[EricJ]

They're certainly trying to look "artistic", either retro-book for parents who want to show their kids, or More Spanish Than Coco, for theater competition...
Just too bad that the trailers make the movie itself look six years out of date, and BlueSky generic-as-hell.

[Ben]

If anything the more I see of this the closer in feel to Walt's 1938 take it seems, which is why the initial trailer surprised me in being contemporary set.

It's like they can't outwardly say this is a new version of the short, but subconsciously the posters invoke that connection without being able to use the words "Walt" and "Disney".

I'm loving the posters, but they do feel like they're for a more classically-themed movie than we're likely to get.

[EricJ]

If anything the more I see of this the closer in feel to Walt's 1938 take it seems, which is why the initial trailer surprised me in being contemporary set.

It's like they can't outwardly say this is a new version of the short, but subconsciously the posters invoke that connection without being able to use the words "Walt" and "Disney".
I'm loving the posters, but they do feel like they're for a more classically-themed movie than we're likely to get.

There's absolutely zero that's "Walt 1938" about the movie we're getting (and even Walt's movie was riding on people's wishful desire to see the book as a Prewar Isolationist Metaphor, as much as Walt knew the audience only saw Three Little Pigs as a Depression Metaphor), and the movie climax most assuredly does not involve flower-sniffing.

In a crowded, some might even say glutted, CGI industry, you sell to the parents--because kids don't buy tickets or park at cineplexes--so Famous Children's Books are coin of the realm. Especially if you can market the tie-in books next to the originals at Barnes & Noble.
That's the key reason why the former BlueSky, now Illumination, beat Dr. Seuss to within an off-topic inch of its life, and why BlueSky 2.0 has to look elsewhere for parental Children's Book Icons they can invoke the holy titles of, while pasting the usual "Oddball dreamer learns to be different" DWA-wannabe Panda tropes onto. It's also why we got Ant Bully and Polar Express, when the producer couldn't get Maurice Sendak.

And certainly the trailer we got is brimming over with "Kung Fu Panda moment" money-gags for its sweetly oversized/uncoordinated hero...Oops, forgot, I'm talking to people who liked KFP, aren't I?
Well, never mind, just look at the poster frame on the YouTube clip and tell me we're getting the original book or the Walt short.

[Dacey]

It's also why we got Ant Bully and Polar Express, when the producer couldn't get Maurice Sendak.

I get so lost when reading your posts sometimes.

[Ben]

Eric so obviously does not have a child.

[EricJ]

It's also why we got Ant Bully and Polar Express, when the producer couldn't get Maurice Sendak.

I get so lost when reading your posts sometimes.

Back in the early days of weird Robert Zemeckis CGI experiments, producer Tom Hanks originally wanted to produce "Where the Wild Things Are" for CGI, couldn't get it, tried to get "Ant Bully" instead, that slipped to other owners, and settled for playing every character in "Polar Express".
You may note a running theme in the choice of film projects, when it comes to producers wanting to make kids-CGI films without really knowing how, and that's just of those with the less greedy or corporate motives.

Eric so obviously does not have a child.

Yeah, but I do dabble in children's books, so I have one more "sacred" interest into how CGI films abuse them, rather than a parent's gushiness over hearing a producer invoke their child's favorite words.
I remember reading Jim Carrey in interviews excited to hope that he was going to be involved in a really good version of "Mr. Popper's Penguins", and Audrey Geisel excited about what a perfect Grinch he was going to play...Yep, they always start out that naive.

[Ben]

- Tom Hanks' Playtone did actually make The Ant Bully.

- You totally didn't get my reference in saying you don't have a child.

- No one starts out hoping to make a mediocre or disappointing movie. They're all great on the page and in the planning, back when everyone is excited. And then you make the movie. Try it someday, and let's see how you do...

[EricJ]

- You totally didn't get my reference in saying you don't have a child.

No, I thought you were going for the easy "It's going to be a hit anyway, because it'll be a nostalgic lovefest for parents and children rushing to the theater to enjoy favorite book storytime!"
When that was exactly what I was accusing the cynical/desperate studio of doing, but paying to go into a movie is not the same as coming out of it.

Although, granted, all discussions of whether Ferdinand has the box-office stuff to be accepted by audiences is pretty much academic at this point anyway, seeing as it's opening the same day as SW:Ep. VIII...Pooh vs. Harry Potter, anyone?

[Dacey]

Fox is marketing Ferdinand much more than Disney ever marketed Pooh (which, really, they more or less threw away).

Ferdinand will also be the only new animated movie playing for Christmas break.