Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 4:45 pm
So was Chipmunks 2: The Squeakquel. Popularity says nothing about quality.yukitora wrote:1. Shrek 2 was an incredibly successful and generally well received film by the masses. I for one, loved it!
Then why use their voices at all? If they're not attracting masses of fans, then why not hire professional voice actors? Why advertise the celebrity voices? I don't know about Ghilbi, but this film (and most others) advertise with the celebrity voices. And I say people aren't going to see an animated movie just because a 'star' is voicing a talking cat or dog. You said the same. We agree. So what was your point?yukitora wrote:2. Those two celebrities have very limited fanbases and I doubt they will draw in a huge crowd. For that matter, I don't even think any celebrity voice-over brings in huge audience. Look at the Ghilbi dubs, they always have a-list movie stars and yet they aren't advertised as such. I don't know where you get this idea of 'hype' from.
Not every film has to be original. Hollywood proves that on a daily basis. But it would be nice for a change to see an original movie. Why would Disney (Touchstone) want to recycle a premise they already used themselves (Pixar)?yukitora wrote:3. What wrong? Not every film has to be original. That's like saying "a princess movie about a girl who meets a prince? Hello, it's called Snow White!"
I don't know about you, but I generally like GOOD animation. Why you would want to defend crappy animation is beyond me. Why you are defending this film at all is beyond me, actually. I simply voiced my opinion on this trailer. Why would anybody feel the need to challenge such a trivial post point-by-point?yukitora wrote:4. Not everything can look as beautiful as tangled <3 but its funny because they are porcelain characters warrant stiff animation.
I've seen Aladdin and Hercules, which were full of very clever and well-executed pop-cultural references. And I've seen films like Shrek 2 and I've seen this trailer, which are full of lame, lazy and unoriginal references. There's a difference, but again, I don't see why you feel this URGE to defend this *trailer* tooth and nail?yukitora wrote:5. Lame pop culture references? Have you seen a Disney film?
They're running it into the ground. They're over-using it. Instead of an addition to the films, it's used as a gimmick. And soon, the gimmick won't work anymore. Better focus on substance than style.yukitora wrote:7. Of course they're going to release it in 3D, it's the standard (especially for animated features). They are trying to make as much money as possible, what's wrong with that?
No, it's a standard lovestory that has been done a thousand times before, and to make it appear to be more adult, they say it's based on Shakespeare.yukitora wrote:8. The story has always been based on Shakespeare. They didn't just "refer" to Shakespeare, it's always been vital to the storyline. They are simply being open about it.
that G said, i'm doubting they die/break, but could always be wrong 
