But then I noticed there were some pretty good things in there, so I thought I better mention them.
http://www.hortonmovie.com/site/horton.html
The Non Cal Arts Expressions Look Great
I like how the eyes are sunk into the skin of his eyelids here. I wish we could see it better.
After the blurry stuff stops, he goes back into the Cal Arts business.
Here's some very clever stuff...
I'd rather it wasn't blurred though.
These hands are great!
The Textures Are More Subtle Than Usual
These characters look like Seuss characters - at least when they aren't making Disney expressions and that in itself is a huge advance in modern cartoon design.
The Colors Are Not Obnoxious
I hope there is at least one sequence that is rendered in the style of my favorite Seuss book:
Maybe the Blue Sky artists are slowly pushing back against the forces of Hollywood/Disney formula. This definitely looks better than most feature cartoons. It's at least cartoony underneath the expressions and in a few short bits. Maybe there is more of that in the film.
I wish they could just go ahead and do some shorts using the Seuss stories as is, and not have to fill them up with Hollywood sappy story stuff and characters who have to examine their inner selves and learn that it's ok to be yourself. Just tell the stories and use the original poetry and get good character actors with fun voices to narrate.
Come up with a animation style that is as silly and cartoony as the drawings. Seuss is pure silly fantasy. It's not supposed to have fake heart or be believable. It's supposed to be funny and clever and imaginative. An escape from the mundane.
That'd make a great DVD.
_________________________
A note on individual interpretations of classics:
I'm actually all for individual creative additions to classic properties, as long as they don't completely undermine the essence of the material. Unless they are satires, of course. (Good ones). It's like covering a standard pop song.
Clampett and Jones both did their own interpretations of Seuss and Horton and you can sure tell the difference between them. I think Clampett did the better version and closer to the source, but that's just my opinion. The Grinch has a lot of good things in it. Both directors obviously have great respect and admiration for Seuss, but are also very strong stylists themselves and couldn't possibly help adding their own personalities to the cartoons. I wouldn't want them to just take Seuss' drawings and inbetween them.
That's not the same thing as a corporate whitewashing of a classic. My complaint is that the same bland formulaic makeover is applied to everything today. There's no sign of anyone's individuality anywhere. It's like there is only one animation creator and he makes every frame of every film. The same expressions, same acting, same contrived story gimmicks are just pasted over any subject matter.
There are lots of truly creative people in the business that could do marvelously entertaining, exciting and popular cartoons if only we could discard the corporate formula veneer that smothers every attempt to be sincere and creative.