Monday, November 07, 2005

Mamo #20: Animate This

Can an animated film make money just because it's an animated film? Are desperate daddies keeping the Pixar clones in business? Is this Pixar's golden age, Warner's silver age, or Disney's bronze age? Is 3-D better than 2-D, or do we have to wait for 4-D? Can I do this entire post and still have every sentence end with a question mark?



Anonymous Matthew Fabb said...

I think one of the main reasons that CGI movies tend to do incredibly well, is because people still associate them with quality movies. With Pixar leading the way the first wave of CGI movies were really quite good, with both young and older audiences liking the movies. There hasn't been enough bad CGI movies like Shark Tales and Chicken Little people to realize that just because it's a CGI movie doesn't mean it's going to be any good.

Also you guys mentioned Waterworld and how you could see all the money on the screen. That's because it wasn't on screen, but underwater. Not as in underwater sequences but the fact that their giant set that their built to float on water, was damaged in a storm, fell apart and shunk under water. They had to apparently rebuild their big expensive set piece again from scratch to finish the scenes.

1:13 PM  
Blogger Uri said...

AFAIK the ruined sets were only part of the many problems this production had. I actually liked the movie, even though I can say it could have been much better if it would had a single vision from the start.

8:57 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home