Be Wary of Gimmicks

Subject: Be Wary of Gimmicks
Author: Charlie DoDo
Posted on: 2010-07-31 01:04:00 UTC

One of the big problems is that when something using a particular gimmick is successful people think it's the gimmick that's responsible for the success. that and it's easier to just use gimmick X than to actually put together a quality movie. (or book, or whatever.)

I enjoyed Shrek not because, or in spite of, it being computer animated. I enjoyed it because it's fun.

The medium should be chosen not because it's this week's cool thing, but because it will serve to effectively present the story.

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

Oh, Dan Akroyd. What happened? by Pretzel on 2010-07-30 18:43:00 UTC Reply

*sigh*

This. Just... this. I have no more words.

... by Aster Corbett on 2010-08-01 14:00:00 UTC Reply

This... disturbs and perplexes me.

I am not sure how... how they mean to make this anything but side-splittingly painful.

*turns head sideways*
What, just... what? by OpinionedAngel on 2010-07-31 21:20:00 UTC Reply

While I admit I was never a big fan of Yogi Bear (or much of the cartoons from the 60's/70's, I don't think I'd watch this.

And why are so many movies nowadays in 3D? It's probably just a fad that will eventually end, but for now, it's just annoying.

I think this sums it up: http://psychodemonfox.deviantart.com/favourites/#/d2p1qoi

(By the way, chech out the rest of this guy's stuff, it's quite interesting.)

*grumblemutter* by Neshomeh on 2010-08-01 03:07:00 UTC Reply

Seconding doctorlit, first of all. I like "Flight of the Navigator." If they could take the same story and present it with nice effects, that would be okay, but you know that isn't what they're planning. No. So it's going to stripped (of its charm), polished (a flaming urple), and then rammed down our throats with the rest of the tripe.

Second--and this is actually unrelated--I get the impression that ~jarredspekter has no soul. How does he get off deriding "Avatar" for having a cynical, bitter message and then turning around and claiming it has no story and no point? This does not compute. Especially not when he's doing this in comparison to "Terminator" (which actually has the SAME MESSAGE, if you ask me; at least in part).

Jerk.

~Neshomeh, who can't understand why the ideas of tolerance and responsibility for our world, in any packaging, are so offensive to some people.

Er... by OpinionedAngel on 2010-08-01 03:28:00 UTC Reply

...I really like this guy's stuff, but I respect your opinion.

(Personally, I'm pretty neutral about Avatar. I don't love it or hate it, really.)

I have no issue with his art. by Neshomeh on 2010-08-01 05:03:00 UTC Reply

He seems really talented, in fact. I was responding to his remarks in the comments on the movie remake thing.

I also have no stake in whether anyone likes or dislikes "Avatar." What annoys me is that people rag on it because of its message, like the message itself is a bad thing, which makes no sense to me.

~Neshomeh, clarifying.

True.... by OpinionedAngel on 2010-08-01 17:02:00 UTC Reply

But the problem is that the message/way of doing it has been kinda overused by now.

Not that I have any issue with the message itself,but I kinda would like to see some variety in the way the message is given.

(Maybe some blurring of the lines between good and evil, perhaps...?)

I was kinda worried I'd accidently upset someone, but I guess I don't have to worry about it anymore. Whew!

Remaking Flight of the Navigator? by doctorlit on 2010-08-01 00:18:00 UTC Reply

Remaking...Flight of the Navigator?

They will pay. They will all pay.

*people start dying*
I liked Alvin and the Chipmunks in 3-D. by WikiMaster on 2010-07-31 21:58:00 UTC Reply

But that could be just me. I was sad when Disney announced that Home on the Range would be their last 2-D movie ever, and was mildly elated when that didn't turn out to be the case. That said, I don't want to debate this.

Perhaps some kind of twisted version of entertainment? (nm) by Makayla on 2010-07-31 19:17:00 UTC Reply
Oh dear. by Firebird766 on 2010-07-31 04:44:00 UTC Reply

That looks like it'll be painful to watch...

Yes, yes it does. (nm) by Pretzel on 2010-07-31 04:49:00 UTC Reply

What's with the conspiracy... by doctorlit on 2010-07-30 20:06:00 UTC Reply

...to turn all of my beloved childhood classically animated characters into freakish computer-generated monstrosities? Is classic animation just not good enough for you people anymore? What is wrong with you? In my day, we didn't have computer animation, except for Reboot, but that wasn't an awful rehash of something else! We had to walk nine miles in the snow to...

But anyway. I must give props to Justin Timberlake for taking on a role like this. I'd say he's about worked off the uncoolness brought on by N*Sync by now.

Seconding the conspiracy. by Eclectus on 2010-07-31 16:09:00 UTC Reply

I love the old 2D movies, even the cheesy Disney ones. No matter what anyone says, the original Disney stuff was good, along with the rest of its ilk. (Brave Little Toaster, anyone?)

Kids' stuff now is... almost creepy. I mean, yes, there's this, and it's teetering on the edge of the Uncanny Valley--but there's this one show called the Backyardigans. I think they're supposed to be farm animals? I can't tell if one's a bird or a fish. Or maybe it's a pig... No, I think it's a snail. Yes, it does look rather like a claymation blob given eyes.

It seems that people are forsaking quality and story for the sake of flashy 3D. Sometimes the 3D isn't even all that flashy--sometimes it's downright disturbing. I mean... Donkey Ollie. DONKEY FREAKING OLLIE. That thing gave my friend nightmares.... -gulps Bleeprin- Augh. Sorry. I think that thing scarred me permanently.

...I'm ranting, aren't I. I'll stop now.

Thirding by Miah on 2010-07-31 18:14:00 UTC Reply

I hate almost all of the children's television programming from the last decade. The characters are stupid looking, just plain stupid or both. They are disgusting to look at, never mind what they are doing.

We don't have live TV (mostly the cost, but this is an added bonus). We buy old cartoons for the kids on DVD. They love GI Joe, the original Transformers, Inspector Gadget, the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, He-Man, 90's Spider Man, X-Men, and Batman. They even like really old stuff like Popeye and Tom & Jerry (which admittedly those two are just about as dumb as some of the stuff on now).

They're little friends who do have live TV will come to our house to watch these shows. Kids still like this old stuff.

I loved the 90's shows that had people drawn to look like people, and backgrounds drawn to look as realistic as possible. Most stuff now looks like a Kindergartner drew it.

Your Mileage may Vary. by WikiMaster on 2010-07-31 21:15:00 UTC Reply

I liked what cartoons from the 2000's I saw (2003 Ninja Turtles, Spongebob, Brandy and Mr Whiskers), while I found that what 90's cartoons I watched as a kid weren't as good as I tought upon rewatching (with exceptions). But I don't want to start a debate, I just want to state my views on things.

However, I do not like the Yogi Bear movie. I like CGI, but this looks like an example of doing it wrong. Dead wrong.

Insert Phineas and Ferb, Kim Possible, Lilo and Stitch... by WikiMaster on 2010-07-31 21:44:00 UTC Reply

...Danny Phantom, Fairly Odd Parents (mostly the earlier seasons), Meet the Robinsons (despite its Fride Logic), Bolt, and Avatar: The Last Airbender(which was produced in the west) into that paragraph. But like I said, I don't want to start a debate, especially when I can see what you're coming from.

Also, I have another complaint about the upcoming movie. Why the mix of live-action and CGI? Just full CGI would do. Why not have the Human characters be 3-D too, as well as something resembling their original cartoonish selves? I liked the original Ranger Smith better than the actor posing as him.

Re: Insert Phineas and Ferb, Kim Possible, Lilo and Stitch... by Anonymous on 2010-08-01 02:11:00 UTC Reply

Danny Phantom and Avatar:The Last Airbender were both pretty good. I especially liked the way that Avatar looked. Both of those tend toward more realism, well Danny Phantom at least has more realism than the shows I hate so much.

Sponge bob is fun and Kim Possible is not bad either. I'm sure I was being too broad in my statements earlier. I don't hate all the new stuff.

Oh, and I love Stitch! I had forgotten that they made a television program of Stitch, but I do remember that now.

A:TLA by Eclectus on 2010-08-02 02:39:00 UTC Reply

Realism? A:TLA is anime-style (even though it's a Western cartoon).

Re: A:TLA by Miah on 2010-08-02 20:21:00 UTC Reply

It still looks more real than that cartoon with the camp full of creatures that might be beans. I'm not sure what the name of that one is, but it is gross and the animation seriously annoys me. That style of animation is something I hate beyond reason.

Indeed. (nm) by WikiMaster on 2010-08-01 09:37:00 UTC Reply

You are giving your children excellent taste in animation. (nm) by doctorlit on 2010-07-31 19:29:00 UTC Reply

My thoughts by OpinionedAngel on 2010-08-04 00:06:00 UTC Reply

I am so freaking sick and tired of the way kid's cartoon stations are being currently run, with mostly subpar cartoons and annoying non-animated shows on cartoon stations .

It really bothers me that a lot of kids nowadays are going to be unaware of good cartoons like the following: Danny Phantom, Fairly Oddparents, Spongebob Squarepants, Invader Zim, (The first few seasons, at least), Samurai Jack, Megas XLR, Ben 10, Batman Beyond...

But at least we still have Phineas and Ferb, Avatar: The Last Airbender, Generator Rex...

Er... sorry for ranting, it's just that this is a major pet peeve of mine, especially since not all of these shows are on DVD, and the ones that are cost so freaking much ...

Seconding the point about traditional animation. by Sedri on 2010-07-31 00:12:00 UTC Reply

I loved Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin and all them - I liked Toy Story, too, but that was about it for the CGI movies. Disney made a huge deal out of the fact that The Princess and the Frog is traditional 2D animation and it was a great movie. Regardless, the moviemakers are pouncing on 3D films that make me dizzy. What, may I ask, is wrong with 2D films and hand-drawn characters?

That said, I never watched Yogi Bear as a kid so I'm not overly attached, but this remake still looks pretty bad.

Be Wary of Gimmicks by Charlie DoDo on 2010-07-31 01:04:00 UTC Reply

One of the big problems is that when something using a particular gimmick is successful people think it's the gimmick that's responsible for the success. that and it's easier to just use gimmick X than to actually put together a quality movie. (or book, or whatever.)

I enjoyed Shrek not because, or in spite of, it being computer animated. I enjoyed it because it's fun.

The medium should be chosen not because it's this week's cool thing, but because it will serve to effectively present the story.

Same goes for hype. by Sedri on 2010-08-01 07:39:00 UTC Reply

What's new and exciting today will be dull old news tomorrow. Who goes and buys a movie they already have just because it's - gasp! - on DVD?

*sigh*
Seconded. by WikiMaster on 2010-07-31 11:22:00 UTC Reply

I love 3D films, but not all films should be made that way.

Meh. by Pretzel on 2010-07-30 20:44:00 UTC Reply

I highly doubt I'll go see this. *shakes head*