Animated Movie?
Warewolf
Scary Movie series, Date Movie and Epic Movie, I figure that, sooner or
later, someone is going to make a simply-titled 'Animated Movie' so what
do you hope will (not) happen during the showing of the final product?
Personally, I hope that the makers of this film will:
- make it a well-written crossover that utilizes the potential that such
character interations can bring (ie Macross vs Megatron; a 'Battle of the
Bands' between Jem and the Pussycats)
- make reference to and/or correct some of the mistakes that some series
made (ie XJ-9 vs WizzlyWorld)
- at the very least, offer something a little better than Drawn Together
(which started good and then started losing steam after a few episodes)
9_9
while not:
- making a boring 2-4 hour film (*cough*FelixTheCat*cough*)
- making another punching bag flick (ala Robo-Roach or Tom and Jerry
Kids)
- making it too 'kid friendly' (Even the original Looney Tunes and Merry
Melodies shorts started out as 'adult entertainment')
but I'll leave it to the rest of you to provide a better definition.
Thanks in advance for your responses.
Here's hoping that whatever plot/storyline the directors use will provide
some sorely-needed entertainment.
Signed,
Warewolf
who hopes that Buzzsaw Girl and Waffle Woman will at least make a cameo.
(Note to self - rent Imaginationland)
Chika
Warewolf <warewol...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> After the appearance of such classic (and not-so-classic) films as the
> Scary Movie series, Date Movie and Epic Movie, I figure that, sooner or
> later, someone is going to make a simply-titled 'Animated Movie' so what
> do you hope will (not) happen during the showing of the final product?
Don't forget that Osamu Tezuka did "Broken-Down Movie". ;)
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
// \// Mitsuo... Menda... naha naha...
... The mark of a true professional is giving more than you get.
Warewolf
news:4fd1d689...@no.spam.here:
> Don't forget that Osamu Tezuka did "Broken-Down Movie". ;)
Heh, true.
Signed,
Warewolf
who saw another of his homages, 'Legend of the Forest'.
Chris Sobieniak
> In article <Xns9AFFD729E4A67warewolfshawm...@24.64.223.211>,
> Warewolf <warewolfmypa...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > After the appearance of such classic (and not-so-classic) films as the
> > Scary Movie series, Date Movie and Epic Movie, I figure that, sooner or
> > later, someone is going to make a simply-titled 'Animated Movie' so what
> > do you hope will (not) happen during the showing of the final product?
>
> Don't forget that Osamu Tezuka did "Broken-Down Movie". ;)
Be kinda interesting to go through 90 minutes of that!
Mufassa
The only spoof movies I ever liked were Airplane 1 and 2, Clue,and
Muder By Death. all these movies for the most part are A Great
writing,Great casting,and greta acting. movis like Date movie and Epic
movie suffered for horrible concepts and stupid writing. If Animated
Movie were made. I agree it needs a great concept,the best
writer,director,and actors money can by. .
DG
Farix
Right now, most of the Hollywood left are ready to run David Zucker, the
one responsible for most of those movies, out of town because of his
latest film, An American Carol, which satirizes Michael Moore.
Farix
dump...@hotmail.com
\
> Right now, most of the Hollywood left are ready to run David Zucker, the
> one responsible for most of those movies, out of town because of his
> latest film, An American Carol, which satirizes Michael Moore.
>
> Farix
There's an article on this at:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/david-zucker-commits-hollywood-treason/
Chika
<6638b05f-5f9d-4e26...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Chris
It could be hard on the eyes, though. :)
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
// \// Mitsuo... Menda... naha naha...
... Since you're going to die anyway, can we use you as a shield?
Blade
<dump...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0bb0bcff-1358-4680...@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Uh-huh. You know, you ever tried reading from 'news' sources that do not
have a blatant agenda? If there is any upset about Zucker's work, it's not
because of the concept of satirising someone the left is itself divided
about.
Jesus, like anyone significant in Hollywood would care about parodying Moore
on general principle. Matt Stone and Trey Parker (two known conservatives)
did that already, and they still seem to remain non-tarred-and-feathered.
-
Blade
sanjian
That's because, frankly, they never do anything interesting. And they're
not so much conservatives, but anti-left (which should be close enough in my
book, but I still can't get look past their lack of any quality,
whatsoever).
Granted, I'm not sure Zucker's much better, in quality. The clips I've seen
of the new movie haven't exactly impressed me with their grace and wit.
While the subject matter may be different, the general tone and quality of
the humor seems to be on par with "In Living Color" or your average
high-school student. I had hoped to see better from my side.
That being said, Hollywood does have a left-wing bias. Sure, you can pick
out some right-wingers, and for each of those, I can give you five leftists.
That's fine. That's just the way life is. Just like the military has a
right-wing bias. What I don't understand is all the obsession with
everybody trying to deny the bias. It is what it is. The left took over a
market segment. Good for it. Now let's all move on.
Blade
"sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote in message
news:mfSdnQbqg-tBPzPV...@posted.internetamerica...
> Blade wrote:
>> <dump...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:0bb0bcff-1358-4680...@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Aug 21, 8:49 pm, Farix <dhstran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> \
>>>> Right now, most of the Hollywood left are ready to run David
>>>> Zucker, the one responsible for most of those movies, out of town
>>>> because of his latest film, An American Carol, which satirizes
>>>> Michael Moore. Farix
>>>
>>> There's an article on this at:
>>>
>>> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/david-zucker-commits-hollywood-treason/
>>
>> Uh-huh. You know, you ever tried reading from 'news' sources that do
>> not have a blatant agenda? If there is any upset about Zucker's work,
>> it's not because of the concept of satirising someone the left is
>> itself divided about.
>>
>> Jesus, like anyone significant in Hollywood would care about
>> parodying Moore on general principle. Matt Stone and Trey Parker (two
>> known conservatives) did that already, and they still seem to remain
>> non-tarred-and-feathered.
>
> That's because, frankly, they never do anything interesting. And they're
> not so much conservatives, but anti-left (which should be close enough in
> my book, but I still can't get look past their lack of any quality,
> whatsoever).
Fair point, I actually think they self-identify as libertarians. No comment
on that, no matter how many jump to mind. ;p
> That being said, Hollywood does have a left-wing bias. Sure, you can pick
> out some right-wingers, and for each of those, I can give you five
> leftists. That's fine. That's just the way life is. Just like the
> military has a right-wing bias. What I don't understand is all the
> obsession with everybody trying to deny the bias. It is what it is. The
> left took over a market segment. Good for it. Now let's all move on.
Oh, of course I wouldn't argue that. The arts in general have a left-wing
bias for reasons that aren't too hard to determine. However, saying that
Hollywood would give a crap about parodying Michael Moore just because
they're leftists is stupid. Leftists parody themselves all the time, and
Zucker would hardly be the first to take a shot at Moore. Assuming that the
left is some monolithic block who takes things Very Seriously is just silly.
They aren't, and they most assuredly don't. If there is any outrage about
Zucker's product, it would be for a more specific reason (y'know, aside from
the fact he writes terrible, terrible movies).
And swallowing news wholesale from Pajamasmedia is like swallowing it from
MoveOn.org (who Jon Stewart took a very memorable shot at when he
congratulated them for "10 years of making even people who agree with you
cringe"). It's certainly true it's not likely to challenge what you'd like
to think, but it's not too useful for actually finding out what really
happens in the world. A bunch of openly biased bloggers does not a news site
make.
-
Blade
sanjian
> "sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote in message
> news:mfSdnQbqg-tBPzPV...@posted.internetamerica...
>> That's because, frankly, they never do anything interesting. And
>> they're not so much conservatives, but anti-left (which should be
>> close enough in my book, but I still can't get look past their lack
>> of any quality, whatsoever).
>
> Fair point, I actually think they self-identify as libertarians. No
> comment on that, no matter how many jump to mind. ;p
Libertarian covers a lot of ground, too, these days. There are are many who
still haven't left the Anarchist stage. There are others, like myself, who
are slapped with the "Neolibertarian" label (of course, trying to paint us
as a new flavor of Neocon).
>> That being said, Hollywood does have a left-wing bias. Sure, you
>> can pick out some right-wingers, and for each of those, I can give
>> you five leftists. That's fine. That's just the way life is. Just
>> like the military has a right-wing bias. What I don't understand is
>> all the obsession with everybody trying to deny the bias. It is
>> what it is. The left took over a market segment. Good for it. Now
>> let's all move on.
>
> Oh, of course I wouldn't argue that. The arts in general have a
> left-wing bias for reasons that aren't too hard to determine.
It depends on the reasons. The reasons I could think of are
self-aggrandizement and the desire to not have to produce commercially
viable material. I imagine you would agree with both, however I'm sure
there are many who would see the second reason as being as much a merit as I
consider it to be a demerit.
> However, saying that Hollywood would give a crap about parodying
> Michael Moore just because they're leftists is stupid. Leftists
Nah, Moore is only a sacred cow among certain groups, including
DemocratUnderground, DailyKOS, and MoveOn (which started out by saying
"enough of the Clinton Impeachment issue, can we move on now? Talk about a
change in purpose...). I imagine your rank and file look at him about the
same way we right-wingers view Michael Savage. (I won't compare him to
Coulter, since she says what she says specifically to get peoples' goats.
She's a professional troll, he's just a lying sack of shit).
> parody themselves all the time, and Zucker would hardly be the first
> to take a shot at Moore. Assuming that the left is some monolithic
> block who takes things Very Seriously is just silly. They aren't, and
> they most assuredly don't. If there is any outrage about Zucker's
> product, it would be for a more specific reason (y'know, aside from
> the fact he writes terrible, terrible movies).
I can't really comment on that because I don't pay enough attention to
Hollywood to know. In fact, even if I was told, chances are I haven't seen
them (my two most recent theater movies are Speed Racer and the Lion, Witch,
and the Wardrobe).
> And swallowing news wholesale from Pajamasmedia is like swallowing it
> from MoveOn.org (who Jon Stewart took a very memorable shot at when he
> congratulated them for "10 years of making even people who agree with
> you cringe"). It's certainly true it's not likely to challenge what
> you'd like to think, but it's not too useful for actually finding out
> what really happens in the world. A bunch of openly biased bloggers
> does not a news site make.
My general rule is that I don't link bloggers or talk radio. Though I will
sometimes link Malkin when she's got so many links that it's just a pain in
the ass to copy them all. She generally tries to link to Mainstream Media
sources, or bloggers with a heavy dose of MSM. Additionally, I don't
discredit MSM sources, even if they lean left. An exception to this was
CBS, right after the whole issue with the forged Bush National Guard memo.
On the other hand, I demand that the people I'm arguing with show the same
courtesy by not linking DailyKOS, Huffington Post, or the like.
Additionally, if I'm going to accept CBS and MSNBC, they had damned well
better accept FNC and Washinton Times.
Personally, however, I've found that the Washington Post has, as of late,
returned to their long-lost status of reporting the news. In the 90s, they
were really starting to push the boundaries of journalism. However, I find
that they're about as good a source as you'll find anymore. Between the
WaPost and WaTimes, you'll get a very good perspective. I also don't share
my side's disdain for CNN and Wolf Blitzer. The times I've watched them,
I've found them to be rather professional. However, that being said, there
are biases of omission, as well as commission.
Patrick McNamara
"Mufassa" <david.g...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a9406402-8cf6-423a...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>The only spoof movies I ever liked were Airplane 1 and 2, Clue,and
>Muder By Death. all these movies for the most part are A Great
>writing,Great casting,and greta acting.
Great writing for Clue? That film was a cheap cast-off just to cash in. And
they made three endings just to force people to watch it again rather than
just one the only decent one. Murder By Death wasn't that great a film
either. It had a stupid ending.
Airplane! was great, but only the unedited version. The edited version cut
some of the funniest jokes and took away it's irreverence. Airplane 2 was
good but it recycled too many of the jokes from the first film. (Both were
based primarily upon the Airport movies, which became ripe for parody after
they over-miked the series.)
The trick with trying to do an Animated Movie is that you have to be as
serious about creating it as you would with any other animated movie. You
have to have a good plot. Although Airplane! was a parody, it still had an
interesting story (which it basically ripped from Airport 1975). You also
need characters people are going to take an interest in. While they could be
based upon well-known animated characters, they can't just be copies or bad
imitations. It would be too easy to do an over-the-top Shrek like character
that's all fart jokes. An compulsively clean character, like an ogre, troll
or even a monk, would be better.
And even with it being a parody, it could be hard to make fun of Disney
material without getting thier lawyers all over you.
--
Patrick McNamara
E-mail: patjmc...@gmail.com
Webpage: http://www.geocities.com/writerpatrick
Podcast Ping podcast: http://podcastping.blogspot.com
Torrentcast: http://www.mininova.org/rss.xml?user=PodcastPing
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<writer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Mufassa" <david.g...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:a9406402-8cf6-423a...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>The only spoof movies I ever liked were Airplane 1 and 2, Clue,and
>>Muder By Death. all these movies for the most part are A Great
>>writing,Great casting,and greta acting.
>
>Great writing for Clue? That film was a cheap cast-off just to cash in. And
>they made three endings just to force people to watch it again rather than
>just one the only decent one. Murder By Death wasn't that great a film
>either. It had a stupid ending.
>
>Airplane! was great, but only the unedited version. The edited version cut
>some of the funniest jokes and took away it's irreverence. Airplane 2 was
>good but it recycled too many of the jokes from the first film. (Both were
>based primarily upon the Airport movies, which became ripe for parody after
>they over-miked the series.)
>
The main parody of Airplane! was actually a 50s movie called Zero
Hour. This is the reason for the two-seat rows, the piston-engine
drone, and even Kareem Adbul-Jabar's part (best line of the movie!).
As dramatic as Zero Hour was supposed to be, it's impossible to take
seriously becuase you automatically link its scenes with corresponding
scenes from Airplane! (its low budget special-effects and bad acting
don't help)
>The trick with trying to do an Animated Movie is that you have to be as
>serious about creating it as you would with any other animated movie. You
>have to have a good plot. Although Airplane! was a parody, it still had an
>interesting story (which it basically ripped from Airport 1975). You also
>need characters people are going to take an interest in. While they could be
>based upon well-known animated characters, they can't just be copies or bad
>imitations. It would be too easy to do an over-the-top Shrek like character
>that's all fart jokes. An compulsively clean character, like an ogre, troll
>or even a monk, would be better.
>
>And even with it being a parody, it could be hard to make fun of Disney
>material without getting thier lawyers all over you.
Well, Robert Smigel got away with it . . . repeatedly; albeit those
were TV Funhouse mini-segments on SNL . . .