Barnyard

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 29th, 2005, 6:38 pm

Right, but, it was based on a TV show. So you already knew what it was going to be like and everything. Ditto with South Park, the whole point of it IS the ridiculousness, which is similar to Spongebob.

Movies like Cars, on the other hand, ask you to take them somewhat seriously. At least I think so.

Post by **Macaluso** » October 29th, 2005, 6:47 pm

meh wha'ever

Post by **Meg** » October 29th, 2005, 7:30 pm

Well...Lions don't have monarchies , do they?

Post by **Macaluso** » October 29th, 2005, 9:27 pm

Whatchure point?

Post by **Ben** » October 30th, 2005, 7:54 am

I think she's leading up to the point that 99.99% of movies would simply not happen if they were based in any kind of real world.

Post by **Macaluso** » October 30th, 2005, 11:24 am

so um... what did that have to do with what anything O_o

I am now confused.

Post by **Wonderlicious** » October 30th, 2005, 11:27 am

I was at the cinema this afternoon (seeing Corpse Bride, which was pretty cool and worth a watch) and whilst standing in the lobby waiting for another member of the family to come out of Nanny McPhee, I saw the trailer for this and it did look kinda dum. What's more annoying was that the CGI was lacking soul; the animal characters looked liked squishy toys, and the only decent looking creation was the lady with the weird pink glasses, and even then, she didn't match up to the standards of the characters found in (from the looks of things) Chicken Little not to mention most Dreamworks and Pixar films.

Meg wrote:Why do the cows have udders if they're male? That's disturbing.

Perhaps the bulls are fed up of being bulls and are in the process of a disturbing change...

Post by **fani** » October 30th, 2005, 1:04 pm

In my opinion:it's stupid and lame.

NOT Watching it

Post by **Ben** » October 30th, 2005, 4:48 pm

Wait... you associate with people who want to see Nanny McPhee??

Post by **Wonderlicious** » October 30th, 2005, 4:54 pm

Ben wrote:Wait... you associate with people who want to see Nanny McPhee??

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 30th, 2005, 5:28 pm

I think she's leading up to the point that 99.99% of movies would simply not happen if they were based in any kind of real world.

It doesn't have to be a "real" world but it has to have some kind of structure. Like in Lion King even though yes, lions don't have kingdoms (although they do have family packs) there was still the fact that lions HUNT and EAT and they don't shy away from that (with Nala hunting Pumbaa and all.) The Lions have four legs, the bugs crawl, the sky isn't purple, the trees don't talk, and you never see Simba wearing a crown. That's what I mean by having "rules."

Post by **Macaluso** » October 30th, 2005, 5:45 pm

ShyViolet wrote:
I think she's leading up to the point that 99.99% of movies would simply not happen if they were based in any kind of real world.

It doesn't have to be a "real" world but it has to have some kind of structure. Like in Lion King even though yes, lions don't have kingdoms (although they do have family packs) there was still the fact that lions HUNT and EAT and they don't shy away from that (with Nala hunting Pumbaa and all.) The Lions have four legs, the bugs crawl, the sky isn't purple, the trees don't talk, and you never see Simba wearing a crown. That's what I mean by having "rules."

pocahontas :P

Post by **Dacey** » October 30th, 2005, 5:48 pm

Hmmm. Looks kinda like "Home on the Range". I bet kids will like this one.

And as for the udders thing, they did make Chicken Little a boy, you know.

Post by **Ben** » October 30th, 2005, 6:56 pm

Chicken Little was always a boy!

They changed him to a girl in the Disney film and then back when they realised what the heck they had done!

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 30th, 2005, 9:27 pm

pocahontas

Barring Grandmother Willow, (Indian Spirit) it was still a somewhat believable world because the animals couldn't talk to Pocahontas even though they were her friends. (unlike what the studio originally envisioned, with the John Candy turkey and all that.)

I think part of the weakness of Hunchback of Notre Dame was that it existed half in a believable/half serious world: you never understood how come the Gargoyles could talk to Quasi, how come other Gargoyles couldn't, and could anyone else but Quasi hear them? None of this was established.

At least in Beauty and the Beast there was an explanation for the fact that the furniture could talk. Think about it: what if there never was that explantation that the castle was enchanted? What if the furniture just talked and that was it?? That would have really weakened the film IMO.

Don Bluth's films had a lot of these problems unfortunately (even though I like them). All Dogs Go to Heaven was filled to the brim with these kinds of pardoxes: Believable human world/dog talking only to little girl/only little girl can talk to rats but other animals can't??
Dogs with laser guns driving cars and....no one notices??

I'm not trying to nitpick here, I'm only trying to say that these stories were not as solid as they could have been.

They changed him to a girl in the Disney film and then back when they realised what the heck they had done!

Wait...wasn't it Eisner's idea to change him back into a boy? Hmmm, guess he wasn't the anti-Christ after all then....