Tuesday, March 30, 2010

The Genius Of Hollywood - Zombie Bears Haunt Jellystone and Eat Toddlers

What's stranger looking than a man in a cartoon character suit? Or more scary?

Funky Al sent me links to this amazing movie adaptation of a cartoon that was originally intended to be fun.

YOGI IN CG

I'm not making this up.
SO REALISTIC, EVEN HIS TIE IS FURRY!
NOW WITH GLASS EYES!

I'm always astounded by why anyone would want to make "realistic" versions of cartoon characters, and on top of that go out of their way to make them more hideous than they even have to be. Don't Yogi and BooBoo here kind of look like they've been raised from the dead to haunt Jellystone? They pretty much look like mange-ridden corpses. I guess that's what Hollywood thinks kids like.

Another odd thing Hollywood does is use voices that aren't cartoony for cartoon characters. Why make cartoon movies if you hate everything about cartoons and are going to play against all the things that made them popular in the first place? If you think all the essential attributes of Yogi Bear are crap and have to be discarded, why do it in the first place? Just make another zombie movie or something. Someone explain this to me.
From one of the many articles I found online about this movie:
The former 'N Syncer is "lending" his vaunted pipes to an upcoming movie based on Jellystone's favorite ursine picnic snatcher, Yogi Bear. Timberlake would play sidekick to Dan Aykroyd's smarter-than-the-average-bear main character, in the live-action, CGI hybrid
from Warners, Variety reports. Anna Faris would star as a flesh-and-blood filmmaker working on a nature documentary.

They should make a CG character of the pipes and cover them with matted hair.



Summary: Jellystone Park has been losing business, so greedy Mayor Brown decides to shut it down and sell the land. With Yogi and Boo Boo threatened to be tossed out of the only home they know, they join forces with their old nemesis Ranger Smith to find a way to save Jellystone Park.

They should do a movie about greedy WB losing business by destroying all their characters and a band of vigilante cartoonists burn the place down and rescue all the maimed and mangy classic carton stars and set them free to be cute and funny again.

Analysis: A 3-D live-action/CGI film adaptation of the classic Hanna-Barbera series which, much like "Garfield" and "Alvin and the Chipmunks", will mix computer-generated animal characters with humans. It's a mix that often works - the films all cost an economical $60-70 million to make, and even the worst ones generate at least 2-3 times that in box-office revenue alone thanks to brand name recognition and being "toddler-friendly". (Toddlers love the walking dead)

_____________________

For years they have asking me to make new Yogi cartoons, but I can't get even a half a million to make 1. Probably because I actually like the characters. But 60-70 million $ to make walking corpses is considered economical.


50 years of Decline Through The Medium Of Yogi Bear

If Hollywood has to make hideous versions of beloved cartoon characters, they should at least hire this designer.
I'd watch a movie that looked like this. I'll even make it - for a measley 50 million bucks.
http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2008/11/our-evolutionary-heritage-blasphemed.html

84 comments:

Jeff Read said...

Oh, man, it's Timberloaf! What's he doing in a cartoon?

Scrawnypumpkinseed said...

Aah hollywood, you've done it again!

Also looking forward to the smurfs Cg movie and the upcoming Marvin the Martian CG Christmas movie!

Mmmm taste the sarcasm!

Kali Fontecchio said...

T_T

Jeff Read said...

Oh by the way, more Hollywood genius.

kurtwil said...

First, a bit of history:
As the first CGI Scoobie Doo movie was planned, an FX house did a morph between the classic cartoon Scooby, and a photo of a real dog breed closest in proportions to Scooby. 10 photos of different morph stages were shown to films' producers. The top choice was a look very close to, but not quite, the real dog.
Result, the Chia Pet Scooby look we've seen in theaters.

JK, when you say half a mil to produce one classically animated Yogi cartoon, what length would that cartoon be?

Regarding the Yogi GCI thing: To paraphrase the late Jonathan Harris,
"Oh the Pain, the Pain....".

Lampshade said...

I'm not a fan of Yogi but it's kinda sad (yet atypical) how Hollywood buys 70-80 million dollar bulldozers.

By the way, I have a friend who is planning a post on how famous cartoon characters' popularity are killed. Stay tuned in a week.

TedM said...

Yeah thats a really depressing blog. Yogi and Boo Boo are turned into some CGI crap. And yet HB or Cartoon Network or who ever owns Yogi Bear wont let you make anymore Yogi Bear cartoons for the real Yogi Bear fans like me. Let's hope they keep there hands off Huckleberry Hound.

Luis María Benítez said...

To find out that Justin Timberlake, better known as poison in the human ears, is going to be mixed with the CGI version of cartoon characters I used to watch when I was a kid... I mean, what the heck! It can't be worse. It's like a kick in the private parts.

David Germain said...

I can't wait to miss that.

Craig Something said...

Some others I'm aware of are the Smurfs, the Jetsons (live action I've heard) and Hong Kong Phooey.

Ryan Cole said...

Disney is also producing a remake of Yellow Submarine. Which, you know, kind of defeats the entire point of the movie's whole anti-commercialism animation format.

Surfer Jay said...

Yeah Smurfs would be rad. I rather like the idea of doing a new pic-u-nic basket adventure.

Sherm said...

That's seriously effed-up.

Mr. Tat said...

We have R-rated and other popular live action movies becoming clean cartoons to sell merchandise to the children and now the cartoons like Yogi Bear are being changed into live action/realistic CGI. Everything is balanced now.

The non-cartoony bear should do the bongo walk. They owe me at least that trauma. Bah.

Harmke said...

i cry :'(
I hope it's all a joke for April Fools' Day....

smackmonkey said...

Almost a million a minute for this load of crap is unthinkable. You could make a pretty decent Yogi short or even a beautiful, artistic short subject for what they'll spend to wreck an icon for thirty seconds.
Hollywood blows.

Mark said...

Geez! The hope that one day things have to get better is the only thing keeping me going right now

Tim said...

Has anyone else noticed that the CG company Rhythm & Hues always handles the animation for these live action CG movies? Definitely a formula, here!

Martin Juneau said...

I think Hollywood ran out of ideas each time we hearing a classic cartoon character morphed as a CGI movie. And Yogi is no exception! But the problem is times changes in 50 years. Maybe he will be a more hipster or his rhymes will be annoying more than in the original series. Who knows?

I'm glad they showed again the original series in air but it wasn't surprise me they will dropped off soon in profit to this... stuff.

Roberto González said...

I hate to admit it, but I think "realistic" Boo Boo doesn't look THAT bad. But yeah, Justin Timberlake, what is that?

Yogi looks pretty bad.

I'm not so in love with these characters as you are, so I'll be more infuriated when they do this to Tom and Jerry, Marvin the Martian or Speedy Gonzales.

The smurfs movie sounds utterly awful too (and, even though the old animated show is not that good, I personally think the comics are brilliant stuff that could be made into a great whole-animated movie).

Ross Irving said...

On the one hand, of course I think it's retarded for them to make a Yogi Bear movie, and it's disappointing to see another cartoon character get mangled.

On the other hand, as fun as the Yogi Bear show was visually and the polish provided by voice actors, the show wasn't really that enthralling to me, so I don't care.

Kel said...

Not only this but I heard somewhere that they might be making Popeye in 3D. :(

Here's the proof: http://movies.ign.com/articles/107/1079261p1.html

Arielle P. said...

Another childhood memory.... Butchered. T_T

Chris Rank said...

It's never about how good you are or how creative you are, but who you know.

Apparently you don't know the right person to get the half Mil?

Elana Pritchard said...

NOW can we all band together and burn down Hollywood? Pleeeeease?

Ray said...

Almost barfed after seeing Yogi's fur tie. Looks like Yogi Bear and Boo Boo are joining the ranks of other failed CGI monstrosities like Garfield and the recent Alice in Wonderland

SandraRivas said...

It's like taking all of your money and burning it into a pile of ashes.

A guy from Nsync doing voice acting? He can't even act!

Pete Emslie said...

Yogi may be smarter than the average bear, but today's Hollywood studio execs are most decidedly not. Yeesh, what a crapfest!

Shawn Dickinson said...

Well, they're not getting any of MY money!

F**k Hollywood!

Andrés Sanhueza said...

I have no hope for this movie, but I think it would be funny if Ranger Smith is played by a different actor in each take.

Kingfish said...

This makes no sense to me. You have these characters, designed in 2-D by experts, and try to make them look "real." Now what we're left with is a weird-looking bear-thing standing upright wearing a hat and tie. It looks so REAL!!!

To add to the illusion, give them the voices of human men. I'm sure kids are going to flock to the theaters to shell out their hard-earned bucks when they hear Dan Aykroyd is in it.

Silver lining: maybe after the film comes out, CN will use the resultant "brand awareness" as justification to produce new Yogi cartoons.

Kawks! said...

Timberlake?!?! REALLY? Seriously? Did I miss something? What makes him qualified to do voices especially BOOBOO? Because he is a pop singer? Because of his good looks? Because the girls used to like him? I don't know what to say, I'm seriously flabbergasted at this.

Mike! said...

My eyyyyyes! It's unbelievable. Putting aside the ridiculousness that this movie exists in the first place, I think there could be a way to render Yogi and Boo Boo in CG that would make them look halfway decent and resembling their original forms, but this... this is the stuff of nightmares.

smackmonkey said...

Elana Pritchard said...
"NOW can we all band together and burn down Hollywood? Pleeeeease?"

My torch is already lit.

JohnK said...

Cartoon Teabaggers.

pappy d said...

I think you guys are being a bit harsh in rushing to judgment. I've always sensed a certain Boo-boo quality in Justin Timberlake. He needs the right director to bring it out.

smackmonkey said...

JohnK said...
"Cartoon Teabaggers."

Toonbaggers?

Alberto said...

Booboo played by Justin Timberlake? I think we all know what that means... MUSICAL NUMBERS! dirty pop!

Jeff M said...

This movie is going to be awful. At least when they made The Flintstones into a live action movie they cast the right actors for the parts. The guy playing Ranger smith is the dude from the show "Ed". I would have cast Dan Akroyd as Ranger Smith. They just don't care anymore do they? :(

Rusty said...

Elana Pritchard said...
"NOW can we all band together and burn down Hollywood? Pleeeeease?"

Good idea but how to execute it is the problem. Where going against a Tude machine taking over the very fabric of the Hollywood cartoon. Practically most animators in Hollywood are drones to big companies one way or another.

You know it didn't use to be this way back in the day the majority of Hollywood animation studios wanted to make great A quality cartoons. Though that was killed by Flimation, Tude merchandising, and Furries.

Rusty said...

Jeff Read said...
"Oh by the way, more Hollywood genius."

While everything else in that film sucks. Quentin Tarantino has the potential to carry the movie. I can imagine the material he writes for his character would bring the rating of the movie to PG-13 or R.

kurtwil said...

Kel, there's already been a 3D Popeye, produced by Rainbow Entertainment in Canada, called POPEYE, THE QUEST FOR PAPPY. Its animators tried hard to get a sense of "tooniness" in their effort.

Meanwhile, several FX houses are seriously pursuing feature films produced from video game assets. This gendre's called Machinima. Per following statement from Wikipedia:

"[Machinima]'s relative simplicity over traditional frame-based animation limits control and range of expression. Its real-time nature favors speed, cost saving, and flexibility over the higher quality of pre-rendered computer animation."

BTW, for me, Machinima animation's booooring as it's essentially motion capture from (usually) rushed live action acting. In fact, many video game animators are asked to do their stuff __really fast__, and have to use motion capture as a wheelchair.

Rusty said...

JohnK said...

"Cartoon Teabaggers."

And this is to be taken very seriously by the big animation companies we could have a revolution on our hands. The way I see it cartoon teabaggers are underdogs to big corporations and corrupt authority who want to capitalize on the next big thing with fear of trying to innovate.

Its up to the cartoon teabaggers to bring back the fun in cartoons. It wont happen overnight because the biggest cartoon companies make films like this new Yogi one.

Kuzey said...

That's just wrong!!

Even my 3d version of Yogi looks closer to the original than this crap and there's no fur to boot.

Scary stuff indeed!

Coyote Cereal said...

i wonder if yogi and boo boo will wear a backwards cap and rap a song at all in the movie.

Roberto said...

This almost made me wanna spit blood. When will Hollywood learn?

My childhood has been officially ruined.

talkingtj said...

ugh and ugh again! watch them make it 3-d so they can charge more money for this crap!

GoldDarkShadow said...

This is just terrible, a beloved cartoon character turned into some CGI disaster. Man Hollywood must be retarded. I'm really sick of these CGI movies because they basically have the same plot. I think this movie isn't going to do well in the box office because half of the kids in this generation don't know who Yogi Bear is and just watch that Sherk crap

RooniMan said...

OH GOD!!!!! Those CG versions are HIDEOUS!! They must really take pleasure in destorying our favorite cartoon characters.

Martin Juneau said...

Those Hollywood executives are completely retard! They never want to learn by their own mistakes. If Garfield was poorly welcomed in a feature, why continuing? But as long that the business will work, they won't have places for new ideas, creativity and fun!

Retards!

yawn said...

I was glad that Jetsons the movie was animated. As opposed to Fred, being changed into john goodman,bleah.

FriedMilk said...

All I have to say is, the mouse with a human ear on its back needs a Hollywood deal. Screw Timberlake.

Guy said...

Astonishing artistry.

Rusty said...

50 Million isn't measley your only asking for 10 million dollars less than the other companies. To outdo them is to produce a film at 50,000 and make it better than this film. That is very possible especially for someone like you John that can work with lower budgets but produce a better product than the big studios.

Oliver_A said...

Teabagging aside, it's the first time you actually mention how much money you would need for a cartoon!

$500.000 for a half-hour? That means, if we calculate generously, you could actually pull off a fully animated film, which revolutionizes animation again, for less than $10M ? How much would it approximately cost to do it all in the States?

Jay said...

I really liked the couple of Yogi shorts that got JohnK'd - they finally explained the selective nudity, for one.

Was hoping more things like that would infiltrate the culture, but now the most accurate thing anyone does is match the old titles' fonts. Sometimes.

kurtwil said...

BTW, on the Saturday Night Live "Saturday TV Fun House" DVD, there is a 2D satire of Yogi Bear, with Yogi renamed Cogi and fitted with bulging briefs (as are all its animal characters).
The "satire", of HB TV class animation, has Cogi and CO. doing various rude things such as relieving themselves and scratching their privates.

Oy...was frankly amazed SNL got away with that.

Yawn, the Jetsons feature was one of the first to use 3D backgrounds done by deGraf/Wahrman, who also did the opening for the 1991 Felix The Cat feature (DeGraf/Wahrman collapsed shortly after Felix was finished).

CabelStudios said...

wow, that's either low value CGI model or a high value Chuck E Cheese robot

FishStix said...

Seeing something like this makes me believe the end is near.

Trevor Thompson said...

Hey John,

I already wrote a script similar to your idea about a studio being burned down and the characters being freed as well as an idea for a Termite Terrace movie. Both were shot down due to lack of interest. Even with suggestions like Sam Neill as Chuck Jones, Freddie Prinze Jr. as Clampett and Jack Black as Avery.

Lack of interest my achin' ass! They're afraid of generating interest in another Renaissance of Animation. Then they'd have to hire real artists and pay them fairly.

Execs want to think that audiences don't care about old school style animation ( even as a documentary; producers can't fund a behind-the-scenes look at an independent studio doing traditional if they have stock in Pixar let's say ).

It's a conspiracy I tells ya.

Conceit Arturo said...

Hey John!,there's ppl out there who actually do CARTOONY 3D! it really looks handrawn, check them out they're Meindbender

The rabbit short and "Gretta" are the best. maybe it's old and you already saw it but....they're still cool =O

C said...

No live action cartoon-based movie ever...can ever beat this.

Zoran Taylor said...

I can imagine Timberlake doing a cartoon voice, but not an EXISTING cartoon voice that we all recognize. Sure, John or Billy or Eric can pull that stuff off, but they're actors first. If a pop singer is going to voice a cartoon character, they should be the FIRST to give voice to that character. Their voices have the characteristics necessary to do this, including control, but a happy accident must happen first. It never will, though, because nowadays if you have a celebrity doing a voice, it must be THEIR voice....even if their natural voice isn't what is needed.

JoJo said...

When's Mike getting here?

smackmonkey said...

Trevor Thompson said...

"I already wrote a script... for a Termite Terrace movie. Both were shot down due to lack of interest. Even with suggestions like Sam Neill as Chuck Jones, Freddie Prinze Jr. as Clampett and Jack Black as Avery."

I'm surprised because Hollywood execs usually jump at the chance to let the public think the little guy has a chance to make it in the face of overwhelming odds - even when it's at their expense. It's one of those "feel good" plot gimmicks that subversively paints the Hollywood machine as vulnerable and possessing only the most tenuous grip on a creative rebel when nothing could be further from the truth. They really must be worried.

Oliver_A said...

Sam Neill as Chuck Jones, Freddie Prinze Jr. as Clampett and Jack Black as Avery.

Sam Neill and Jack Black are a great idea!
Freddy Price Jr... mmmmh, I dunno. If he would be a bit younger, I would have suggested Kyle McLachlan. But then again, Sam Neill isn't that young either.

kurtwil said...

BTW, though a little off topic, it might be good if JK commented on the latest generation of 2D artists using Toon Boom; What's liked, and disliked, about their animation?

FYI, Toon Boom is not FLASH, though its output can look similar. FLASH is mainly a programming language and vector > video exporter with some basic animation and drawing tools thrown in. Unless you draw every frame, FLASH limitations can become a real pain.

Trevor Thompson said...

Jason Schwarzman as Ub Iwerks, William H. Macy as McKimson, Jason Alexander as Friz Freleng, Bill Murray as Carl Stalling, Kevin Kline as Tedd Pierce, Lenny Clarke as Mike Maltese, Philip Seymour Hoffman as Leon Schlesinger and Edward Norton in a cameo role as Walt Disney.

Ross Irving said...

What. The same studio doing the animation for live action/ CGI movies is not a formula. It would only be a formula if the studio had a significant say in the story, which they don't. The only formulas that could exist would be in the animation, which is to be expected at this point and not get nearly as wound up as many of you are. The fact that some of you even took John's crack at you as a legitimate name for your delusional dreams of boycotts or whatever else you may have had in mind. The movie doesn't wreck anyone's childhood because you shouldn't care if it's something that you know everyone else is going to hate anyway.

This isn't Yogi's new look forever, it'll never pick up steam. If you're going to be upset, be upset for the right reasons instead of forming a hivemind and calling everything crap this and crap that.

Alvaro said...

I hate all those live action cartoons.
I don´t see any fun or beauty on them.
Why the parents keep thinking those hideous films are good for their children? The characters doesn´t even look cute.
But I think the angry bear of photo wearing Yogi´s hat and tie looks spectacular. Much better than all that CGI crap.

... They are also making a live action film of Speedy Gonzalez:

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/cgi/george-lopez-to-voice-speedy-gonzales-in-live-actioncg-movie.html

Lampshade said...

According to Ross Irving's logic, if a formula is done by the studio, it isn't a formula at all.

I don't why Ross hasn't realized the glaring idiocy in what he said.

Calvin said...

I thought they already made Monsters Inc.

ehhhh....

Zartok-35 said...

Boo! I vote no. It's no good.

Yowp said...

Sorry, John, I just saw your thread on this now. I wouldn't have done mine (which I wrote then saved for April 1 for obvious reasons) if I'd known, because you and your readers always have great insight and pretty well cover everything. That's what I get for not coming here daily.

This movie isn't directed at hard-core fans. It's being directed as parents who kinda recognise the Yogi name and would therefore be willing to take their kids to a family movie. They sell more tickets that way.

It'd be awfully hard to satisfy me with a Yogi movie, no matter what these people do, because it's almost impossible to duplicate the work of the creators. That's even if today's people had the creative freedom that H-B did in 1958. And they don't.

The real irony is the biggest (and maybe only) knock against the original cartoons is they aren't fully animated because of economics. Now there's a feature with a huge budget that could create the kind of animation the TV cartoons never had .. and look at what we're getting instead. I can only imagine what Art Lozzi thinks.

Yowp

Ross Irving said...

@Lampshade

That's not what I'm saying at all. A studio itself is not a formula. You don't need to keep revinventing a company's infrastructure when it already caters to completing specific projects (live action/cgi). I call that stabiity, I don't know what you call it. Spumco itself was not a formula just because it focused on layouts more heavily then other studios did.

Instead, you need to look at the real formulas the studio does (animation gestures, unnecessary rendering techniques etc) and handle those accordingly. However, you shouldn't care. This studio is always going to do what it's been doing. Focus on how you're going to succeed. John K gripes about how these mediocre cartoons seem to be adored by the majority, but it's not taking away from his focus and the projects he and others are working on.

Ralph Bakshi was right. "The animation industry isn't crumbling--you're crumbling".

Lampshade said...

Ross, I believe that the studio is completely inefficient, but I don't know what exactly goes, so I won't talk, and neither should you unless you know every detail (which I would be interested in hearing).

John K. talks about Filmation's studio inefficiency right here, for example:

http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2010/02/filmations-golden-age.html

He knows what he's talking about because he actually worked there.

Will Finn did too:

http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2010/02/will-finn-at-filmation.html

It's not just about "formula", but efficiency.

My belief is that if a studio is geared to make crap, it will keep making crap.

I will agree you on one thing, that there are people who are all talk. A lot of people follow John K's advice but they don't practice what he preaches.

John isn't merely about bashing terrible cartoons, he has tons of useful advice. Take a look at some of his tags on his front page:

construction (60)
color (24)
Layout (45)
learn from the masters (2)
maintaining guts (16)

JohnK said...

I doubt the look is the animation studio's decision. They have to answer to a hundred scared execs who have never seen Yogi Bear cartoons.

It's the whole system and hierarchy that's messed up. It's almost impossible to do anything good anymore - even if you had the money and support, you'd have to learn how to be entertaining again by trial and error.

Juz Capes said...

Do you think the CG Hybrid thing is a similar trend perhaps to the 80's TV Animation trend of trying to make characters look 'realistic' rather then fun.

You said animating real looking people is more difficult, I imagine animating 3d characters like this and being pressured to make them fit seamlessly with the live action actors must be such a horrid task. Placing shadows and subtle hair movements...

kurtwil said...

FYI, the Scoobie 3D appearance was entirely an executive decision. The artists just provided samples, or what the executives told them to make.

Pete Emslie's blog mentions the current animation studios' fire-hire madness. Most FX shops work that way, resulting in freelancers scrounging for the next job as they work on the current one. Worse, the transient workforce's an excuse not to train anyone on the job!

Juz, animating CGI's somewhat like traditional animation.
Motion Capture offers "straight ahead" (but from an actor, not an animator), while character poses within the 2D/3D program represent key-frameing. Live Action compositing's more complex because many elements (such as realistic lighting) and software tools come into play. Live action and 3D films can have up to 1000 element and FX layers per frame .vs. 50 - 100 levels for 2D animation. At least that's what the last 20 years of CGI taught me! :-)

Juz Capes said...

Kurtwil,

Yeah I just mean because of their 'design' it would be difficult to visualise how they move. A weird combination of cartoon and sort of 'fake-real'. So even if they did at certain points become cartoony in action, all the extra compositing stuff will have to compensate which usually seems to be a blur of effects.

The characters are almost weighed down by extra physics and difficult effects. And they are made out of such intangible materials.

I guess what I mean is intricate details and poor design really seem to clobber the people who have to make it come to life.

Pokey said...

I'll just add comment 80 here and point out that even better if this movie succeeds than new Yogi shorts [which may be good that a far amount of the older stock cues-not H.Curtin but the Cinemusic/J.Shaindlin and EMI-Capitol/Phil Green cues, even though they weren't generally used on Yogi] would be the original series later seasons, 1959-62.

That be the ultimate silver lining my friends [I oughta know about the library music siuaion my firneds.:) I used to carry a green guy on my back to it...in clay animation bakc in the 50s.]

Blog

OriginalGagBonkers said...

And I thought Hollywood couldn't get any much worst. We already had one Yogi bear movie, we already had one Jetsons movie{if your not counting the tv movies that were done.}, and we already had one Tom and Jerry movie. Out of all of these, the Tom and Jerry one was inexcusable.

Apparently Hollywood only cares about one thing, and that's money. Ever since Alvin and the chipmunks came out Hollywood actually believes that this type of garbage makes money. It is pointless, and rather useless. It even throws away people who have real talent out the doors. And bringing in people who have no talent in. If Hollywood wants money so badly, they need to bring back adult animation. Alot of people are getting sick of CG animated kids films here.

If I even want live-action/animated films, I would want the characters in 2D. The last film to even have live-action/2D animation was Looney Toons Back In Action, even that was a disappointment. Not to mention that a second Looney toons movie wouldn't been good anyways. The only live-action/2D animated films that I could sit through were Song of the south, Three Caballeros, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and Cool World. I know there isn't likely anyone on here that likes these movies, but if you don't like them I got nothing agaisnt that.

Although this is a bit off the subject but Trevor Thompson that idea is genius. Jack Black as Avery, now is something I can picture him playing as. If he can get the acting right.

Michael said...

Here's the science behind why the artists are often taken advantage of by the snappy thinking suits. It explains the demise of the Warner Brother classic standards for animation and in so many other places.

http://theperplexity.blogspot.com/2010/04/this-article-about-neuroscience-of.html

fandumb said...

Apparently Timberlake (no offence to you, John, you did great!) got Boo Boo pretty much spot on!
I liked your Burl Ives voice for Boo Boo, but the problem (or perhaps the great thing) was I could tell it was you!