Something I wish I still didn't know about:
So apparently there's going to be a Smurfs movie. In 3d. WHY?
Have they learned nothing from Garfield?
I didn't even know the Smurfs was still popular with today's kids. (That's the only reason even having a Smurfs movie would make sense to me.) But even if it is, what happened to standard animation? Why not make a movie version of a cartoon still a damn cartoon?
I don't understand Hollywood.
Have they learned nothing from Garfield?
I didn't even know the Smurfs was still popular with today's kids. (That's the only reason even having a Smurfs movie would make sense to me.) But even if it is, what happened to standard animation? Why not make a movie version of a cartoon still a damn cartoon?
I don't understand Hollywood.
posted by kalinara @ 10:59 PM
4 Comments:
At April 29, 2011 4:49 PM,
SallyP said…
I don't understand this bizarre need to make cartoons into live action movies. The neat thing about cartoons is...you can do such wild and wonderful STUFF! You don't have to pay for CGI, and provided you get some decent animators, it all works out quite well.
So why turn UnderDog into a live action movie? Or Garfield, or Yogi Bear?
Or Smurfs?
Ick.
At April 29, 2011 11:04 PM,
kalinara said…
Exactly! It's so bizarre!
At April 30, 2011 5:13 AM,
Eyz said…
I guess in Europe (and French speaking countries), the Smurfs could still nowadays be considered as popular as, say, the Avengers are for kids in the US. ("we" still got new Smurfs comics every now and then regularly - yep, the Smurfs are originally from a francobelgium comic not an american cartoon)
Though I'd much prefer it was an animated flick intead of that crappy CGi... does Hollywood even know how to do those anymore?
At April 30, 2011 11:39 AM,
kalinara said…
I knew about the Francobelgian thing. :-)
I wouldn't necessarily have anything against a cartoon movie. But this CGI looks dreadful!
Post a Comment
<< Home