Garfield CGI, a Siamese Nermal, Odie a Golden Retriever?
LordofTheBidding
working on Garfield who said Garfield is going to be CGI while the other
animals are real with CGI mouths.
He also said that Nermal would be played by a Siamese!!! I guess we have to
remain open minded about this, or else sound predjudiced. I mean, the breed
doesn't matter, it's the acting ability I guess.
They get into a bit about how nobody knows what type of dog Odie is. Has
anybody seen a dog that looks anything like Odie? I think they could probably
find one that's close enough.
But they seem to reason that they couldn't ever find a dog who looks enough
like Odie so he should be CGI. I hope to God he isn't played by a Golden
Retreiver though. Oh crap, was that predjudice?
Anyway, personally I would rather see all the animals played by real animals.
None of them talk anyway, so I don't know why their lips have to move. That
was one thing the cartoon series got right, no moving lips. They just think!
And Odie doesn't even do that.
The only time I've seen CGI animals done right were the ones done by Dream
Quest Images, which became part of Disney's in house effects company The Secret
Lab. They did the Gorilla in Mighty Joe Young, the dogs in 102 Dalmations,
Snow Dogs and the Kangaroo in Kangaroo Jack. But they have been disbanded, so
I'm worried that the CGI is going to look like junk.
The dog in Scooby-Doo looked okay from what I've seen, but that was a much more
*animated* character, who relied much more on sight gags, and he talks.
Garfeild isn't that type of character, he needs to be as real as possible.
I grew up with movies like Benji, which used actual trained animals, not CGI
monstrosities. I guess I have to accept the fact that this will likely be a
film aimed more at children than adults. But are today's children really into
Garfield?
James Vipond
Hash: SHA1
In article <20030320002536...@mb-ct.aol.com>,
lordofth...@aol.com (LordofTheBidding) wrote:
> For anyone who hasn't seen yet, Comingsoon.net reposted a report
> from an actor working on Garfield who said Garfield is going to be
> CGI while the other animals are real with CGI mouths.
What's the point of that?
> Anyway, personally I would rather see all the animals played by
> real animals. None of them talk anyway, so I don't know why their
> lips have to move. That was one thing the cartoon series got
> right, no moving lips. They just think! And Odie doesn't even do
> that.
True. In the TV cartoons, Garfield himself was the only animal with a
thinking voice.
> The dog in Scooby-Doo looked okay from what I've seen, but that was
> a much more
> *animated* character, who relied much more on sight gags, and he
> talks. Garfeild isn't that type of character, he needs to be as
> real as possible.
Warner Bros. also gave us _Cats_&_Dogs_, in which "real" animals
spoke with human voices.
> I grew up with movies like Benji, which used actual trained
> animals, not CGI monstrosities. I guess I have to accept the fact
> that this will likely be a film aimed more at children than adults.
> But are today's children really into Garfield?
I don't think they are. I never paid much attention to the Garfield
TV cartoons, but the comic strip has existed for almost 25 years, and
Jim Davis and his staff just seem to be recycling the same limited
number of gags.
For that matter, most current comic strips don't really lend
themselves to two-hour movies, in my opinion. Invariably, something
is lost in the translation from print to cinema.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPnlXHsNJIejnLYNBEQK6XQCg0t5dedCNAFULRRo2RxrGj7H2zm0An0GP
hQ/PgJ4FWaIF79UtF/yPlhxd
=SZG7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Trevour
actor
> working on Garfield who said Garfield is going to be CGI while the other
> animals are real with CGI mouths.
Does this mean that the pets are going to TALK with their mouths?!? That's
illegal in the Garfield universe, isn't it? And I think Odie should just be
CGI as well.
Trevour
Arklier
wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>In article <20030320002536...@mb-ct.aol.com>,
> lordofth...@aol.com (LordofTheBidding) wrote:
>
>> For anyone who hasn't seen yet, Comingsoon.net reposted a report
>> from an actor working on Garfield who said Garfield is going to be
>> CGI while the other animals are real with CGI mouths.
>
>What's the point of that?
To make money, I guess.
>> Anyway, personally I would rather see all the animals played by
>> real animals. None of them talk anyway, so I don't know why their
>> lips have to move. That was one thing the cartoon series got
>> right, no moving lips. They just think! And Odie doesn't even do
>> that.
>
>True. In the TV cartoons, Garfield himself was the only animal with a
>thinking voice.
That's not true. Most of the cats that appeared in the series and
specials had thinking voices, such as Nermal and Arlene, as well as
some of the dogs who weren't as dumb as Odie, along with various other
animals.
>> The dog in Scooby-Doo looked okay from what I've seen, but that was
>> a much more
>> *animated* character, who relied much more on sight gags, and he
>> talks. Garfeild isn't that type of character, he needs to be as
>> real as possible.
>
>Warner Bros. also gave us _Cats_&_Dogs_, in which "real" animals
>spoke with human voices.
I would personally rather see the look of the strip kept. Make
Garfield real, and he ends up a clone of Morris from the 9 Lives cat
food commercials. Come to think of it, Morris's VA might not make a
bad Garfield...
>> I grew up with movies like Benji, which used actual trained
>> animals, not CGI monstrosities. I guess I have to accept the fact
>> that this will likely be a film aimed more at children than adults.
>> But are today's children really into Garfield?
>
>I don't think they are. I never paid much attention to the Garfield
>TV cartoons, but the comic strip has existed for almost 25 years, and
>Jim Davis and his staff just seem to be recycling the same limited
>number of gags.
The strip used to be a lot funnier than it is now.
>For that matter, most current comic strips don't really lend
>themselves to two-hour movies, in my opinion. Invariably, something
>is lost in the translation from print to cinema.
Some comics lend themselves well to film/TV because they have longer
plots, whereas Garfield mostly revolves around a week or two of themed
one shot gags.
If you can't figure out my address, you need help.
Girl gamer since 1984, DC/GC/PS2/Xbox owner
Gerard dS
Gerard
"Trevour" <jonnyst...@rocketship.com> wrote in message
news:v7inn9...@corp.supernews.com...
ANIM8Rfsk
<< Oh fer @@!!# sake! Just animate the whole damn thing! >>
The movie's release date is in, what, under 9 months? I don't see how they're
going to do this at ALL. I also don't see the point in them bothering, given
that they're releasing it the same day as LoTR 3. May as well just burn the
money now.
John Smith
Has
>>anybody seen a dog that looks anything like Odie?
C'mon, Odie is a balloon dog, you know the kind clowns make. To do
him any other way the by cgi would be a mistake.
TheShredder
> True. In the TV cartoons, Garfield himself was the only animal with a
> thinking voice.
Nope. I'm sure Mark E. can back my memory up on this, but Nermal had a
rather high pitched cutsey sounding voice, and some of the guest dogs had
voices as well.
>
> I don't think they are. I never paid much attention to the Garfield
> TV cartoons, but the comic strip has existed for almost 25 years, and
> Jim Davis and his staff just seem to be recycling the same limited
> number of gags.
>
Wich is why I don't read newspaper comic strips as much anymore. Either
that, or it's just a consequence of growing up. I used to keep track on
the 'lives' of so many characters, some of wich changed, and some of wich
didn't like Jump Start, Charlie brown, etc. Now I havn't read a daily comic
strip in about 2 or 3 years.
I still pick up the Garfield collected books out of loyalty, but only a few
really make me burst out laughing anymore, and the rest give me as little as
a chuckle.
TheShredder
That's
> illegal in the Garfield universe, isn't it? And I think Odie should just
be
> CGI as well.
>
Well, in one of the specials, the World was coming to an end, and all of a
sudden the garfield characters could talk openly to humans, but that was the
only time that has happened.
TheShredder
"Gerard dS" <dra...@spamtelus.net> wrote in message
news:vCdea.34147$UV6.2...@news1.telusplanet.net...
> Oh fer @@!!# sake! Just animate the whole damn thing!
> Gerard
>
My sentiment exactly. WHY do studios insist that we need to see live action
versions of animatd properties? I wish CN could buy up the rights to all
these animated series so NO ONE can give us another Inspector Gadget type
movie again..
Mark Evanier
<TheShr...@prodigy.net> posted:
>Nope. I'm sure Mark E. can back my memory up on this, but Nermal had a
>rather high pitched cutsey sounding voice, and some of the guest dogs had
>voices as well.
ME: Nermal did indeed have a voice (that of actress Desiree Goyette)
and quite a few other cats and dogs "spoke" over the years. Odie was
the only major animal whose thoughts we couldn't hear.
>WHY do studios insist that we need to see live action
>versions of animatd properties? I wish CN could buy up the rights to all
>these animated series so NO ONE can give us another Inspector Gadget type
>movie again..
ME: Studios insist on making them because some of them are very
successful. If by "CN," you mean Cartoon Network...well, they own
Scooby Doo and that didn't stop someone from making a live-action
movie of it. And that movie made enough money to trigger at least a
half-dozen more.
------------------------------
www.POVonline.com - a website about comic books, cartoons, TV,
movies, Groo the Wanderer, Broadway, Las Vegas, Hollywood,
Stan Freberg, Laurel & Hardy, Jack Kirby and possums in my backyard.
OhSojourner
>In article <20030320002536...@mb-ct.aol.com>,
> lordofth...@aol.com (LordofTheBidding) wrote:
>> For anyone who hasn't seen yet, Comingsoon.net reposted a report
>> from an actor working on Garfield who said Garfield is going to be
>> CGI while the other animals are real with CGI mouths.
>What's the point of that?
>> Anyway, personally I would rather see all the animals played by
>> real animals. None of them talk anyway, so I don't know why their
>> lips have to move. That was one thing the cartoon series got
>> right, no moving lips. They just think! And Odie doesn't even do
>> that.
>True. In the TV cartoons, Garfield himself was the only animal with a
>thinking voice.
>> The dog in Scooby-Doo looked okay from what I've seen, but that was
>> a much more
>> *animated* character, who relied much more on sight gags, and he
>> talks. Garfeild isn't that type of character, he needs to be as
>> real as possible.
>Warner Bros. also gave us _Cats_&_Dogs_, in which "real" animals
>spoke with human voices.
I hope they make him look like this: http://www.tubcat.com/
(I liked the character when he really did look more like a fat cat -- not the
more recent swollen-belly-skinny-legs famine victim design. [Jim Davis needs
to start hiring more ghosters with a real art/anatomy education...])