Ice Age: Continental Drift (Blue Sky Studios)

[blackcauldron85]

Ice Age 4 coming in 2012
http://animatedviews.com/2010/ice-age-4-coming-in-2012/

I haven't seen any of the films, but wow, a 4th.

[Mickeyfan1990]

Definitley going to see this! I hope Scratte returns.

[ajmrowland]

Why do I get the strange feeling that this franchise should be going the way of the Dinosaurs?

[estefan]

Anybody else find it kind of ironic that these prehistoric animated franchises seem to go on for eons? It seems like they're still producing new Land Before Time sequels, The Flintstones got who knows how many seasons to the points where it took The Simpsons to surpass it as the longest-running animated series and now Ice Age looks like it will go on forever. It makes me almost glad that Dinosaur didn't do well. Otherwise, who knows how many of those Eisner would have commissioned.

Personally, I think Blue Sky is actually a solid animation studio. I greatly enjoyed the first Ice Age and I personally liked Robots and Horton Hears a Who. I'm actually really looking forward to Rio next year, if only because that might be the closest we get to a Jose Carioca revival.

[Widdi]

After how bad the last one was I have no desire to see this.

[UmbrellaFish]

The original is splendid, the second was, from my memory, horrid, and the third was just okay... But none of them have matched the humor of the original in any shape or form. I wish they had left it with one film...

Not too excited for this movie.

[PixarFan2006]

The first film was just okay
The second one I could not get through
The third film I have not seen
The fourth film I will avoid

[Hogi Bear]

Trailer and Shorts:
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fox/ ... ntaldrift/
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yFM32FwrDk[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zocutif0cQY[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh7OV9NbcC4[/youtube]

Enjoy!

[TheValentineBros]

Trailer and Shorts:
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fox/ ... ntaldrift/
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0yFM32FwrDk" frameborder="0"></iframe>

The first Ice Age was good, the sequel was okay, the third one was mediocre, so I'm going to avoid this while I still can.

EDIT: Fuck, my typing is worse than I thought!

[Rose Dome]

[Dr Frankenollie]

I personally don't mind sequels too much, because they can be good...even though they frequently just repeat the original. However, I've never seen why Ice Age is well-liked; the first film is terrible, and the sequels happen to be the same.

[pap64]

To be honest, the first movie was really good. I actually saw it in theaters when it first came out and I really enjoyed it and even had a good laugh with it. The reason why to me it worked was because even if the story and characters were cliche it did have some heart to it and a legit sense of conflict.

The sequels, however, I agree are very mediocre. The problem I see is that with each new movie the characters seem to be approaching the event that causes their extinction but then we get another movie. Not to mention that the concepts got stupider with each new entry. The second one was the least offensive because it did give some character development and a believable conflict that moved the plot forward. The third and quite possible the fourth movie, though, is a free for all. First it was dinosaurs and now it's piracy. Ice Age is stepping away from what made it work.

I also agree that Blue Sky Studios is a good animation studio. Considering that Disney, Pixar and DreamWorks are dominating theaters, the fact that they are able to stay afloat with original films and the Ice Age movies is really something. Robots I think is criminally underrated. While it does suffer from annoying jokes the world is really inventive, the visuals are stunning and the characters manage to be likable. Horton Hears a Who is great and my favorite film they did. It seems that it remains the best adaptation of a Dr. Seuss story as The Lorax seems to be getting mixed reviews at best. Finally, Rio was indeed formulaic, but it had a lot of passion put into it, so it really works as a movie.

[disneyboy20022]

I personally don't mind sequels too much, because they can be good...even though they frequently just repeat the original. However, I've never seen why Ice Age is well-liked; the first film is terrible, and the sequels happen to be the same.

I think, one part of it, is the humor in the movies are good. Though I think this character is why they keep making Ice Age movies/shorts because apparently everyone loves and laughs at this guy.

[ajmrowland]

Yeah, he's a favorite.

[Dr Frankenollie]

To be honest, the first movie was really good. I actually saw it in theaters when it first came out and I really enjoyed it and even had a good laugh with it. The reason why to me it worked was because even if the story and characters were cliche it did have some heart to it and a legit sense of conflict.

The fact that the story/characters were cliche wasn't the main problem of it; it's that I detested virtually all the characters. Manny is a rude and unlikable asshole, the sloth character is ridiculously annoying, and the saber-toothed character stumbles in the films between forgettably bland and unlikable. Their designs are ugly and sloppily-animated, and Manny's motivation is nonsensical - a fellow mammoth was killed by humans, so he decides to help the humans (by bringing their baby back to them). Also, the dialogue isn't amusing in the slightest.

@disneyboy20022: I can see why Scrat helped bring sequels to fruition; he is the only genuinely funny character in the Ice Age movies, which would have been much, much better if they had focused on his silent escapades (perhaps even channelling silent comedians) rather than focusing on a dumb, predictable plot and hateful/irritating characters.

[Elladorine]

To be honest, the first movie was really good. I actually saw it in theaters when it first came out and I really enjoyed it and even had a good laugh with it. The reason why to me it worked was because even if the story and characters were cliche it did have some heart to it and a legit sense of conflict.

The fact that the story/characters were cliche wasn't the main problem of it; it's that I detested virtually all the characters. Manny is a rude and unlikable asshole, the sloth character is ridiculously annoying, and the saber-toothed character stumbles in the films between forgettably bland and unlikable. Their designs are ugly and sloppily-animated, and Manny's motivation is nonsensical - a fellow mammoth was killed by humans, so he decides to help the humans (by bringing their baby back to them). Also, the dialogue isn't amusing in the slightest.

I haven't seen any of the sequels, but I do really like the first one. I don't think that Manny's motivations were nonsensical; he begrudgingly had empathy for the the helpless human baby and preferred he went back with his own kind rather than let the sabers kill him as a prize. It wasn't just a fellow mammoth that was killed, it was his wife and baby. That short, stylized scene of the cave paintings is amazingly heart-wrenching, revealing not only why he pushes other characters away, but also why he carries sympathy for another being that had also been separated from his family.

I'm horribly anal about appealing character designs, but the only ones that didn't work for me were the humans. Both Sid's and Scrat's were satisfyingly off-kilter. And I didn't find any of the animation "sloppy." Maybe a little dated when compared to modern standards, but still handled well overall.

[pap64]

Not to mention that this was Blue Sky's first full length movie, so it is expected that the animation is somewhat of less quality. I mean, look at the movie now and compare it to Rio: the animators have improved greatly since its release.

[Elladorine]

Not to mention that this was Blue Sky's first full length movie, so it is expected that the animation is somewhat of less quality. I mean, look at the movie now and compare it to Rio: the animators have improved greatly since its release.

Yeah, given that it's ten years old I feel it's a really solid effort, even if you don't consider how it's their first feature film. They've obviously learned a lot since then as well along with the increasing technology; even if one doesn't appreciate Rio's story and characters, the animation itself is gorgeous.

[Hogi Bear]

Not to mention that this was Blue Sky's first full length movie, so it is expected that the animation is somewhat of less quality. I mean, look at the movie now and compare it to Rio: the animators have improved greatly since its release.

Yeah, given that it's ten years old I feel it's a really solid effort, even if you don't consider how it's their first feature film. They've obviously learned a lot since then as well along with the increasing technology; even if one doesn't appreciate Rio's story and characters, the animation itself is gorgeous.

Actually, I remember reading an artical or watching a featurette where someone, I'm pretty sure it was Chris Wedge, said that they were given two years to make the film (Probably because of the crash of Fox Animation). So he was saying in order to make this film they would have to comprimise something, so they decided to scale back the detail in the backgrounds and put the most detail into the characters. He was also saying that the water would look good as well, because they had already figured out that side of the animation, built in to their animation engine I guess. He was saying that the backgrounds looking stylised was not part of their vision, they just happen to look like that.

He was also saying that once they finished the movie, they had to wait to see how it did at the Box Office, before their next movie was greenlit. That's why Robots took so long to hit the big screens and why the animation, especially the backgrounds, looked miles better, because it took 3 or4 years to make the next one. If they had that time on Ice Age, the backgrounds would have been a lot more detailed.

[TheValentineBros]

you know, you saying that the first Ice Age movie has terrible animation and character design, eh? Well, look at the grotesque animation coming off of the first Hoodwinked! movie despite it being a comedic gold as far as Shrek ripoffs go.