|
They gave Smithfish "Monkey Lips." Jesus. That's what's wrong with his design. Google him: Smith has some perky lips in Fresh Prince of Bel Air scenes where he's doing comedy faces and intentionally pushing them out, but not normally. Now animation always exaggerates traits people have, so taking Smith's ears (his most distinct feature, alongside his eyes) is fine, but the animators should really know better than to not only exaggerate his lips but grossly exaggerate them to where he screams "Jackass Stereotypical Hood Rat" from every shot. At least it's not as bad as the Monkey Lips that Foodfight gives to Wayne Brady, who has a character design/lines that is borderline hateful. But in a way, it's worse: Foodfight is hateful to everything, but I'd expect better out of a major studio like Dreamworks.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
Pick posted:
 At least, I'm sure that's what they were going for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 06:37
|
|
|
Pick posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Oh my god! I think that's it! Pilot! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
http://youtu.be/YRa2v2obKdA?t=27s
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
I've been enjoying this analysis a lot, although I like Bee Movie. The weird stuff just comes together in a perfect storm of "Huwaa?" as you watch it, it's a reference clusterfuck. Patrick Warburton is the best voice actor though. "That Bee is Living my LIFE!!!" is my favourite line. Also him ranting about how he doesn't even like honey, "I DON'T EAT IT!" Then he comes back in 2 seconds later with "for your information I prefer an artificial sweetner in my tea. I KNOW IT HAS AN AFTERTASTE! I LIKE IT!" 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
Shark Tale's biggest crime to me is being such an unrelentingly ugly movie when it's set in the ocean, the most naturally beautiful place in the world. Those clashing textures and colors are so horrible. Even things like the basic character design is so irredeemable, Smithfish just makes you recoil when you see him from certain angles. Everything is so bizarre looking, in both a technical and aesthetic sense. I know CGI's come a long way but it just boggles the mind to look at these screenshots and think "Yes, this is a multi-million dollar Hollywood movie that played in all the major theaters."
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Thank y'all for your patience, while you wait, please try to absorb this: Biggg enough for a desktoooop! Pick fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Apr 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
What I Like About Shark Tale All laughs aside, this is going to be a long section and (again) multiple posts. I'm going to begin possibly where I did last time, although frankly I don't wholly remember. This section will also introduce some of my unpopular broader opinions about contemporary animated films. Okay, so let's begin with... story. No, I don't mean to imply that Shark Tale has a good story, only that it has a story with a few good aspects. This differentiation is essential. For one thing, the hokey "message of acceptance" moral is one I like. This was released in 2004, and therefore making a gay shark movie was riskier than it would be today. I do think the gay shark message was intentional, and even if that wasn't what they were necessarily going for, they can't possibly have believed the character would be read any other way. Among other things, I can't imagine how they could have instructed Jack Black to voice Lenny in such a way without the phrase "A little bit more, you know... y'know.  ."And in case you're worried I'm making poo poo up, here are some quotes from ChristianAnswers.net: quote:Negative—Warning!! Be aware is what I would say to parents taking children to this movie. While it teaches some good concepts to hook the audience into thinking it’s A-okay,the bottom line is that the homosexual movement got more than their share of the clams in this film. Lenny is more than just a vegetarian who dresses different. The shove towards acceptance of homosexual lifestyles is subtle and one most kids may not pick up on, but the seeds will be planted in their innocent minds. And Lola is just another spin on sex that is not the way God intended. This is in no way a 3-star movie. I give it a 1½ at the most. And I won’t be taking my grandchildren to see it. quote:Negative—If you are truly seeking after God’s truths, you WON’T want to take you children to this movie. I regret having gone to the movie both because of the style of music (I’ve never gotten on board with the whole rap scene), and with the offensive portrayal of Lenny as a “vegetarian” shark (secret word for “homosexual” shark). The movie even has a “vegetarian” coming out scene. I was nonetheless excited about the story being wrapped around the mafia or the introduction of gambling. quote:Negative—Yep, I see this film as extremely well done, and yet I rate it extremely offensive. This is not a film for Christian families, period! Christians are being duped by the daily thought process of the world today…”it’s not hurting anybody so it’s okay”! Oh help us Lord Jesus to consider our instructions from the manual that YOU have provided on life…”be holy, set apart for His good works.” No sir, we want to be entertained regardless of the subtleties involved for after all, “that is not how I am living, and I would not condone the lifestyle of a homosexual.” Do not kid yourself, the planted seeds of “accept them for what they are” will be hard for your children to reject and frankly they won’t even know why except that we have allowed them to swallow junk like this film… hook, line and sinker. And the sinking is what will take this nation of ours down, right along with this generation! Sheeple! Wake up and take a stand for what is right! He said it, He mean’t it and there will be a price to pay for our foolishness! No wonder the phrase still fits today…”the harvest is plentiful but the workers are few.” We are too busy entertaining ourselves with whatever comes down the pike rather than to get out and get in the trenches and do the Lord’s work. Lord help us; give us wisdom and discernment. He said He would if we would just ask! After all, He gave us His life, we owe Him ours! All rated "Very Offensive". My offenses are tingling! They go on and on and on. Bah, who would give Shark Tale this degree of thought and attention? Only some kind of loony. Anyway, onto more analysis!!! At its core, this is a good message and one that I like. All the protagonists treat Lenny nicely (even Smithfish, who is using Lenny, is conspicuously nice to him compared to how he treats other characters). Lenny's brother isn't built up as a particularly nice shark (although we don't see him much and he's never particularly "mean" either), but he's still helpful to Lenny and basically supportive--just suggesting that Lenny do the minimum to make their dad happy. The only character who suggests anything negative about Lenny is pufferfish in his early-film incarnation, and he's severely punished for it by Don Lino. Who yeah, in turn, has to "accept" Lenny even when--ahh, we've gone over this. Anyone who gives Lenny poo poo is wrong, and those who are kind to him are right. Good. Lenny, as a character, might be a little "too" perfect in terms of not having any lovely traits that might "humanize" him (you know what I mean), as they were trying to do with Smithfish. However, he's pretty fey and cutesy and I think making him too lovey-cuddly was probably the right direction to veer in; the alternative would be disastrous, as proven by Smithfish problems. If you're worried about your audience disliking a character that the plot really requires you to favor.... Well. Better to have a Disney princess gay shark than that kid I want to smack around on Glee. At the end of the day, it's a solid, progressive message wrapped up in an awful film. It's right that people accept Lenny the way he is, and yeah, that includes his father, who is cast as a traditionalist. (Which actually works with the mafia iconography, I should add.) I also really appreciate that no one died during the end sequence, especially Don Lino, and not just because he's cool compared to the rest of the loving dorks in the movie. Really, the entire action sequence at the end only leads us to the climax, it doesn't supplant a climax. And I truly, deeply appreciate that. Here's one thing the movie did absolutely correct: the climax is the right climax. Here's where I am going to type some contentious words: I tend to get pissed at Pixar movies loving this up. I think WALL-e is my go-to example of a film that didn't need some dumb loving fight at the end distracting us from what the movie was supposed to be about. Auto added nothing, and in fact was a distraction to what the movie was trying to do, plus it made the creators of the ship more "stupid evil" than just greedy and shortsighted. Monsters, Inc. has a similar problem--why did Waternoose have to be evil? What did that add to the movie? What was wrong with it ending on what I thought was the actual point of the film--that laughter is a greater power than fear? I don't think either of those is a bad film, in fact they're very good films, but I think both endings were tailored to be "crowd pleasers" with no faith that crowds can like peaceful solutions. And they end up giving people the wrong take-home message from the movie ("hit evil in the face") as opposed to the more nuanced suggestions which I guarantee you are something children can digest and appreciate. This was something that bugged me about Toy Story 3, too: you have this great, great conflict (moving on and obsolescence and what-have-you) and instead of explore that space in the time allotted, there's an evil bear, and then the conflict is forced to frenetically resolve itself in a way that didn't require said bear in the first place. I mean, yes, sure, in Shark Tale, Don Lino shouts "You! I'm gonna get you!" and swims after Smithfish into a... well, carwash, but considering how he's cast the entire rest of the film, the chase scene is more like an angry dad chasing his daughter's girlfriend across the lawn. It lacks the oomph of a bear fight or straight-up murdering a mentally ill old man on foreign soil. And I don't get the impression it's supposed to make a particular impression based on what came after. But it's hard to tell because a lot of people working on Shark Tale had communication problems. Maybe this isn't making too much sense. I guess I'm just sick of violence and villains getting shoehorned in where it doesn't feel necessary. Shark Tale didn't need a shark Hitler and didn't get one: it had a dad who doesn't understand his son and an ambitious female fish who wants a mate appropriate to her status. Neither gets killed or... even injured, actually. The former ends the film in a better position than before (sans one son who was killed in a random way that nothing could have actively facilitated or prevented) and the latter ends the film exactly where she was before. Even pufferfish is doing better, as are his henchman, even though honestly, who lets a henchman-owner get away with trying to murder a dude? Shark Tale! But, god dammit, what's wrong with that? I mean, not attempted murder, but what's wrong with things working out without someone getting shanked? Which is a word that hilariously looks a lot like "sharked"? The violence in Shark Tale, what little there is, has nothing to do with how the issues are resolved. The issues get resolved because what needed to happen, happens. Don Lino talks things out with his son and Smithfish realizes that he had what he needed to be happy (like his late dad) and admits he was wrongly sacrificing his integrity and losing what he valued. The chase scene (where nobody gets hurt) only facilitates these discussions, it does not produce a solution in and of itself, and it isn't spuriously presented as one. If you're not following, I present these two outcomes: 1. Don Lino chases Smithfish into the carwash and gets stuck and has to talk to his son face-to-face 2. Don Lino chases Smithfish into the carwash and is torn apart by gears and killed In the former, the chase was only important in that it led us to a situation where the emotional conflict had to be addressed. The latter doesn't actually resolve the conflict, it invalidates the conflict. Of course, I'm also one of those people who has very stringent tastes on violence in media. People tend to assume that an aversion comes from lack of experience, but I can assure you it can derive from experience as well. One of the reasons I enjoy and tend to prefer family-friendly media is because I can get a good story and not watch a guy get stabbed in the eyeball with a screwdriver. I don't want to watch a film that will ruin my day. [To be continued...] Pick fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Apr 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
I think the purpose of villains like Waternoose and Lotso is to underline what happens if the protagonists don't learn from or make the right decision about their conflict. Gallant has less impact without Goofus to serve as a counterexample. Do they need to be ramped up to the point of desperation at story's end? Not necessarily, but it sure makes the message clearer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
I don't know that they really work that well as parallel tracks. Waternoose's motivation is the power crisis, which Mike and Sully practically solve in a throwaway line. Lotso's motivation is the same as the main toys (fear of abandonment), but the way it manifests in his villainy is quite incomparable to the the worst case scenarios for the main characters. From an extremely unforgiving perspective, it's difficult to justify the roles these characters play. I think to a certain extent we do forgive these flaws- but I don't think it's because of a Pixar bias so much as a bias of narrative expectations that we all share. Which doesn't just make us rationalize all of Pixar as good, but even all of Shark Tale as bad. Consider Pick's assessment of the climatic chase scene in Shark Tale being relatively benign- more like an angry father chasing his daughter's boyfriend than a rampaging predator out to murder everyone. Looking at the context of what happens before and after, this is by far the most reasonable way to interpret that scene. Indeed, the whole movie could be seen as a build-up to that one moment, where Don Lino's frustration explodes at the one fish who can be directly blamed for all of the emotional trauma that he's suffered so far. And yet, it is difficult to view the scene like that. Why? I suspect that it's because the narrative, as treated both by the filmmakers and the viewers' expectations, calls for Smithfish to be the hero and forces us, through sheer assumption of will, to rationalize all events in the movie as being principally about Smithfish and what happens to him, not how he affects the fish around him. Ironically, in making Smithfish the main character, Shark Tale actually removes his agency by forcing the plot to conform to a "jerk who we're supposed to like for no reason" narrative structure. Take all this together, and we have Don Lino, who is only a villain because we believe he's the villain, because we're just so used to seeing clearly telegraphed villains. The prospect of a shark-only cut of Shark Tale intrigues me more all the time. I can't help but wonder if, were we to cut out fish and possibly their sentience from the movie altogether, we'd be left with a story about a shark family trying to do what's best for each other. It wouldn't be easily marketable, but I'd watch it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
By the way, I had Shark Tale on in the background as I was working on something else, and I suddenly realized who this is: She's only visible for a few seconds in the entire film, but this is Lenny and Frankie's mother (who is briefly mentioned during the very introduction of the film). Where she is this whole drat time (other than at the funeral), I don't know, but here's Don Lino comforting his wife while this son's corpse floats to the surface of the ocean. I had a bug up my rear end about how they mishandled the villain of the film, making him genuinely more justified in his actions than the main protagonist (contrasted against something like Disney's Hercules, where Hades is by far the best and most interesting character--more than Hercules by a landslide--but no, you don't actually want him to win. A villain done well). However, I'm thinking I have to revise my appraisal, because he just doesn't fit that category. I'm trying to re-think that movie in this framework. It'll come up later when I focus on Don Lino and his role in the film. Some Guy TT posted:From an extremely unforgiving perspective, it's difficult to justify the roles these characters play. I think to a certain extent we do forgive these flaws- but I don't think it's because of a Pixar bias so much as a bias of narrative expectations that we all share. Which doesn't just make us rationalize all of Pixar as good, but even all of Shark Tale as bad. quote:Take all this together, and we have Don Lino, who is only a villain because we believe he's the villain, because we're just so used to seeing clearly telegraphed villains. The prospect of a shark-only cut of Shark Tale intrigues me more all the time. I can't help but wonder if, were we to cut out fish and possibly their sentience from the movie altogether, we'd be left with a story about a shark family trying to do what's best for each other. It wouldn't be easily marketable, but I'd watch it. I try to be fair to these broad-appeal films and think about what the average movie-goer wants. I don't believe it's wrong to tailor a product to an audience. It's one reason I don't dismiss Cars, as some folk do, although I have no interest in it personally. That said, I think audiences are more amenable to genuine originality than some people in these studios apparently think. I believe Kid's Fruity Shark Godfather could have been a great and popular film in the right hands. I really appreciate your comments; they're extremely well-reasoned and have helped me a lot in the development of my review  .
Pick fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Apr 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 07:32
|
|
|
Voicing Unicron was not nearly the worst or most bizarre thing that Orson Welles did. That would be the Orson Welles Talk Show pilot where he interviewed Burt motherfucking Reynolds. Sadly it looks like some jackass has taken it off YouTube. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 07:57
|
|
|
Arts, Smarts, and Darts: three words that rhyme, one of which connects to what I'm talking about Talented artists were here. Okay, so I'm going to try to wrap this up in two more posts, both of which are about the sharks, because they're basically the only thing in the film that I liked (and even that "like" is qualified).  A rare piece of production artwork by Christophe Vacher. First I'm going to talk about them artistically. I think that the entire mafia looks pretty good, honestly (other than stupid joke octopus). Here's a shot of a bunch of background sharks.  I also love, love, love the composition of this shot. Who did this? Where were you the rest of the movie? Anyway.  A collection of various species involved. The marlins are difficult to see from here, but they look fine.  You can see different nose lengths, and there are some other shark species in here. Also, note that inspired little dash of gray on the chest near the collar, which does in fact suggest a collar and the associated suit. I'm actually extremely impressed by this little detail and think it is 100% effective and amazing, design-wise.  Here's Ira Feinberg, voiced by Peter Falk (aka Columbo). He's an spotty old leopard shark who is missing some teeth. He has a somewhat muddy texture, but generally he looks pretty good. You can get the impression of a small, wild-haired old man who is perhaps less wise than crafty. It works. I found a semi-dignified screenshot, i.e. a time when he is not farting. Ira in particular does not suffer the main design flaw of the great white sharks: a weird chin. This is probably because Ira is always in the 'upright' stance, whereas the great white sharks (Lenny, Don Lino, Frankie, and background sharks) vary between the upright stance and the traditional 'fish' stance, which I admit would be extremely difficult to work around effectively. Anyway, the questionable shark chins help with the upright-to-fish transition, since they allow the face and head to remain essentially static while the body shifts.   Here's Frankie. He has a rounder jaw than his father, suggesting heft. He is also generally more convex-curvy than Don Lino (who is more angular) or Lenny (who is noticeably thinner). His nose is also more distinctly set off, which I don't think looks particularly good, but is distinct. You can compare it to Lenny's and Don Lino's uninterrupted noses (interestingly, Don Lino has a build more like Frankie, but most of the details are shared with Lenny). His neck is also thick, so he always looks 'sharkier', even when he's in upright stance. So some thought went into this; despite having limited screentime, he does have a genuinely characteristic appearance. Also, notice the area around his eyes is darker than Lenny's or Don Lino's, so he automatically looks more sunken-eyed and churlish. He also has a black liner to his eyes that the other two don't, and a notch in his dorsal fin. Since he's the character who has to die for the plot to work, it's proper that the design trigger less sympathy. Pure front is by far the worst angle on the shark designs, so luckily they use it very sparingly. And Lenny looks the worst from the front for reasons I'll touch on if I feel so inclined (it depends on if I can find a good screencap to explain it).  This gives you some representative shots of Lenny, plus shows the upright-sharky transition. See? It works better than it should. He also gets a lot of exaggerated brow movements, like Smithfish does, but they never seem unnatural. It's often quick and cartoonish, but so is the aesthetic of the film. Lenny's also pretty expressive, and it never--literally never--looks as bad as Smithfish looks every single second of the god damned day. They also did a good job making sure his little bottom fins never look like stupid little legs. You can also see how the dumb shark chin works a lot better in 3/4 view than it does from the front. Oh, another reason they had to have fairly large chins on the great whites is that all three of them, at some point or another, open their mouths incredibly wide. This looks creepy as hell on real sharks, so again, I understand the chins even though I wouldn't have necessarily gone that route myself.  The teeth don't look great, and there are no multiple rows, but despite them being sharks, we don't tend to see much enamel. And it would have overcomplicated their otherwise sleek designs, especially during moments like this:  He has tired-looking eyes. I think that's a solid route for a character who is supposed to be emotionally languishing. His irises are green, by the way, whereas Don Lino's are light gray. Frankie's are too dark for me to make out; I think they're dark gray. (The lighting in the shack is really good, by the way. Some good folks on lighting during a lot of the film.) I don't think Lenny's design works as well as Frankie or Don Lino's, but for a cartoon shark, I kind of like it. I personally prefer it to the Finding Nemo sharks:  ... but they weren't trying to accomplish the same thing, so I'm not going to tout out "better" or "worse" here. So I do like the Shark Tale sharks, generally speaking, with only a few adjustments I'd personally have preferred. Lenny and Frankie look fine. Although I think Don Lino looks fuckin' bitching, so let's talk about that.  Awww yeah, he even looks good from the front!  He's quite sharky from some angles--his best angles, really.  Unlike Lenny and Frankie, who have a lower, rounder belly, Don Lino is topheavy. Even compared to the other sharks, he looks powerful. The neck forms a smooth slope with the back, and the flatter stomach leading up to a 'point' near the tip of the sternum, which is something we recognize and associate with strength and authority (even though champion heavyweight lifters look more like Frankie there). This is a tried-and-true design feature that can be witnessed elsewhere.  Here, he's sitting (as in the previous screencap), but his slumped posture costs him almost everything his structure normally lends. Though his shoulders are comparatively strong--in that he has them, and other characters don't--they were still able to exaggerate its downward slope when it would make him appear more sorrowful. Seriously, compare and contrast the two previous images. Night and day! ... And yet, just moments later, informed of the identity of his son's killer--  It's back! Oh my god, competence is like magic!  "I'm the Don--the boss of the great white sharks." Strength.  "You took Frankie away!" Weakness. A design that facilitates both, and the movement between both, is a design well-crafted.  Shark hugs! In sum, I think Don Lino's design is authentically good. The rest of them in this section are passable, but this one clicked for me. It was made well and it's used well. He looks old but powerful, alternately menacing and compassionate. If you wanted a cannibalistic shark mafia boss who could visually register as a villain or a loving father, this was a damned good effort. I mean, the movie doesn't really legitimize him as an "enemy", but that's the script's fault, not that of the artists. Every once in a while what could have been a much better movie shines through, and yeah, it's usually here. Or maybe I'm a sucker for this kind of thing, which is also a reasonable statement! [Okay, discussion of the character will take another post. But that's it.] Pick fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Apr 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Pick posted:I don't think Lenny's design works as well as Frankie or Don Lino's, but for a cartoon shark, I kind of like it. I personally prefer it to the Finding Nemo sharks: Where in the world is this screenshot from? There's definitely not a scene like that in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
Oh poo poo, I have no idea, I just grabbed what showed up on Google Images, since I don't have a copy of the movie. Everything else was, like, a poster and I was lazy. Where is it from, then?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Did that studio that does the low budget rip-offs of Pixar movies have a Finding Nemo rip-off?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
This is the shark, right? That's what I remember it looking like?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
Pick posted:Oh poo poo, I have no idea, I just grabbed what showed up on Google Images, since I don't have a copy of the movie. Everything else was, like, a poster and I was lazy. Where is it from, then? Well I have the blu-ray cause it's the prettiest movie in the world, so here you go!  And here's the only time in the movie you really get a good comparison with the Shark Tale sharks cause he doesn't really go in an upright position besides this:  For the record, I prefer the way the Finding Nemo sharks look, but I think Don Lino looks very good and so does Frankie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:Where in the world is this screenshot from? There's definitely not a scene like that in the movie. I thought that shot was from the end of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I thought that shot was from the end of the movie. Definitely not. The sharks appear again at the end at Nemo's "school" but nowhere near the drop off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I thought that shot was from the end of the movie. Is it from the trailer for Finding Nemo 3d? I remember sharks showing up in that. As I said, both have different designs because they serve different purposes, I just don't particularly like the combination of realistic shark + weird human smile on the Finding Nemo ones. It weird me out. The Shark Tale ones are pretty cartoonish from the get-go so it doesn't register as much. (Their chins really bother me, though. So close!! So close!!!) You can see that even Finding Nemo had to chin the sharks a little bit, though. I think it's just a human mouth thing. Pick fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Apr 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:For the record, I prefer the way the Finding Nemo sharks look, but I think Don Lino looks very good and so does Frankie. I think it's really, really funny--but like, "What are you doing?!" funny--that again, the worst-looking character in a class is the primary one. Smithfish is the worst-looking of the fish, and Lenny is the worst-looking of the sharks. Why the hell!? Why would that happen?! Why do nameless background sharks literally look better? TTBF posted:Did that studio that does the low budget rip-offs of Pixar movies have a Finding Nemo rip-off? Welcome to  Wikipedia posted:However, Troy (Donal Logue), the meanest, toughest shark in the ocean, is not only terrorizing everyone in the reef community, but also has his eye set on Cordelia to become his mate. Pi also learns about Nerissa (Rob Schneider), a wise old hermit turtle who lives in the Old Ship Wreck and practices martial arts, leading to rumours that he is a wizard. 
Pick fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Apr 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
I swear I know it has been probably been brought up but Rob Schneider is in everything isn't he? Sheesh. Also I enjoy the break downs of the movies pick. I lurked a little back and I would like if you resumed on Brave Little Toaster. When watching these films as an adult you start to pick up on things. Regardless I never saw either of these movies. I only caught snippets of Shark Tale, but it was mostly when Smithfish was parading around being a Shark Slayer. For a while I thought it was because Lenny wanted out. (Again never saw the beginning of it at all) The fact it was him taking credit and literally dancing on someone's death was even more hosed up than what I thought. I look forward to seeing you break down more movies if you ever decide to pursue going down this road of madness. And these two movies did turn me off from Dreamworks for a while because all I think was god same ol poo poo with this drat company. Luckily movies like How to Train your Dragon and Kung Fu Panda changed my perception on them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Pick posted:Why do nameless background sharks literally look better? Probably because they're nameless. I'm willing to bet the producers insisted that the main characters had to meet a certain threshold of "looks like Will Smith/Jack Black/Angelina Jolie", and this really ended up tying the designers' hands- especially in terms of the fish, since they have so little body and so much face to begin with. By contrast, with characters like Colombo shark or De Niro shark, where no one actually cares whether they resemble the actors who are playing them and there's plenty of surface area, creative character design can flourish. In fact, in those cases seemingly pointless celebrity casting might actually be a boon. Neither of them resemble their actors, but they do resemble the character archetypes those actors are famous for playing. I'd definitely be willing to bet that cast and concept were designed before the actual animation storyboarding.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
Shindragon posted:I swear I know it has been probably been brought up but Rob Schneider is in everything isn't he? Sheesh. (e: Oh, Toys! I could review Toys! It's not an animated film though.) I was writing that BLT review in a weird place and I don't know if I'm presently in the right frame of mind to continue it. quote:And these two movies did turn me off from Dreamworks for a while because all I think was god same ol poo poo with this drat company. Luckily movies like How to Train your Dragon and Kung Fu Panda changed my perception on them. I saw it in theaters six times. Some Guy TT posted:Probably because they're nameless. I'm willing to bet the producers insisted that the main characters had to meet a certain threshold of "looks like Will Smith/Jack Black/Angelina Jolie", and this really ended up tying the designers' hands- especially in terms of the fish, since they have so little body and so much face to begin with. I don't know how it applies for Lenny though, who doesn't seem to share any similarities with Jack Black (including the voice. It'd never have guessed if it weren't listed). quote:By contrast, with characters like Colombo shark or De Niro shark, where no one actually cares whether they resemble the actors who are playing them and there's plenty of surface area, creative character design can flourish. In fact, in those cases seemingly pointless celebrity casting might actually be a boon. Neither of them resemble their actors, but they do resemble the character archetypes those actors are famous for playing. I'd definitely be willing to bet that cast and concept were designed before the actual animation storyboarding. One of the few awards Shark Tale won was for casting (Casting Society of America's award for best casting in an animated film). People talking about how insane it is that it got a Best Animated Feature nomination, but it's not that strange. That year was very weak and the award just had to get stocked with something. Meanwhile, in a stronger year, Tangled didn't even get a nomination, which I consider one of the world's most egregious movie crimes. And yeah, that's definitely the route the film took. But hey, De Niro is great in it, so I really can't fault him for his part. In fact, all the mafia voices were really well-chosen, they just have to say really stupid lines sometimes. Even Stupid Joke Octopus is voiced by Vincent Pastore, aka "Big Pussy" from the Sopranos. It's right for the part, the part just shouldn't be there! Pick fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Apr 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Neither of them resemble their actors, but they do resemble the character archetypes those actors are famous for playing. I'd definitely be willing to bet that cast and concept were designed before the actual animation storyboarding. Lino does have some of De Niro's features like the downturned nose, eyelids and the signature mole, but its subtle and effective. Unlike Scorcesefish and Willsmithfish, who are human hybrid abominations that look like they came from the depths of Deviantart.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
You know Pick, I was going to watch Bartok the Magnificent today anyway, but you've inspired me. I may try my hand at an analysis of that at some point, once I've ensured that I have enough to talk about, because I really like that movie. It's probable that it won't be as in depth as your's, but I've never tried this before. I'm looking foward to your final thoughts on Shark Tale.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 06:46
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:Where in the world is this screenshot from? There's definitely not a scene like that in the movie. It was an easter egg on the DVD, not in the movie itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 08:23
|
|
|
Prepare to have your ears assaulted by Christina Aguilera's jellyfish avatar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHkf2_sqMTc Bonus part : a shark-robert-deniro hip hop dancing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 11:57
|
|
|
El Negocio posted:Lino does have some of De Niro's features like the downturned nose, eyelids and the signature mole, but its subtle and effective. Unlike Scorcesefish and Willsmithfish, who are human hybrid abominations that look like they came from the depths of Deviantart. It's the difference between having distinct humans look like fish and having fish look like distinct humans; the latter gives them more freedom to play around with Deniro's physical features while the former forced them into adapting Smith and Black's into limited fish bodies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
well why not posted:Prepare to have your ears assaulted by Christina Aguilera's jellyfish avatar. I literally couldn't get through the end. It's unbearable. I should have mentioned this, instead of summing with "daaaance paaaaarty", but yeah, jesus effing christ it's not just a dance party, it's like the worst dance party. (Make no mistake, and I cannot reiterate this enough, this movie is really bad.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
Aside from the fish designs being flat-out ugly (and thanks to Pick for detailing HOW and WHY they are ugly), I've always found Shark Tale cringeworthy and intolerable because it's awkward, totally-unsubtle, shoehorned-in racial humor. "BLACK PEOPLE EXIST! THIS FISH IS A BLACK PERSON, YO!" The line "a lot of white fish can't do it" makes me roll my eyes, because it sounds like a third grader attempting racial humor with their talking animal story. That Smithfish is a lazy, shiftless, selfish rear end in a top hat AND looks like Steppin Fetchit only serves to heap awkward on top of awkward. At the very least, they could've had different fish species serve as analogues for the various races, and had Smithfish coyly reference Puffer's pufferness. (But then, I would've probably made all pufferfish Japanese. Because, yannow, fugu.) Thank god they didn't have the Mafia sharks referring to themselves as literal Italians. Tartarus Sauce fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Apr 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
well why not posted:Prepare to have your ears assaulted by Christina Aguilera's jellyfish avatar. Thank god that awful bitrate drove me away before I could be truly horrified by what was going on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Really? Road to El Dorado had decent... pretty much everything, really. You could take exception to the religious thing, I guess, but it didn't really go for the "poor benighted savages" angle. As a bit of a (for lack of a more concise term) pre-Hispanic Central American culture nut in training, I have to admit that this movie is a total guilty pleasure. It's really enjoyable just as a fun colorful romp with neat characters and singing and stuff, but the native culture aspect is just so hilariously wrong that I just sort of wonder in bemusement where the heck they did their research. I mean, sure, I guess I can understand why you'd want to have a crowd react negatively to the prospect of a human sacrifice, but in reality nobody would really have given a gently caress. Also technically Tulio and Miguel should have been the ones lined up to be sacrificed after the ball game, as it was the winners who were usually the ones that got the knife.  It's odd though because the civilization gives off a Maya vibe visually but in other respects it's Aztec. It's this weird cultural mashup that seems to want to claim to be one or the other but can't decide which....I guess that's neither here nor there, but I felt the need to nitpick anyway haha. Anyway, I'm really enjoying reading these reviews! A few friends and I busted our guts watching you slowly go insane over the course of Bee Movie. I was always avoiding watching these movies for how obnoxious the trailers seemed, and now I'm certainly glad I did. well why not posted:Prepare to have your ears assaulted by Christina Aguilera's jellyfish avatar. The amount of 'TUDE  oozing out of this video is nauseating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 12:59
|
|
|
This whole thread reminds me of Massawyrm's analysis on Ant bully and Happy feet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Blech. The sanctimony in that guy's prose is just appalling. You have no right to complain about hate mail after making such a calculated, deliberate effort to be that sensationalistic. Writing as someone who already believes Happy Feet to be a really weird movie, that was a pretty poorly crafted appeal to emotion that is trying way too hard to go on the attack while providing only the most literal possible evidence. I was bugged by the way the penguin religion is portrayed, not because I have something against Footloose pastiches, but because in context their attitude is actually pretty justified. It stands to reason that if they have increasingly little food it's because they're doing something wrong. Obviously it's not dancing, but they have to change their behavior somehow if they want a different result. Mumbles' alternate theory is that their behavior has nothing to do with the problem and that it's literally caused by aliens, so they should do whatever they want. Take this metaphor and apply it to the real world. There's one group, constituting a vast majority of educated people who suggest we change our behavior in a way that seems unrelated to the problem. Then there's another, much smaller largely uneducated group that suggests the problem has no relation to human activity whatsoever and we should not change our lifestyles to deal with it. Think what global real world issue has these two sides. Now tell me that this is actually a movie that has a pro-environmental message if seriously analyzed on any level beyond the superficial. Oh yeah, and the whole thing felt really pedophilic to me because the main character is clearly a juvenile penguin trying to romance an adult. That bit was just creepy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
So...I have a friend who handled the script for Bee Movie, through all its 120+ versions. This person basically said that every single day for almost 3 years was spent writing and rewriting and rewriting, based on Seinfeld's whims. He treated it like it was a comedy routine that had to constantly change, which of course is ridiculous to do on a movie that's still in production. The number of friends, and consultants, and script doctors that were commissioned was pretty insane. The artists were very frustrated, and there were many behind the scenes meetings where they urged the producers and directors to come up with a more cohesive story. FYI - Ray Liotta's Private Select was originally supposed to be Brian Dennehy, and there was a sorta funny scene of Dennehy watching and rewatching his scenes from Cocoon and saying, "drat, I nailed that scene." This friend also worked on the abomination that was Shark Tale (originally titled Sharkslayer). That particular movie is a great example of writing-by-committee...not to mention the folly of a bunch of white people trying to make a streetwise animated comedy...you know, fer kids! Still reading through this topic, and I'll try to get/give more info. Krapintosh fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Apr 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
Krapintosh posted:Still reading through this topic, and I'll try to get/give more info. Oh man that would be awesome. I LOVE reading about behind the scenes Hollywood bullshit, real or fictional. Interfering producers, diva stars, miscommunication, everything going horribly wrong. Of course it sucks for the people involved who take actual pride in their work and approach it with any modicum of professionalism, but if we're gonna get horrible movies from people who should know better we might as well at least hear the fascinatingly depressing stories behind how they got that way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
Krapintosh posted:So...I have a friend who handled the script for Bee Movie, through all its 120+ versions. This person basically said that every single day for almost 3 years was spent writing and rewriting and rewriting, based on Seinfeld's whims. He treated it like it was a comedy routine that had to constantly change, which of course is ridiculous to do on a movie that's still in production. The number of friends, and consultants, and script doctors that were commissioned was pretty insane. The artists were very frustrated, and there were many behind the scenes meetings where they urged the producers and directors to come up with a more cohesive story. FYI - Ray Liotta's Private Select was originally supposed to be Brian Dennehy, and there was a sorta funny scene of Dennehy watching and rewatching his scenes from Cocoon and saying, "drat, I nailed that scene." I'll buy your friend an account if he'll come in here and tell us some of his experiences. Really. I would absolutely love to hear it, and I promise him no grief for his part in these films. (At least, not from me.) The unique history of films-gone-wrong is always fascinating, and I'd love to know which of my suspicions were correct and which weren't. I mean, based just on what you've written here, these two films went wrong in very different ways, much as I believed. That also piques my interest tremendously. One was the result of one crazy rear end in a top hat careening a broken concept into the Madness Zone, the other is the result of a bunch of boring assholes who are afraid of risk trying to conjure up something marketable and failing completely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 23:54
|
|