Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

Post by **droosan** » March 31st, 2009, 6:32 pm

HD Quicktime versions of the Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs trailer are now available on Apple's movie trailer site.

Post by **ELIOLI** » August 17th, 2009, 3:28 pm

Let me introduce my self. I am Olivia's twin sister, Elena. now..

Due to everyone not favoring the character designs as much, I personally disagree. At least they try to make it different. If you get the Art Of Book, you will be more appreciative of the designs and the characters themselves. I perfer these than some of the other charctarizations they had planned before. I am eagerly awaiting the film. I think people need to get out of the "it should look like Disney or realer looking people" rut and have an open mind about the character designs. And the animation looks great and as the story itself. It may be loosly based on the book, but it gives the actual back story of how Chewandswallow became this wacky weather town. I have read the book and am not personally offended if they changed the story. Think about it, they might have actually been in the story somewhere and we didn't know it. This shouldn't be a rental or a "might see" film. I believe if you love animation, disney or not, you would go see ANY animated film including this fine peice of work in my opinion. An open mind should be included as well. This is the backstory to how Chewandswallow came to be. Then how would there be any movie to explain why all the food just fell from the sky for no reason. I suggest get the Art Of book and I know you will find them more appealing with each read.
This movie is on Our must see list if you are a real animation fan, or just looking for a good entertaining film. Mine is both.
agagin, If you have an open mind and love any kind of animation..and not Just disney..then you would go see this film.I highly suggest it.

Post by **Kaszubas** » August 17th, 2009, 5:22 pm

Some good points there Elena

I agree with You to some extent - designwise it looks interesting and character animation looks great. It definitely has its own quite unique visual style. I'll take the risk and visit my local cineplex when it opens

I belive it's gonna be quite entertaining at least

Post by **Ben** » August 18th, 2009, 6:30 am

Well any film going out with a design aesthetic like that is obviously doing it for a reason, and we know Sony can do the regular types of cartoon humans in CG, so I have no qualms about the visual design here - after all, Jimmy Neutron didn't exactly follow the trend back then and that was a fun little picture.

I'll routinely - if I can - go and see any animated feature in the cinema. If I didn't, I would never have gone to South Park and ended up loving that show. As always, though, it's down to story, and that's where I'm not sure Cloudy is going to charm us or not (the Sony features have been eclectic to say the least).

Post by **ELIOLI** » August 18th, 2009, 9:58 am

I guess we are just going to find out and see then aren't we?

Post by **Tyler_Legrand** » August 20th, 2009, 12:06 pm

But the main one I wanted to mention was World of Warcraft. The ingame graphics are completely cartoony, but the intro movies for all three games (well. one game and 2 expansions) are (mostly) realistic and done very well. ESPECIALLY the current one "Wrath of the Lich King". I really wish the WoW movie that is in the works was animated by Blizzard instead of live action.

I've never seen their level of detail in CGI features. Would it be fair to say that animating an entire feature film with the complexity of Blizzard's cinematics would result in a production schedule as long as one from a Richard Williams animation?

Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSjRXI5XHw8 Teehee. The pan of the templar walking reminds me of WallE's camera lenses and physics.

Post by **Dacey** » September 17th, 2009, 5:26 pm

Currently 89% Fresh at RT:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1196077 ... meatballs/

Post by **ELIOLI** » September 17th, 2009, 7:32 pm

Now at 91%. Hope it stays fresh

Post by **ELIOLI** » September 18th, 2009, 6:03 am

Still 91% son! It could fluxuate, but neverthless, that's still remarkebly good for some people here having doubts about this film.

Post by **EricJ** » September 18th, 2009, 12:09 pm

ELIOLI wrote:Still 91% son! It could fluxuate, but neverthless, that's still remarkebly good for some people here having doubts about this film.

Like, that the character design looked ridiculously cheap, the original picture book got the standard No-Resmblance embellishment, and the gags in the trailer seemed off the Dreamworks rack?

Yeah, I'm starting to get a little worried myself--
I can grasp that Kung Fu Panda might've had a little substance to it (still too afraid to rent it yet), but can anyone who's actually SEEN the danged thing report whether Cwacom really does pull some Pixar heartstrings out of its hat in the 9th inning, Robinsons/Bolt style?
Some of us need convincing, BIG-ol' time.

(Or is it yet another diagnosed mainstream-critic case of All CGI Is Shrek, Sorta?
Most of the good reviews seem to be "Wow, what a funny idea!", which they could've equally gotten from reading the 24pp. picture book to begin with...And the likelihood that they hadn't.)

Post by **estefan** » September 18th, 2009, 12:25 pm

Metacritic has it at a 66 (generally favorable). I find Metacritic to be more accurate than Rotten Tomatoes, as they focus on the top critics and actually assign a score to the review rather than just simply saying "They liked it" or "They didn't like it." Hence, why films that have a general positive, but overly praising response from critics tend to have scores in the high 90s on RT.

Post by **ELIOLI** » September 18th, 2009, 3:46 pm

the character desgin doesn't look cheap at all. if you listened to the directors(i doubt it) they said they were looking for a 2d look and puppet motions. i hope it does well and it looks awesome! if you have seen the movie. post it here, but don't make points about it if you havn't even seen it yet.

Post by **ELIOLI** » September 18th, 2009, 3:49 pm

I'm sorry, but this is not PIXAR! Nobody has to be like Pixar, and no one ever will. I'm actually sick of everything referring to Pixar. Yes their movies are good. yes they have great animation, but they are their own separate company! Don't get me wrong, but it seems like everyone is trying to find something bad about this film. I'm just sick of hearing this so much. I'm sorry again, and I understand everyone has their own opinions, but you guys need to look on the postive side and stop bashing every film that's not Pixar for once. trailers don't do justice.

BTW it's 87%. better tham anyone expected I presume.

Post by **ELIOLI** » September 18th, 2009, 3:49 pm

please don't think of it as double posting. me and my sis switch places.

Post by **EricJ** » September 18th, 2009, 9:20 pm

ELIOLI wrote:I'm sorry, but this is not PIXAR! Nobody has to be like Pixar, and no one ever will. I'm actually sick of everything referring to Pixar. Yes their movies are good. yes they have great animation, but they are their own separate company! Don't get me wrong, but it seems like everyone is trying to find something bad about this film. I'm just sick of hearing this so much. I'm sorry again, and I understand everyone has their own opinions, but you guys need to look on the postive side and stop bashing every film that's not Pixar for once. trailers don't do justice.

BTW it's 87%. better tham anyone expected I presume.

..."Presume", as in, you haven't seen it either yet, then?