Garfield live action movie trailer

[DerangedHermit 0]

http://www.garfieldmovie.com/trailers/index.html

 

If they're gonna have Garfield as CGI, why not Odie?

[Downhome 0]

I knew about the movie, but this is my first time seeing the trailer.

 

Oh my God.

[Guest Krazy Karter]

Saw this a few weeks ago.

 

Odie should have been CGI.

[2GOLD 0]

THAT'S NOT ODIE!!!

 

god dammit

[Downhome 0]

I still don't quite understand why the fuck Odie is a real dog, it just looks so stupid with him being a "real dog".

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

OK, the why-is-Odie-a-real-dog crowd is accounted for, so I'll go a different avenue.

 

That is not Liz.

 

And no lasagna references? Boo. (Of course, if Garfield eats people food in this movie, then the stupid kids that watch this movie will start feeding their pets people food as well and end up suing Fox after Fluffy dies...)

[Damaramu 0]

His mouth isn't supposed to move!

And I didn't picture him having that valley girl "Oh you little suck up" tone to his voice either.

[Downhome 0]

If Garfield doesn't eat lasagna and other "people food" in the movie, then it isn't Garfield. It'll then just be "the shitty CGI cat flick".

 

Not that it wont be that anyway, I'm just saying.

[Nighthawk 0]

They probably didn't want to spend the bread to do another character in cgi.

 

That didn't look too bad to me. I wouldn't see it, not my kind of thing, but I didn't see anything to bitch about. Kids should like it.

[PsychoDriver 0]

My god, when I first heard about the movie I knew it would suck... but that trailer made it look even worst than I could have imagined.

 

forget Odie, THAT'S NOT GARFIELD! geeze the old Roger Rabbit effect would have worked just fine! The CG crap looks awful.

 

Looking on the bright side, hopefully they will come out with alot of the old Garfield cartoons on DVD in sorta a cross-promotional deal.

 

Garfield and Friends season sets would rule.

[2GOLD 0]

Do kids give two flying f*cks about Garfield???

 

Him and Heathcliff are the cats of the 80's, not the freakin future!

 

I hate Hollywood screwing up my childhood dreams, laughs and nightmares.

[Nighthawk 0]

Making twentysomething geeks your target audience isn't a good way to make money. Kids like goofy cartoons with talking animals. That's what this is.

[Downhome 0]

It's fine to release movies like that, just for the kids, just for the hell of it.

 

That isn't an excuse to crap all over Garfield though, just call it something else if they aren't going to stick with what it should be.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

It didn't look terrible but the fact that Odie isn't CGI is going to make it look a lot worse for gags.

[2GOLD 0]

It's fine to release movies like that, just for the kids, just for the hell of it.

 

That isn't an excuse to crap all over Garfield though, just call it something else if they aren't going to stick with what it should be.

 

Exactly.

[Nighthawk 0]

If you've read the strip lately, Garfield hasn't been what he should be for many years. Jim Davis sold whatever legacy Garfield had.

 

This is like that thread about the Amityville remake, ya'll are far too up in arms about it "OMG, Garfield's character has been betrayed! A real dog! No lasangna! Et tu Brute?" Kids will like it, you won't, and in the end no one will care. And it's true, maybe we'll get the old cartoons on dvd out of the deal.

[Downhome 0]

So?

 

That's no reason to release a film about Garfield. We all basicly agree that the kids of today don't care all that much about the character or his past.

 

Why release a film based on a children's icon from years past, and market it for the children of today, only while changing everything that really made the character in the first place?

 

To indroduce them to the character? I'm all for that, but at least introduce them to the REAL character, not this shit.

 

The fact, is that there is no reason for them to do this film as they have obviously done. They would have been just as well off (if not more so as they would have had more room to work with), had they just created a new CGI character to present to the new kids of these days, that's all I'm saying.

[The Dames 0]

...Is Jennifer Love Hewitt in the trailer?

 

Dames

[Downhome 0]

...Is Jennifer Love Hewitt in the trailer?

 

Dames

Si.

[PsychoDriver 0]

Yeah true but if they did it right, they would have appealed to both kids and us 20 something geeks. That would mean more money which would be win-win for them.

 

But instead they will get another weaks kids movie with limited staying power. Like the still laughed punchlines that were the Rocky & Bullwinkle, Scooby Doo, Popeye, He-Man, Super Mario Brothers ETC movies of yesteryear.

 

Can't blame us for not wanting our childhood favorites pissed on.... yet again for the sake a quick buck.

 

 

But... if it does lead to the old stuff on DVD, I guess it'd be worth it IMO even if Garfield sells his soul.

[The Dames 0]

...Is Jennifer Love Hewitt in the trailer?

 

Dames

Si.

Well, it will at least make 10 bucks then.

 

Dames

[2GOLD 0]

...Is Jennifer Love Hewitt in the trailer?

 

Dames

Si.

Well, it will at least make 10 bucks then.

 

Dames

 

She does look quite sassy

 

Only won't she be wearing lots of clothes and not much cleavage?

 

Oh wait...that's all she is here for....sorry, forgot.

 

Shame really since she can kinda act when she is allowed too.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

If you've read the strip lately, Garfield hasn't been what he should be for many years.

 

Good call.

 

I swear to Christ, every strip now is Garfield standing on some flat line (Is it a table? The floor? The counter? We may never know) doing nothing, then John/the mouse/a spider walks up to him, they made some quip that's never funny, and Garfield responds in kind. IT NEVER CHANGES!!!

 

I too, think it's silly that they used a real dog and a CGI cat like that. It just doesn't look right to have the two of them different like that.

 

They would have been just as well off (if not more so as they would have had more room to work with), had they just created a new CGI character to present to the new kids of these days, that's all I'm saying.

 

Lemme ask you a question - Of the following, which would generate a larger response:

 

1. Garfield the Movie

2. Fat Orange Cat, the Movie

 

The mere fact that it's a movie about Garfield (even if one that's substantially different from the comic strip which, to be fair, you can't really say it is, character-wise, from just that preview) will get people talking about it, because people know who Garfield is. Yeah, they COULD have come up with an all-new character no one has EVER heard of, but no one will talk about that.

 

This thread ALONE is proof that this being Garfield will make people talk about this movie.

[Downhome 0]

Lemme ask you a question - Of the following, which would generate a larger response:

 

1. Garfield the Movie

2. Fat Orange Cat, the Movie

 

The mere fact that it's a movie about Garfield (even if one that's substantially different from the comic strip which, to be fair, you can't really say it is, character-wise, from just that preview) will get people talking about it, because people know who Garfield is. Yeah, they COULD have come up with an all-new character no one has EVER heard of, but no one will talk about that.

 

This thread ALONE is proof that this being Garfield will make people talk about this movie.

How many films for kids have we seen come out that had no history at all when it comes to the main characters, and made a hell of a lot more money than then one will?

 

If they aren't going to have it look remotely like the actual character and product, then they should have just made an original film, period.

 

All this film does is prove, once again, that Hollywood is lazy. Make a shit film, slap a known name on it, and hope it makes a few quick bucks.

[Nighthawk 0]

Here's why they did it: Hollywood loves remakes. They said "Hey, here's a character that was popular. Let's do a movie about that." It was popular with kids before, so they expect it to be again. That's just the way they think. Look at the Mod Squad movie... they expected teenagers to like it. Same deal here. Jim Davis' input consisted of "Where do I sign?", cause that guy's a whore.

They changed a bunch of his trademarks so kids wouldn't emulate it. There's no surprise here, once the key demographic has been chosen, these decisions are pretty much automatic.

So, they made a movie for kids at the expense of a character. They had no loyalty to the character in the first place, so they didn't care about that.

You think they didn't want to make a Calvin and Hobbes movie? But that legacy has yet to be pissed on. If you don't like this, blame Jim Davis.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

How many films for kids have we seen come out that had no history at all when it comes to the main characters, and made a hell of a lot more money than then one will?

 

Lots, BUT...

 

People will (and right now, ARE) talk(ing) about a Garfield movie. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if the movie was about someome else, which I think kinda proves my point, in and of itself. And yeah, you could retort by saying that much of what's being done is complain about the movie, but 1. We're not the target audience and 2. All publicity is good publicity, as some say.

 

If they aren't going to have it look remotely like the actual character and product, then they should have just made an original film, period.

 

I think Garfield actually looks like one would expect - he's a fat orange cat. Not much else to it, really.

 

Question though: as big of a whore as Davis is (don't even kid yourself on this one - Garfield advertises EVERYTHING), do you really think they could've gotten away with making a movie about a fat orange cat who eats a lot without Davis' lawyers having something to say about it?

 

Yeah, they could have made an original movie and bought him off - but as long as they're paying him money, might as well make it be for something; Would you pay money to Tolkien's estate to make a movie called "Lord of the Finger Jewellery"?

 

But that legacy has yet to be pissed on.

 

Thank God for Bill Waterson; he's often said that he'll never sell out Calvin and Hobbes, and I thank him for being one of the few with integrity.

[Mole 0]

If a trailer looks bad, then the movie will be HORRIBLE.

 

The movie will make atleast $100 million, like Scooby Doo.

[Guest SP-1]

I tend to agree with IDRM. You guys sound like Trekkies when word leaked that Spock was dying in TWOK. Seriously. It's Garfield. I liked him growing up but I'm not going to piss myself in anger over a trailer that has basically portrayed a sassy fat orange cat, which is what the character is at it's core.

 

Some things I can understand getting angry about with franchises.

 

Garfield, I can't. Davis sold the furball's fictional soul, Davis is the creator, it's his character to do this with.

 

sad.

 

 

But true.

[Mole 0]

I tend to agree with IDRM. You guys sound like Trekkies when word leaked that Spock was dying in TWOK. Seriously. It's Garfield. I liked him growing up but I'm not going to piss myself in anger over a trailer that has basically portrayed a sassy fat orange cat, which is what the character is at it's core.

 

Some things I can understand getting angry about with franchises.

 

Garfield, I can't. Davis sold the furball's fictional soul, Davis is the creator, it's his character to do this with.

 

sad.

 

 

But true.

This is TSM, where everyone and their dog is a critic.

[NoCalMike 0]

using a real dog for odie is pure shit.