Tom and Jerry live action movie with CGI coming

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 741
Joined: October 18th, 2007

Tom and Jerry live action movie with CGI coming

Post by gaastra » October 12th, 2008, 2:58 pm

Yogi, smurfs, alvin 2, mr peabody and now---tom and jerry!

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111799 ... =2520&cs=1

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 5527
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Post by Dacey » October 12th, 2008, 3:38 pm

UGH!!
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1419
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by Macaluso » October 12th, 2008, 3:53 pm

What is it with studios wanting to make live action movies based on cartoons? why can't they be CARTOON MOVIES

argh

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3461
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Post by EricJ » October 12th, 2008, 4:37 pm

("Embarrassing Mac by burying his generic drive-by quotes with mounds and mounds of boring real-world geek-trivia" mode: )

Why, ownership, of course:
Alvin 1 was produced through Ross Bagdasarian's latest corporate-estate next-of-kin, which explains why the Movie chipmunks sang almots nothing but Bagdasarian-written songs or originals (and keeping it to only one song that had to be rights-licensed from outside)...
Mr. Peabody is the last development-heck survivor of a string of projects from Classic Media, who's attempt to exploit rights ownership has already given us Rocky & Bullwinkle, Mr. Magoo, and Underdog...

And Warner?--Apparently, they wanted to cover ALL their classic-toon boxset sales marketing, just in case:
Notice how we always got HB and T&J sets released in diplomatically equal tandem, with no show of favoritism? :)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 416
Joined: August 11th, 2008

Post by Neal » October 12th, 2008, 8:33 pm

I don't even care that much, but what a waste of time/resources! I wish children would wise up to the fact that as much money is put into these films to look flashy and fun, they are lame cash-ins. Parents need to start taking their children to quality children films again, and children need to begin wanting to see those types of films again. Alvin was terrible, IMHO. Seriously, eating their own feces? *shakes head* I only saw it because a group of friends insisted on going to it because their girlfriends wanted to see it.
Feature Animation Favorites:
  • Tekkonkinkreet, Watership Down, A Town Called Panic, Howl's Moving Castle, Rio 2096, Mind Game, Fantastic Planet

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1347
Joined: January 23rd, 2006
Location: The Middle of Nowhere

Post by eddievalient » October 14th, 2008, 10:00 am

The Magic Ring was fun, but this has "bomb" written all over it (although I'm sure I'll eventually see it anyway just out of curiosity).
The Official Lugofilm Ltd Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/bartsimpson83

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 14
Joined: December 14th, 2005

Post by Steve Carras » October 26th, 2008, 3:46 am

[Jerry Colonna](with finger in air and waxed mustache)Ah Gett(gate)....but wee-ill it be the feisty, bickerr--ring Tom and Jerry..Or--r-r-r-r- will they be the "Tom and Jerry movie" "they're-being-just-friends" type?[/Jerry Colonna] (Yes, I read the article).

BTW regarding CGI I don't care a throw of two pig's desposits if it is handdrawn or not, just as long as it;s to my personal taste (Case in point, and EricJ under a different name made this point in 2002 when THIS came out, remember?) "Lilo and Stitch"..PRE-Hawaian "Elvis" Elvis (yeah, as mentioned elsewhere in the "Bolt Trailer" thread, trailer music, not sdame as in the feature..but Disney used vinegar to catch us Mickey mice, not honey..hey, we're also Poohbears as heart! (Meaning in short i'll take Princess Disney and such. But that';s just the baby-boomer in me talking.)
"It IS 2706!"
-"A Hick, A Slick, & A Chick" [obscure Looney Tune short,1948,dir.Arthur Davis][.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 338
Joined: October 31st, 2008

Post by Darkblade » November 1st, 2008, 5:12 pm

<B>[POST DELETED BY MODERATOR FOR UNSUITABLE LANGUAGE]</B>

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 19361
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » November 1st, 2008, 9:17 pm

Please, Darkblade, no expletives. This is a family board which we aim to keep at a "PG" ratings level.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 338
Joined: October 31st, 2008

Post by Darkblade » November 3rd, 2008, 8:52 pm

Oops...Sorry. I just cant belive that Hollywood is running out of ideas and is ruining on things I grew up with. Its sad...Really sad :cry:

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 19361
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » November 4th, 2008, 7:05 am

The other "problem", as I mentioned in my Indy review, is that the kids that grew up watching the 80s franchise movies are all now young executives running the studios.

So what do they want? Same as all of us...childhood nostalgia. But instead of just watching the old movies again they're going into remakes and series extensions, hence the pale fourth outings for John McClane and Indiana Jones, repeats for Rocky and Rambo, and who knows whatever else is coming along... :(

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 338
Joined: October 31st, 2008

Post by Darkblade » November 4th, 2008, 11:20 am

I think the Indaina Jones IV was okay...But the promsing left me when it was about Ailens...Why didnt Lucas think of something better instead? Like whats next Ghostbusters 3?

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 19361
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » November 4th, 2008, 11:37 am

Yes, actually. :(

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1347
Joined: January 23rd, 2006
Location: The Middle of Nowhere

Post by eddievalient » November 4th, 2008, 12:08 pm

You can't fault the studios on that one, Ben. Dan Aykroyd wanted to do Ghostbusters 3 for years, but it would have been cost prohibitive and consequently, it never happened. It remains to be seen if the film being made bears any resemblance to Aykroyd's original idea.
The Official Lugofilm Ltd Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/bartsimpson83

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 2949
Joined: October 24th, 2004

Post by GeorgeC » November 4th, 2008, 3:04 pm

Ghostbusters 3 will work better as a videogame sequel than a movie.

I really have no idea, either, why Disney is doing another Tron twenty-six years after the original film flopped. Tron's another film begging for a decent multi-platform videogame sequel, too.

(The last Tron game doesn't count. Never had a wide release beyond a lame portable port and XBox release that apparently went nowhere in sales. The first two Tron arcade releases still rank as a better experience for me than being one of ten people that actually saw Tron in the theaters when it was released!)

Some things just work better as games. Plus, you can model the actors as their younger selves and even a younger, strangely marionette-/mannequin-like Bill Murray might be less embarrassing to look at than a pudgy, pasty, and overweight Murray. Food for thought there, folks.

There's more likely profit to be made on a game that costs $10-$15million development plus advertising versus a film budged $100million plus another $40million advertising.

Math is obviously NOT something most of the movers and shockers in the entertainment industry understand.

I'm no statistician and even I understand the insanity of all these big-budget sequels with dubious audience prospects. Again, there's probably a bigger audience now for an interactive game-based sequel experience than there is for a lame-looking movie...

Post Reply