Den of Geek

Our request to Hollywood: can we have fewer talking CG animals now please?

Simon Brew


If they are going to make more films of this ilk, can they please get their writers to go and watch Roger Rabbit again?

A glance ahead at the summer schedules reveals Hollywood has a new fad. It’s not comic book movies any more. It’s talking CG animals…

Published on Mar 17, 2010

Looking over the summer blockbuster movie schedule this year, which we've rounded up here, the usual themes started to come through. There are major franchises. There are big comic book movies. Heck, there are one or two quite daring films on the roster, too.

And yet, alarmingly, there's no less than three live action talking CG animal pictures.

Just to make our position clear here: talking animal movies - and we're not talking the Disney animated kind - aren't necessarily a bad thing. Yet, the problem is that for every Babe or something of that ilk, there are a dozen Scooby Doos, where a CGI creature is interspersed with human actors for ‘comic effect'. Thus, you get actors facing off against blue ping-pong balls on sticks, fresh in the knowledge that the mutant that's going to dominate the poster will be added in post-production.

Granted, when this works, it can be quite brilliant. Look at how exquisitely a skilled filmmaker such as Robert Zemeckis knitted everything together in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. That was clever, playing knowingly on the mix of live action and animation, and the end result is still talked about over 20 years later.

Do you think we'll still be saying the same of Alvin & The Chipmunks 2?

I'm guessing not, although that, in itself, isn't a problem. Films have to cater for a broad selection of audiences, and it's right that there's a solid mix out there. And we'll say it: we thought the first half of last year's G-Force, complete with lots of lines from 80s movies in its script, was good fun.

But our alarm bells started ringing once we looked back on that aforementioned blockbuster list. And three films set them off: Furry Vengeance, Cats & Dogs 2 and Marmaduke.

Regretfully, and we'd love to be proved wrong, we don't have high hopes for any of them. We're still haunted, for instance, by the first Cats & Dogs film that someone managed to piss away the idea of two species smacking seven shades out of each other by shoehorning in a terminally dull plot (which is, ultimately, where the aforementioned G-Force faltered). The fact that the sequel has them joining forces and, seemingly, not fighting each other, makes things even worse (have they been watching the original Tom & Jerry movie, that somehow made the same mistake?).

As for Furry Vengeance, it's got surely the scariest poster of any this year. Just look at the bloody thing.

The flurry of such films - and there are more on the way - is surely down to the ridiculous amount of money that the Alvin & The Chipmunks movies have made for Fox. The first pulled in $217m in the US alone, and the second noted up $218m. Not for nothing has Alvin & The Chipmunks 3D already got a release date (16th December 2011). And not for nothing is a take of $219m for that one out of the question.

So here's our request. Rather than Hollywood studios just leaping aboard the latest bandwagon blindly, if they are going to make more films of this ilk, can they please get their writers to go and watch Roger Rabbit again? Or, less charitably, for the first time? At the very  least read the first half of the G-Force script? Because there needs to be more than some knock-offs from Gollum technology here, and getting a Hollywood star to voice a dog in a knowing and wry way alone does not a good film make.

In principle, there's nothing wrong with mixing live action and CG animals. But there is something problematic when it becomes production line fodder, as we're seeing now.

Our simple wish is this: if you are going down this road, can you at least put a decent film at the heart of it, rather than just shovelling in cute-ish animals in the hope that it'll sell to a family audience? Can we have something more than humans are stupid, animals are clever? Where the animals don't help the humans on some path to dimness redemption?

Who knows. All three of this summer's talking computer animals flicks may well turn out to be masterpieces, leaving us to eat our CGI hat.

But right now, the choice between sitting through all three of them or watching the Sex And The City sequel once just isn't as easy as it should be...

 

Tags

Users Comments

Re: Our request to Hollywood: can we have fewer talking CG animals now please?
Posted By syrdax 1 March 17, 2010 09:07:56 AM

Not possible.You said it: Alvin made loads of cash. That's what people want, loads of cash with less effort. Sadly, most paying customers don't care if the guy is looking weird "looking" at the CGI thing.

Re: Our request to Hollywood: can we have fewer talking CG animals now please?
Posted By cordas2 1 March 17, 2010 09:22:21 AM

You might as well as the likes of Bay and Emmerich to actually put a plot into their films, somewhere between the cgi and the explosions.

Re: Our request to Hollywood: can we have fewer talking CG animals now please?
Posted By picknmix 1 March 17, 2010 09:45:19 AM

The concerning thing is that the animals look more real than Brendan Fraser does, or at least they deliver their lines better,

Re: Our request to Hollywood: can we have fewer talking CG animals now please?
Posted By bobajim 1 March 17, 2010 09:57:53 AM

Okay, so some of them aren't brilliant, but no more than in any other genre. Some are good, some are bad. I don't think they purposefully went out of their way to make shit films, and Alvin and the Chipmunks is brilliant (if you're under five) while Beverly Hills Chihuahua is very entertaining which ever way you look at it (as long as you are bombed out of your mind that is). Also the comparison with Roger Rabbit is unfair. That was a completely different type of film, a kind of homage to the old Tex Avery cartoons mixed with film noir, made by people steeped in movie knowledge. These movies you mention are more akin to the Herbie films or The Cat from Outerspace or some such, you know entertaining kids films. Not ever movie can appeal to everyone, like Toy Story does. Some are just for the little ones, and why can't they have something for themselves? Oh yeah, and by the way, if you think these films are easy to make, trust me, they're not. Not by a long shot.

Re: Our request to Hollywood: can we have fewer talking CG animals now please?
Posted By denofgeek_simon 1 March 17, 2010 10:22:14 AM

Not suggesting at all that they're easy to make. But I do wonder if they're getting much easier to write?

Re: Our request to Hollywood: can we have fewer talking CG animals now please?
Posted By bobajim 1 March 17, 2010 10:31:22 AM

Well that may be true, and if all else fails they can always throw in a fart gag. That never fails to amuse the toddlers.

Re: Our request to Hollywood: can we have fewer talking CG animals now please?
Posted By Tinkster 1 March 17, 2010 02:09:36 PM

I am definitely tired of the cutesy-ness and fuzzy-ness of what major studios define as money-making CGI films. It's not impossible for welldone scifi or fantasy or ripping adventure NOT to be based on Middle Earth or Star Wars or Indiana Jones. Neither is it necessary to go James Cameron and make a massive obsessive-compulsive epic. Don't misinterpret. I truly adore AVATAR, and would love to see other imaginatively detailed epics, but a bit of pragmatic [ooooh, old *buzzword*!]thinking indeed sez: James Cameron$ are few, far between. Thus, my opinion leans toward 'whatever style of CGI the creative mind builds up is fine -- just steer that imagination toward stuff other than the fuzzies' -- unless of course, a tale in the Watership Down vein is a creative CGI-er's bent. Yep, I like the idea of space operas, mysteries, Westerns, any genre showing up in CGI.

Re: Our request to Hollywood: can we have fewer talking CG animals now please?
Posted By nicko71 1 March 17, 2010 02:48:44 PM

Seriously, did anyone on who visits this site really go and see Alvin and the chipmunks, thinking that it would be a decent film? These films are designed at giving kids something to do during the summer holidays, and they appear to be fairly successful at that. They are not there for your average geek to enjoy. Fair enough, some film-makers are able to make movies that appeal to audiences outside the movies target demographic (such as Pixar), but these are few and far between. You may as well demand that hollywood stops making chick flicks, because geeks don't like them.

Re: Our request to Hollywood: can we have fewer talking CG animals now please?
Posted By kail 1 March 17, 2010 05:09:52 PM

Great idea nicko7! DoG, add a PS demanding that they cut back on the chick flicks as well please.. or, at least, combine them with the CG animal films to mitigate the pain a little. ;)

Re: Our request to Hollywood: can we have fewer talking CG animals now please?
Posted By zabulus 1 March 17, 2010 06:07:49 PM

nice one picknmix1 brenden fraser does look very strange in the picture, is it just me or does he look like jason bateman?

Re: Our request to Hollywood: can we have fewer talking CG animals now please?
Posted By Dierk 1 March 17, 2010 08:45:22 PM

And who say children aren't allowed to get good films with halfway-decent plots? IME it's the braindead parents and grandparents wanting to see drivel like the Chipmunks films.

Re: Our request to Hollywood: can we have fewer talking CG animals now please?
Posted By deathmachine808 1 March 17, 2010 09:02:42 PM

Can we just get Big Trouble In Little China 2 now please? Come on Hollywood, you owe us.

Re: Our request to Hollywood: can we have fewer talking CG animals now please?
Posted By bobajim 1 March 17, 2010 10:45:13 PM

Honestly Dierk, it ain't the parents who want to see the Chipmunks, it's the kids who are chomping at the bit for them. You will find very few parents desperate to see the next sqeekwel or what have you. Remember when Beverly Hills Chihuahua came out? There was all that "this is the worst trailer in the world" stuff all over the place, people's reactions to it on youtube etc. Then they had clips of kids seeing the trailer and they were like "I MUST SEE THIS FILM NOW!". Bless the little loons.

Re: Our request to Hollywood: can we have fewer talking CG animals now please?
Posted By Kapp 1 March 19, 2010 05:35:05 PM

It's kids that want to see these films. Somewhat more specifically, it's girls ages 6-10. My daughter is 8. She loved "the Squeakwell". Her mom and aunt took her. I stayed home and slept. Cute, fuzzy animals with an "I'm so cool" attitude are the favorite of Hollywood. But, who REALLY started this trend? who REALLY gave Hollywood the idea to imbue all these flicks with these hip, cool, and in many cases SERIOUSLY ANNOYING characters in films?? Pixar did, with Toy Story. All these other films (Open Season, Open Season 2, Madagascar 2, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Garfield Tale of 2 Kitties, Shark tale, etc etc and all these other CGI sequels that kids love, all these were launched with "Toy Story"-- Pixar holds the highest standard in these films and does not simply populate them with cool wisecracks and "cool dude" posturing to entertain 3rd graders...Pixar tries to do something special in each film, and has succeeded in a big way....the other imitators are the ones flooding the market
Post a Comment
Security Code* Get another image
 
 
Furry Vengeance
Untitled Document

Follow Den of Geek on

Related Articles

SEARCH

Coke Zero
Advertisement