to the Muppet Central Forum!
are viewing our forum as a guest. Join
our free community to post topics and start private conversations. Please
contact us if
you need help with registration or your account login.
Muppet Central Radio
Within days Muppet
Central Radio could be off the air. Show your support and save the station
via Radionomy's website and apps. We're also on iTunes and Apple TV. Learn
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by beaker, Jul 6, 2013.
As Ducky would say "Yup, yup, yup". You've got a point there
Not to mention that Alpha & Omega was produced by who could very well be the opposite of Don Bluth, Richard Rich. I'm not even joking when I say that.
I saw a DVD for what I assume to be a Christian cartoon at the store a while back called All of God's Creatures. It looked cute and all, but there was one problem:Every single creature on the cover was an animal that doesn't exist *rolls eyes* I get that kids like stuff with weird creatures, but with a title like that:They should've at least stuck to using real animal lol
Hmm, I believe that's the US title for Ooops! Noah is Gone..., I saw it a while back and thought it was not half-bad for an imported CG film bought by a US distributor tossed into Redbox, Netflix and $5 DVD bins.
Oh, here's another one to talk about:
I'm... a bit speechless, to be honest.
Wow. That's probably the most impressive Sony's animation has ever looked . . . I mean those animals look quite lifelike: they actually look like actual animals wearing cute little clothes.
True that, but they also got Animal Logic on board.
Ugh! First The Emoji Movie, now this. I hope this thing gets snatched up by the Black Rabbit of Inlé, or run over by a hrududu.
Why a Peter Rabbit movie?
Aaaand Beatrix Potter is rolling in her grave.
Why did they have to make Peter an adult and Mr. McGregor young? And why did they use the old "human and animal screaming back and forth at each other" gag? I swear this movie is ten years too late. The CGI (which actually looks really nice) is the only good thing about this.
It really does feel like something that came out around the time of the live-action Chipmunks bandwagon, but nowadays it's mostly on its way out, as the fourth entry showed us.
Really would have liked to see a more traditional telling of the story closer to Beatrix Potter's vision, and The Peanuts Movie shows that it is possible. But unfortunately Peter Rabbit is in the public domain unlike Peanuts, so it gives free reign for any old studio to do whatever they want.
Indeed. And for the record, there were other adaptations of Peter Rabbit before. Not just the better-made live action/animated miniseries The World of Peter Rabbit and Friends from the 90's but also a direct-to-video animated film produced by the "politically correct bargain bin knock-off" studio Golden Films.
Also, Walt Disney was interested in doing a film adaptation way back when but Potter refused.
There was even a preschool series made for Nick Jr. a couple years ago, but I think it ended its run. Even that's more respectful than what Sony's doing.
And don't forget the HBO Storybook Musicals version too.
Somewhat off-topic, but Harvey Weinstein's been fired from the studio for allegations of sexual misconduct...
...or maybe it isn't off-topic, given the brothers' mishandling of certain animated films.
Imagine what they could have done to Studio Ghibli's films had Miyazaki not put his foot down.
I'd like to see that "No cuts" katana that he supposedly sent them.
Separate names with a comma.