When I heard Fantastic Mr. Fox was being released as a stop motion film a few months back, I was pretty excited. I loved the book as a child.
Now having seen what they've produced, I'm pretty annoyed. The character designs are so basic and standard, and the film/story has been Americanised. I can honestly say it reminds me of some of the lower-grade university student's work I saw during university, in terms of model/armature design. Ive seen better models and animation produced for Children's programs.
Completely screwed up by using real fur IMO. Looks terrible in stop motion animation >_<
I'm also wondering if they didn't have permission to use Roald Dahl's name "Based on the book by the author of "Charlie and the chocolate factory", or whether it's just ignorance.
Terrible terrible ignorance, I'd gander
Well if we're lucky, the theme will get carried over and when that Dante's Inferno video game comes out, it will instead be 'based on the book by the author of De Monarchia'
I actually thought the style they'd gone for looked pretty good. At least it's original - having a mainstream stop motion film is a pretty rare thing in this CG day and age. Yeah, it does look Americanised which is a shame, although I suppose trying to sell it to the Americans has to come with some limitations. I enjoyed the trailer when I saw it a few weeks ago, though. Made me laugh out loud which most comedies generally fail to do nowadays. Apart from the Hangover, that was hilarious x)
I'm going to remain optimistic that it'll at least be enjoyable. My other fear is that they put all the funny stuff in the trailer, and the rest of the film will be a bit rubbish...
There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't.
having never read or even heard of what its based on, i had a good laugh seeing the trailer while waiting to see "9" the other day. seems like it'll be a decent movie to me.
"9" was more dissapointing than that trailer, it was still an ok movie though. the ending was rather bizarre and unneccessary though. one of those things i think wouldve done better as a half hour short on tele than a full length movie based on a 10 minute short.
Originally Posted by Rikus Trailer looks pretty good actually. I think Adam is being overly picky on what really is a kids movie.
No Rikus, I just studied Animation at university and appreciate quality animation when I see it, as well as direction, armature design and character design. I also appreciate how hard it is to get into the industry and how it takes the piss when something of this quality is produced for the big screen.
Again, another somewhat bitchy attempt at lashing out which is obviously related to our recent PM's.
Umm no Mr Adam, just you know giving my opinion. I hope that is ok with you? I hope I can have a opinion that is slightly different then yours?
The trailer does really look pretty good , and I am sure the kids will eat it up. However and I do agree, another classic like Coraline or nightmare before christmas this will not be. But as a fun kids flick, for sur.
Be sure to follow us on the twitters for the latest and greatest: @dailyclick
It could look incredible in stop motion, it just looks like the company has been cheap, hired in less qualified people/rushed the production, and spent all the funding on people like Meryl Streep and Mel Gibson.
Originally Posted by OldManClayton And I don't know about you all but I find that non-celebrities can do just as good a job with voice acting as regular actors. Ah well, names sell the film.
Well this is it, nowadays 80-90% of celebrities have shot to fame in a matter of weeks. Unfortunatley the majority of them don't deserve it, either. If Paris Hilton wanted, she could probably contact an animation company and have her voice featured in an animation (not that people would want it) Although it's usually the companies who ask the celebrities.
And although Meryl Streep and Mel Gibson are great actors, I really don't think the American voices suit this film, with all the animals being the native British animals, and the farmers styled to look like typical, British farmers. I (and many others) automatically read Roald Dahl's books imagining the majority of the characters with an English/British accent, the author living and writing his novels there
I just hope the same director never gets his hands on the rights to make Esio Trot.
Originally Posted by -Adam- Originally Posted by OldManClayton
And although Meryl Streep and Mel Gibson are great actors
Meyrl Streep is an excellent actor full of talent
Mel Gibson can only do facial expressions and is full of himself
Any movie with that guy in it (usually directed by himself) involves at least 20 minutes of footage zooming in on his face as he slowly changes into agonizing expressions (his definition of acting), interweaved with another 120 minutes of comparisons between him and god (was talking more about braveheart & the patriot, tbh).
Adam on a side note I don’t honestly believe that high graded uni students necessarily make good things – I am myself a first class (undergrad)/distinction (MSc) student from a very good redbrick uni (I have turned down a scholarship from Imperial College London - to be with my GF but that’s another story!) and when I see people in my profession with years of industry experience they leave any recent graduate behind including myself – and I have done a short stint in industry.
Well that’s my view in engineering anyway. On topic: not too interested in the film, never been into fiction books that much – I read most of Jules Verne / H G Wells books when I was younger, but that was about it . I also had part of a slinky, but I straightened it.
You know, i look at this like i look at the latest Transformers films: when i first saw the character models/trailers/voice actors on the internet back in 2007 before the film was released, i was convinced it was the work of satan. Megatron NOT voiced by Frank Welker? WTF?!?!?!
But then again you learn to accept it for what it is - a reimaging. I think this'll be the same, we'll grow to accept that this isn't trying to be a straight forward copy of the books, it's reimaged for the new age.
And because of that, i think it'll be a good kids film that'll be kinda fun to watch.
I think book to film conversions are rarely good for people who've read the book. Because we come to love the characters as they are in the book and form our own mental image of their faces, their voices, their tone and mannerisms. Then Hollywood forces someone else's perception of these things along with a multitude of movie-selling adjustments, and you're left with a movie experience that, rather than pay hommage to the book, kinda murders it.
I cite Captain Correli's Mandolin as a neat little example of this. Anyone who's read the book should get what I mean (although I'll accept, the ending in the movie is superior to de Bernières' by some clear margin).
I mean, there's just so much good stuff in the book which was stripped out - I would recommend ANYONE read that book (so long as you can plough through the first 10 to 20 pages, which can get a bit boring as the vast wealth of characters are introduced). You know a book's gonna be good when it has a chapter entitled 'An Episode Confirming Pelagia's Belief that Men do not Know the Difference Between Bravery and a Lack of Common Sense'. Priceless.
It seems to me that this movie isn't more than a sad excuse to bring together a bunch of relatively washed-up actors, update a child's story to include moderately-adult humor to pull in more bucks at the box office, and a showcase of retro stop-motion film to interest all the people completely fed up with CGI.
I've never read the original story, but I assume the director departed from it pretty severely. That's usually the case with novel-to-movie conversions, anyhow.
ChrisD> Employer: Say, wanna see a magic trick?
ChrisD> Employee: Uhh… sure, boss.
ChrisD> Employer: Your job! It just disappeared! Pack your things and leave! Pretty good trick, huh?