as if i need something else to complain about
i'll give THIS to the folks at pixar: they made some quality movies. animated or not, there was some good stuff coming out of their studios around the turn of the millenium.
that said, i now blame them entirely for setting such a high bar in computer animated films.
a bar that can be "challenged" by every joe, bob and leon with a computer and way too much money to spend.
with the upcoming release of 20th century fox's everyone's hero* approaching, i have to wonder if the "glory" days of this art form are done. it is my belief that they are. observe.
toy story/toy story 2 (1995/99; buena vista) - combined budget: $165 million; estimated domestic gross: $438 million
a bug's life (1998; buena vista) - budget: $120 million; estimated domestic gross: $162 million
antz (1998; dream works) - budget: $105 million; estimated domestic gross: $90 million
shrek (2001; dream works) - budget: $60 million; estimated domestic gross: $258 million
monsters inc (2001; buena vista) - budget: $115 million; estimated domestic gross: $256 million
finding nemo (2003; buena vista) - budget: $94 million; estimated domestic gross: $340 million
shark tale (2004; dream works) - budget: $75 million; estimated domestic gross: $161 million
shrek 2 (2004; dream works) - budget: $70 million; estimated domestic gross: $441 million
the incredibles (2004; buena vista) - budget: $92 million; estimated domestic gross: $261 million
robots (2005; fox) - budget: $75 million; estimated domestic gross: $128 million
chicken little (2005; buena vista) - budget: $150 million; estimated domestic gross: $135 million
valiant (2005; buena vista) - budget: $35 million; estimated domestic gross: $19 million
over the hedge (2006; dream works) - budget: n/a; estimated domestic gross: $155 million
cars (2006; buena vista) - budget: $120 million; estimated domestic gross: $241 million
barnyard (2006; paramount) - budget: $51 million; estimated domestic gross: $57 million
the ant bully (2006; warner bros) - budget: $50 million; estimated domestic gross: $26 million
hoodwinked (2006; weinstein) - budget: n/a; estimated domestic gross: $51 million
monster house (2006; sony) - budget: $75 million; estimated domestic gross: $68 million
for those of you who just skimmed over that (like i would have)...i'll sum it up. if you absolutely HAVE to make a computer animated film, you better make sure that it is about fish or an ogre or at the very least, has the words "disney" or "pixar" attached to it.**
my point is this: just because you CAN make a cgi movie, doesn't mean you SHOULD. there are no fewer than 12 projects slated to come out in the next 2 years....that's 6 a year...minimum. any bets how many of them will follow in the oscar-nominated footsteps of nemo or the incredibles? me either. would anyone be sad, really, if happy feet (aka. ANOTHER penguin movie) didn't come out? or open season (aka the movie that's absolutely and in no way at all similar to every OTHER "animals out of their element" cgi movie) for that matter?
well, anyone except ashton kutcher and martin lawrence that is?
please. make it stop.
*- i know. i know. it was the last project christopher reeve worked on. that doesn't excuse it. maybe i'm wrong. maybe it will be fantastic. someone will have to just let me know.
**- though this theory didn't fair too well for valiant.
that said, i now blame them entirely for setting such a high bar in computer animated films.
a bar that can be "challenged" by every joe, bob and leon with a computer and way too much money to spend.
with the upcoming release of 20th century fox's everyone's hero* approaching, i have to wonder if the "glory" days of this art form are done. it is my belief that they are. observe.
toy story/toy story 2 (1995/99; buena vista) - combined budget: $165 million; estimated domestic gross: $438 million
a bug's life (1998; buena vista) - budget: $120 million; estimated domestic gross: $162 million
antz (1998; dream works) - budget: $105 million; estimated domestic gross: $90 million
shrek (2001; dream works) - budget: $60 million; estimated domestic gross: $258 million
monsters inc (2001; buena vista) - budget: $115 million; estimated domestic gross: $256 million
finding nemo (2003; buena vista) - budget: $94 million; estimated domestic gross: $340 million
shark tale (2004; dream works) - budget: $75 million; estimated domestic gross: $161 million
shrek 2 (2004; dream works) - budget: $70 million; estimated domestic gross: $441 million
the incredibles (2004; buena vista) - budget: $92 million; estimated domestic gross: $261 million
robots (2005; fox) - budget: $75 million; estimated domestic gross: $128 million
chicken little (2005; buena vista) - budget: $150 million; estimated domestic gross: $135 million
valiant (2005; buena vista) - budget: $35 million; estimated domestic gross: $19 million
over the hedge (2006; dream works) - budget: n/a; estimated domestic gross: $155 million
cars (2006; buena vista) - budget: $120 million; estimated domestic gross: $241 million
barnyard (2006; paramount) - budget: $51 million; estimated domestic gross: $57 million
the ant bully (2006; warner bros) - budget: $50 million; estimated domestic gross: $26 million
hoodwinked (2006; weinstein) - budget: n/a; estimated domestic gross: $51 million
monster house (2006; sony) - budget: $75 million; estimated domestic gross: $68 million
for those of you who just skimmed over that (like i would have)...i'll sum it up. if you absolutely HAVE to make a computer animated film, you better make sure that it is about fish or an ogre or at the very least, has the words "disney" or "pixar" attached to it.**
my point is this: just because you CAN make a cgi movie, doesn't mean you SHOULD. there are no fewer than 12 projects slated to come out in the next 2 years....that's 6 a year...minimum. any bets how many of them will follow in the oscar-nominated footsteps of nemo or the incredibles? me either. would anyone be sad, really, if happy feet (aka. ANOTHER penguin movie) didn't come out? or open season (aka the movie that's absolutely and in no way at all similar to every OTHER "animals out of their element" cgi movie) for that matter?
well, anyone except ashton kutcher and martin lawrence that is?
please. make it stop.
*- i know. i know. it was the last project christopher reeve worked on. that doesn't excuse it. maybe i'm wrong. maybe it will be fantastic. someone will have to just let me know.
**- though this theory didn't fair too well for valiant.
posted by cade at 6:32 PM
4 Comments:
"just because you CAN make a cgi movie, doesn't mean you SHOULD"
you could say that for any kind of film, live action or cgi or what ever you call that anoying kind where they turn the live action into a cartoon.
yeah, but the argument is more in the technology arena. pixar had it cornered and now everyone has access to it. which means that the quality is going to plum-met. and it has.
in the hey day of the silver screen, people were so in awe of the technology that they would watch anything...as long as it moved. it was a far different set of circumstances.
but here, a hundred years later, the bad movies out weigh the good by a load. as far as cgi goes, it only took 10.
and don't ever bag cell-shading again. i think it's a cool way to tell a story. note i said story, not sell car insurance or whatever.
i love you for knowing what that is called.
Umm, is this where I say that "A Touch of Feltz" is the creepiest? Wrong post, nevermind...
Post a Comment
<< Home