Movies of 2009

Post by **Darkblade** » February 26th, 2009, 11:14 am

I kinda guessed that Rondey...We just gotta see if the princess and frog becomes Disney's sellout. If we want to see Last Days of Coney island and Dragon's lair.

Post by **ShyViolet** » March 5th, 2009, 6:29 pm

Ben wrote:Is this the movie that got pulled, then released but trampled by something else because it was the Studio's cut and is now being put out again in the director's intended version?

Sorry I didn't see your question earlier Ben...I'm not really sure--I didn't know anything about the film until I saw it on the Quicktime site. I just thought it looked fun.

Post by **ShyViolet** » March 8th, 2009, 1:23 am

I think it might very well be this film: Roger Ebert makes mention of it at the end of his review:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... 49987/1023

Post by **Ben** » March 8th, 2009, 7:29 pm

Yep...it's the same one. I'll probably catch it on TV in a couple of years, out of interest.

Post by **EricJ** » March 8th, 2009, 9:53 pm

Darkblade wrote:I dont know if this would work but a friend of mine had the idea of doing a petition to possibly push the date of the CG chipmunks movie so our hopes of more hand drawn movies can happen. Does anyone like this idea?

I know I've asked this before. I know I have.

But Darkblade:

(long, physically emoting Wiliam Shatner-like word-searching pauses)

WHAT...

REMOTE...

FORM...

of HUMAN...

LOGIC...

makes you for ONE....

....

....

....

...MOMENT

...of HEAVEN and EARTH??

believe that the unrequested Monday-morning sequel to an annoyingly overpromoted Big-Studio CGI, that got all its money and studio hubris from a quick Xmas-vacation cash-and-burn, will ever open above third place, assuming it gets the overconfident decency a trailer and the same wide release the first one had, and that, my friend, is a well-placed "If"?

You (or at least other members on the board, I've lost track) keep obsessively mentioning Frog vs. Alvin 2 as if it's some strange significance that's escaped the rest of us rational beings--
Were you that terrified for other movies' fates in the face of "Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties" (and by the same director as Alvin 1, I might add?)
Was "Flintstones: Viva Rock Vegas" some seminal moviegoing experience in your childhood??

Seriously, we're just trying to...<Shatner>....UNDERSTAND!! 0_o??

Post by **ShyViolet** » March 8th, 2009, 10:18 pm

But Alvin 1 did do quite well despite the fact that most movie fans realized it was not a good film; it got a wide release, brought in the cash, thus, Alvin 2 will get a wide release and marketing, etc....Alvin 1 did well because it was shiny and loud and "hip", with "cute" characters for kids and once again that nostalgia factor for their parents.

Many here are worried about the threat Alvin poses to Princess because Alvin 2 is a sequel to a CGI-moneymaker that did considerably well...not really because of the CG per se but because, as it's been said here, CG comedies are what people know, what little kids want to see, what's easy to recognize for the mass public.

As hard as it is to see as an animation fan, some 2d film about a princess with songs and funny characters (from the public's eye-view) might either be ignored, overlooked or possibly even mistaken for a DTV that "you can just watch on DVD" by kids (or even parents) who don't know any better. That's why many here are concerned and feel that Princess needs as much space and marketing as it can get. No one here really feels that Alvin 1/2 is a good film....it's the public's reaction that's the concern.

Post by **EricJ** » March 9th, 2009, 3:06 am

ShyViolet wrote:But Alvin 1 did do quite well despite the fact that most movie fans realized it was not a good film; it got a wide release, brought in the cash, thus, Alvin 2 will get a wide release and marketing, etc....Alvin 1 did well because it was shiny and loud and "hip", with "cute" characters for kids and once again that nostalgia factor for their parents.

It did well because it was the ONLY studio-approved Christmas-vacation meat on the table on that one Christmas-vacation week.
Okay, maybe there was that Loch Ness thing (and hey, that had neato CGI in it too, and funny scenes in the trailer!), but just try and find a kid who was interested in that.
We didn't have Harry Potter, and we didn't (grumble) have Narnia.

You might just as well ask why "Fat Albert" did well on a Fox-promoted Christmas day opening.
Did we ever see a Fat Albert 2 arrive, made to become a crushing juggernaut destroying all lesser movies in its path? No, we did not.
That's because we get one of these danged things every year, and we see them because we know we'll get only one of them. Unless, on the off chance, there happens to be something danged better.
And if, say, a "Charlotte's Web" happens to show up the same Dec. 26th week as "Nght at the Museum"...well, sorry, Charlotte, that's show biz.

Many here are worried about the threat Alvin poses to Princess because Alvin 2 is a sequel to a CGI-moneymaker that did considerably well...not really because of the CG per se but because, as it's been said here, CG comedies are what people know, what little kids want to see, what's easy to recognize for the mass public.

...YES, DISNEY IS SO HARD TO SELL TO LITTLE KIDS AND PARENTS, NOW, ISN'T IT???

(I mean, what little girl in her right mind would want to see some cockamamie princess movie?....Whaddya, nuts??)

I repeat: It was a lean year. Even Alvin started to look good in the face of "Fred Claus".
Alvin wasn't meant to last the ages, it was meant to last till January. It did--End of story.

No one here really feels that Alvin 1/2 is a good film....it's the public's reaction that's the concern.

And I recall the public's reaction, too:
We hated Alvin. Most of us didn't want to see it, but some parents looked for the path of least resistance.

If you are a parent, Disney is the path of least resistance. ANY Disney.
Admit it, you bought a ticket to Jungle Book 2, didn't you?...DIDN"T YOU?? "Return to Neverland" in a paid theater, any show of hands? Do we have to bring out the inquisitors to find how many guilty consciences went to see "Underdog" just because they'd already seen Ratatouille enough times by August?
If you buy a direct-video at Target because Disney is the path of least resistance, going to a movie of Disney is a no-brainer. Period. End of story. End of idiocy. End of sorry-about-that-encore-Fox Monday-morning-greenlit franchise.

Oh, but that doesn't sound industry technical enough, does it?
Okay, I'll pretend I'm some really expert executive: Parents have watched the Frog trailer for months--yes, that's "months", and it's going to be "year" by the time it gets there--long before they've ever heard that That Annoying Movie was going to show its face again. That's what happens when you have kids who keep watching the Sleeping Beauty video over and over. And over.
Find me one parent out of twenty that even knows there's going to be a second movie of that one with, like, lots of neat CGI stuff in it. You can't, can you? Then I suggest you don't.

(And why am I so angry, as Ben is about to point out?
Because Having Heard Of A Movie does not automatically grant it credibility:
Good boy, dear movie-geek, you've read a Super-Secret Neato Spy-Information Article that says that two movies will open on the same day! So. F***in'. WHAT???
Try applying some real-world knowledge to the situation, and try not reducing humans to mindless equations, by applying personal experience. That's called "wisdom".)

Post by **OriginalGagBonkers** » March 9th, 2009, 8:07 am

When Alvin camed in my town....ALOT of people were angry because of it, Why? They hated how the chipmunks looked in CGI. Plus the movie theather I went to showing it people were throwing food at the movie screen.... What I hate about it is that It brought to life the nightmare of ruining Tom and Jerry and Yogi Bear. Do we REALLY need a Live-action/CGI animated movie of those two? No...We do not.

If you hated the live-action chipmunk movie check out "The Chipmunk Adventure" because its better than that crud CG alvin. Im one of those people who apposes alvin as a threat to the princess. I would be angry as earthbound if it loses at the box-office.

Post by **Dacey** » March 9th, 2009, 12:28 pm

Actually, "Alvin" made $215M at the box office. It was also *the best selling DVD of 2008* for a very long time. Whether people like it or not, the sequel has a very good chance of making a lot of money.

Post by **Ben** » March 9th, 2009, 2:39 pm

The Alvin sequel will open at #1 at the box-office, I'd bet.

For really old-school charms, here's our review of Yogi Bear's movie - circa 1964!
http://animated-views.com/2009/hey-ther ... -bear-dvd/

Post by **Once Upon A Dream** » March 9th, 2009, 2:46 pm

I don't think that Chipmunks is a threat,I don't that parents and small kids whould rather see evil CGI version of the Chipmunks insted of another new Disney Princess,they can either move the Chipmunks or cancel it,and it's getting worse,first Scooby Doo,then Garfield,then Chipmunks and now Tom And Jerry,I wonder if they"ll make a JabberJaw movie too.

Post by **EricJ** » March 9th, 2009, 3:18 pm

Ben wrote:The Alvin sequel will open at #1 at the box-office, I'd bet.

I repeat: BASED ON WHAT??

Flintstones 2?
Garfield II?
Dr. Doolittle 2?
All Dogs Go To Heaven 2?
Rugrats in Paris?

(A lot of DVD's were sold by people who hadn't seen Alvin 1 in theaters, but were curious enough to buy a babysitter after the fact, and after all, heck, how bad could it be?...Well, they know now.

And if you're going to throw last year's Twilight vs. Bolt in my face, check out which one was still standing two weeks later.)

March 10th, 2009, 10:46 am

Once upon a dream- If they made a live-action Ren and stimpy movie I would be angry and so would John k.

Post by **Ben** » March 10th, 2009, 10:55 am

Okay...I'll revise...Top 3 at least.

Post by **EricJ** » March 10th, 2009, 2:44 pm

Jim Hill (yes, people, be aware of who you're starting to sound like...

), in search of neurotically tailored-to-fit conspiracy theories, recognizes Alvin, but also throws the Robert Downey Jr. "Sherlock Holmes" into the now rather rushed Christmas Day '09 mix.
(And when it starts to get THIS rushed, there's going to be some 11th-hour date changes from somebody. Only the bravest studios will stand their ground.)

I can theoretically see Frog maybe not necessarily getting #1 on first week (leaving aside any discussions of January-slog staying power).
But if it happens, it ain't gonna be from no unwanted-encore rodent.