Today I heard a very interesting discussion. There's a new CG movie upon us. One based on a classic that we've all heard off. Heck, I'm pretty certain that a fair number of us were raised with him on our screen.

Introducing:



Yes, that's right. Yogi Bear is coming to the big screen and there's nothing you can do about it. Oh, maybe it will be all right. Maybe they'll do a good job and keep it in a cartoon format and that we can enjoy the...




JESUS CHRIST!!! What is this!? A furry convention? Look at those eyes! They stare into your soul!

Well... then... maybe the storyline is all right. I mean surely they're not going to have some stupid storyline where a mean old man is threatening to tear down Yellowstone park and Yogi and the Ranger have to settle their differences and work...

IMDB
Jellystone Park has been losing business, so greedy Mayor Brown decides to shut it down and sell the land. That means families will no longer be able to experience the natural beauty of the outdoors -- and, even worse, Yogi and Boo Boo will be tossed out of the only home they've ever known. Faced with his biggest challenge ever, Yogi must prove that he really is "smarter than the average bear" as he and Boo Boo join forces with their old nemesis Ranger Smith to find a way to save Jellystone Park from closing forever.

...

...Well... I'm pretty sure they're going to find good voice actors for this movie and not result to the low trick at recruiting some star power to promote the...



OH COME ON! Justin Timberlake!? You just know there's going to be singing now!

...

Oh, all right... Yogi is dead to me now. I'm just gonna have to accept that. At least there's plenty of other childhood memories I can cling on...
































This isn't happening. You guys can't just systematically go through my childhood cartoons and create abominations like that. For the love of good, if you're going to do something like that, put these projects into the hands of someone we know will do them justice...

Screenrant.com
Late Friday night, the Los Angeles Times Hero Complex Blog reported that director Alex Zamm is attached to helm a live-action Marvin the Martian film.Late Friday night, the Los Angeles Times Hero Complex Blog reported that director Alex Zamm is attached to helm a live-action Marvin the Martian film. Although Zamm hasn’t directed many films (the direct-to-video Inspector Gadget 2 stands out as the highlight of his career thus far), he is also currently attached to a film version of Hong Kong Phooey....

...According to the LA Times article, the Marvin film will be a Christmas-themed movie and is slated for release around Christmas time 2011. Here’s the Times' one-sentence description of the film: "Marvin comes to Earth to try to destroy Christmas, but his plans are foiled when he gets trapped inside a gift box."...

...

...I think I need to lie down for a minute.

WHY DO YOU TORMENT ME TWICE PP!? D: -flees for the moonshine- I shall be blind before this abomination hits theaters! BLIND OR DEAD I SAY!

It's even worse when you consider that they want to make the Smurfs movie a trilogy.

Sadly, Justin Timberlake wasn't the worst casting decision.

Hey, but the fact that they're throwing in the 3D element makes up for everything, right guys? RIGHT?! Oh gawd, how much further can they take this!!

I saw the trailer for the Yogi Bear abomination about a week ago and my response was very 'meh'. Not so much that the animation was bad, per se, just the whole movie seems beyond pointless. That, and the voice acting is terrible. I'm sorry, I like Dan Akroyd, but he does not sound at all like Yogi Bear. With Timberlake involved as well, I think they just wanted to throw some stars into this mess to attract someone to watch it.

Yogi Bear or whatever license they want to pretend this is strikes me as little else than mindless fodder for family outings and people who need to masochistically scar their childhood memories.

I haven't seen the chipmunks so maybe I'm wrong, but the Shmurfs trailer made the word Chipmunks come in my head.

I don't understand why they do movie that mixes known animated character and mix 3D and real(unless that's the plot). I didn't mind a 3D yogi or smurfs, but now it looks like it reminds me of Garfield the movie, which I saw and hated(the translation didn't help).

The Smurfs with the red hat(I don't know what his name is in english, looks way too stupid.

demontales
The Smurfs with the red hat

Papa Smurf. All the other smurfs are pretty much "Insert name of hobby/emotion" smurf, with the exception of Smurfette.
The sorcerer guy is Gargamel. His cat is called Azrael.

And for the record. I'm so going to burn every cinema that dares to premier this thing in my neighborhood.

I decided to make predictions on the next three movies Hollywood will poop out. I used Paint both as a metaphor for the quality of how well the movies will be done, and because I don't think spending any more than 5 minutes on this was a productive use of time.


I would watch at least two of them.

Someone
OH COME ON! Justin Timberlake!?

ironically he seems to be the best part of the whole movie

Also its not like you have to actually watch any of these. Unless you have dumb kids who beg you to go, in which case kill your kids.

When I saw the trailer for the Yogi Bear movie bear on IMDb, I thought my head would explode. I mean, I've never been a big fan of Hanna-Barbera cartoons (don't ask me why), but I was still pretty disgusted. And as much as I love Dan Aykroyd (well, used to love him...I haven't really seen him in anything in a while), his Yogi voice is just...horrible.

Welp... You can all stay for these if you want, but I'm outta here!

ironically he seems to be the best part of the whole movie

Actually, that's kind of what I was thinking after seeing the trailer. He's surprisingly appropriate in the role. Can't really say I approve of anything else in this movie, though. I think the most reimagining I could handle with Yogi were the John K. shorts.

I think the thing which bugs me most about these kinds of movies is that there really is no point to doing this with well known older franchises. You're basically taking franchises that nobody under the age of 20 would even recognize and remaking it for the 6-12 range. Why? You aren't going to cash in on the nostalgia value by aiming your movie at the audience who DIDN'T watch the show. Wouldn't it make more sense to just come up with a new franchise than piss on an existing one? How many of these Hollywood remakes have spawned anything beyond maybe a single sequel?

If they really want to reboot a series, they need to look at TV, not these theatrical abominations that the parents can't stand and kids only find mildly amusing.

I'm very glad that I never liked any of these cartoons mentioned, when I was a kid. Couldn't care less about those live-action abominations.

Instead, I get to remember gems like these with fondness and awe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abqAwKLpeqs

The only thing that pisses me off here is Hollywood's craze of turning every single fucking thing into a movie and pretty much only ever releasing a handful of completely original movies a year.

i saw the trailer for the smurfs movie a while back and i was excited , and i spent a good part of today and everyday watching smurfs , i just hope its something like this

Pirates...how about ninjas? ;)

About a year ago I remember reading this lengthy article about someone complaining that the film industry is turning into nothing but remakes. While he pointed out that some are rather decent, in the end it's becoming the basis for current film's repertoire. Nothing original and rather stale.

And now we're getting thrown movies like this. Something comes to mind what with wishing and being careful...well, you know the phrase.

Smurfs was a really bad show in the first place so I can only imagine how shitty the movie is going to be.

Smurfs is a comic in Europe created by Piero. not a show.
the show wasn't so great that much i grant you that because of bad writting. but the comic itself wasn't so bad. i did grow up with these comics and enjoyed them alot and still does.
So my inner child did curl up and cried once i hear they did do a movie about smurfs in AMERICA!! and to make it worser. it is not a normal cartoon but a CGI one.. and they don't look good in CGI. (sorry if i did use the wrong word.)

I... hate greedy producers who think they can rape our childhood memories as much they please. could it be worser? Perhaps. i don't hope they will do a Tintin movie. then i will cry... (a comic in Belgium. was very popular in Europe and still is.)

Mr Kaos
I... hate greedy producers who think they can rape our childhood memories as much they please. could it be worser? Perhaps. i don't hope they will do a Tintin movie. then i will cry... (a comic in Belgium. was very popular in Europe and still is.)

>_> Errr... [en.wikipedia.org]

I never understood the Tintin decision to go full CG and do everything with motion capture. It's all human characters and nothing was all that over the top in the comics, so why bother with full motion capture when you could easily make a gorgeous live action film instead? Take a page from Casino Royale, not the Polar Express.

There has also been a live action Tintin movie.

lefarce
Smurfs was a really bad show-

DUDE ! you did not just say that !
the Smurfs was the best show of the 80s and possibly of ALL TIME !

There has also been a live action Tintin movie.

Actually, there's been a couple, but that's beside the point. I mean, if you're going to motion capture the actors playing out the parts and making the facial expressions, what is the advantage of making it all realistic CGI and not just filming actors?

And really? They're remaking Footloose AND making another Mission Impossible, too? I almost feel sorry for Brad Bird on that one.

Brad Bird's doing MI:4? Uuummmm...'kay. That'll be interesting. There's so many useless Hollywood projects coming out... The Spiderman and Fantastic Four reboots, and the Hollywood version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (the Swedish version has been out for over a year!). *sigh* And people wonder why Inception is so well-liked. It seems to be the ONLY thing out there that's original these days!

Perhaps. i don't hope they will do a Tintin movie. then i will cry... (a comic in Belgium. was very popular in Europe and still is.)

I was actually replying to that, but I agree that my post wasn't the most important ever =P

They probably want to make it CGI for the thrill of it, to see how far they can go. They probably wanted to try it and they picked a story randomly and found Tintin. Or maybe they have a serious reason, but I doubt it.

therealtj

Mr Kaos
I... hate greedy producers who think they can rape our childhood memories as much they please. could it be worser? Perhaps. i don't hope they will do a Tintin movie. then i will cry... (a comic in Belgium. was very popular in Europe and still is.)

>_> Errr... [en.wikipedia.org]

...

Wiki
PremiseCombining the stories of The Crab with the Golden Claws, The Secret of the Unicorn and Red Rackham's Treasure, the film depicts Tintin's (Jamie Bell) first encounter with Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis) and the discovery of a clue to the treasure of his ancestor Sir Francis Haddock. They set out to find it with protection from a prison escapee who tried to get the treasure as well as Detectives Thompson and Thomson (Simon Pegg and Nick Frost).

...




TT.TT

They're seriously squeezing the story of three books into a single film? Combining the secret of the Unicorn and Red Rackham's treasure makes sense, since the first book was merely setting things up for the second one but combining these three books will make the story cluttered.

AND WHY THE HELL DO THEY HAVE TO MAKE IT CG!?

...so many things coming out of the woodwork, in this thread. So many horrible things.

I think people are still debating which books the movie will be based on. Since Spielberg said the movie would only go through the end of The Secret of the Unicorn, but a press release seemed to suggest otherwise. Also, they have three movies planned, so it looks like Tintin is following the typical Hollywood trilogy format so many of these movies are shooting for these days. It wouldn't be a total surprise for them to end halfway through the story. There are also certain characters from Red Rackham's Treasure, who are mainstays in the Tintin world, conspicuously missing from the cast list for the first movie, which either suggests a really bad adaptation or that that part of the story is being held until the next movie.

I just gotta say, Booboo sounds pretty good but Yogi sounds TERRIBLE!

I suggest you all prepare to see more of your childhood strip-mined. Imagine that one thing you remember from childhood that is serene, perfect, and untouched. Hollywood is going to ruin that.

It doesn't matter if it's something more obscure like Dinosaucers, Shirt Tales, or Zoobilee Zoo. When they're done with He-man and the Ninja Turtles, Hollywood is going to find it and destroy it

Hollywood is hurting for ideas and too shell-shocked by the economy to take risks. That's why they're banking on ideas that seemingly can't fail because they're reinforced by nostalgia. (now, I say "seemingly" because movies like "Land of the Lost" prove that they DO fail)

Lucky for me, even as a child I didn't quite enjoy Yogi. I'll find this movie will be easily avoidable.

Hawk
I suggest you all prepare to see more of your childhood strip-mined. Imagine that one thing you remember from childhood that is serene, perfect, and untouched. Hollywood is going to ruin that.

Is it contradictory to say that I don't mind watching things like this , but when it comes to the films they spit out today, they're particularly scarring? It's almost like they're just mocking us in the latter case.