2GOLD Posted January 7, 2004 Report Posted January 7, 2004 Some things: Jon didn't feed Garfield human food, he stole it. You can still have Garfield stealing human food so I'm not going to pass judgement on this part just yet. Jon basically got pissed when Garfield ate human food so they can still work this in and make sure kids know that DON'T FEED THE CAT PEOPLE FOOD. Garfield pushes Odie out of the chair so I think it's possible Garfield kicks him off a table. Plus, could PETA really try to get on the makers of the movie if the dog is jumping with a sound effect? Are they going to accuse a CGI image of dog abuse? I have many problems with the preview, mostly being the dog doesn't much look like Odie and the dancing part and his lips moving made me ill. I liked the chair bit since it seemed very Garfield, I'm still iffy on Love, I have faith in Bill Murray so I'm not worried about that and I guess I will be willing to give the film more time. If I see a second preview and Liz is like attracted to Jon and Garfield is like exercising cause he "feels fat" and Jon can understand him cause Garfield is the world's only talking cat then I'll have issues with it. Right now, mostly just the intial problems I realized aren't that bad just yet. I think Odie would have worked better as CGI but I guess it MIGHT be able to work.
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted January 7, 2004 Report Posted January 7, 2004 They will not be able to do that since Odie is a real dog in this film. If Gollum can interact with Frodo and Sam and Scooby Doo can interact with the Gang, then Garfield can interact with Odie, He pushes him off a cushion for starters in the trailer, I'm sure they can make it look like he boots him off a table (which must be in the film at least once). You're talking about CGI characters interacting with human actors. Not a CGI character interacting with an animal. It's much different.
Guest El Satanico Posted January 7, 2004 Report Posted January 7, 2004 Bill Murray is in this? At least there's one good thing about this movie. I'm not much of a Garfield fan and I loathe JLH. Garfield playing nice with Odie doesn't mean he likes him. Being mean after Odie thinks he's being a friend fits with Garfield's attitude.
Downhome Posted January 8, 2004 Report Posted January 8, 2004 Bill Murray is in this? He does the voice of Garfield in this flick.
DMann2003 Posted January 8, 2004 Report Posted January 8, 2004 They will not be able to do that since Odie is a real dog in this film. If Gollum can interact with Frodo and Sam and Scooby Doo can interact with the Gang, then Garfield can interact with Odie, He pushes him off a cushion for starters in the trailer, I'm sure they can make it look like he boots him off a table (which must be in the film at least once). You're talking about CGI characters interacting with human actors. Not a CGI character interacting with an animal. It's much different. You have the dog interact with a puppet or something, take it out and put in Garfield, it's not like these things haven't been done before. Dogs can be trained.
Guest El Satanico Posted January 8, 2004 Report Posted January 8, 2004 And movie dogs are trained to do whatever the handler wants it to do.
Slayer Posted January 8, 2004 Report Posted January 8, 2004 Not as bad as some people here would have lead me to believe (or even as much as my own preconceptions would expect) But I don't plan spending $5 and 90 minutes on it either
AndrewTS Posted January 8, 2004 Report Posted January 8, 2004 Bill Murray is in this? He does the voice of Garfield in this flick. Fun Factoid: Lorenzo Music (the man who voiced Garfield from the beginning, and did all the commercials, TV specials, and Garfield & Friends shows up until his death) voiced Bill Murray's character, Peter Venkman, in the Real Ghostbusters cartoon. A friend of mine pointed that out to me. If I see a second preview and Liz is like attracted to Jon and Garfield is like exercising cause he "feels fat" and Jon can understand him cause Garfield is the world's only talking cat then I'll have issues with it. Right now, mostly just the intial problems I realized aren't that bad just yet. Liz seemed way too giddy and friendly in the brief bit of a preview I saw. I'm worried that Jon's going to end up getting the girl in the end at the very least. That would be like a Peanuts movie where Charlie Brown got to go out with the little redheaded girl and finally kicked the football.
DMann2003 Posted January 8, 2004 Report Posted January 8, 2004 Jon better not get some from Liz, I'll personally drive over to PAWS Inc and suckerpunch Jim Davis if that happens.
2GOLD Posted January 8, 2004 Report Posted January 8, 2004 I'm scared to know who plays Jon... Who plays John.... Why.... BRECKIN MEYER of course!
DMann2003 Posted January 8, 2004 Report Posted January 8, 2004 Of course Jon should've been played by Will Ferrel and Liz by Jeneane Garafalo but that's neither here nor there.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted January 8, 2004 Report Posted January 8, 2004 Of course Jon should've been played by Will Ferrel and Liz by Jeneane Garafalo but that's neither here nor there. She'd have the attitude down pat, which is the important trait. God, that would have been great...
Slayer Posted January 8, 2004 Report Posted January 8, 2004 Of course Jon should've been played by Will Ferrel and Liz by Jeneane Garafalo but that's neither here nor there. She'd have the attitude down pat, which is the important trait. Agreed And thinking about Breckin Meyer, I can't really see him as Jon either. Jon's supposed to be a lovable loser, not resident hunk
2GOLD Posted January 8, 2004 Report Posted January 8, 2004 Breckin Meyer is a hunk? Have the standards of hunk in Hollywood REALLY sank that low? I'm starting to think if I get to Hollywood that I'll be a hunk....talk about odd.
Guest Razor Roman Posted January 8, 2004 Report Posted January 8, 2004 forget Odie, THAT'S NOT GARFIELD! geeze the old Roger Rabbit effect would have worked just fine! The CG crap looks awful. Unfortunately "the Old Roger Rabbit effect" costs TONS more to do right. Disney was pouring millions into finding out a way to get the roger rabbit effect in CGI because to do a sequel to WFRR was going to costs 100's of millions for just the animation alone. Combining live action and animation in any meaningful way (Roger Rabbit quality) is so labor intensive, where as to do it with CGI it's easier because the computer can match up the camera shots and get the right angles, lighting, etc, on the characters without an artist having to figure it all out by hand.
PsychoDriver Posted January 11, 2004 Report Posted January 11, 2004 forget Odie, THAT'S NOT GARFIELD! geeze the old Roger Rabbit effect would have worked just fine! The CG crap looks awful. Unfortunately "the Old Roger Rabbit effect" costs TONS more to do right. Disney was pouring millions into finding out a way to get the roger rabbit effect in CGI because to do a sequel to WFRR was going to costs 100's of millions for just the animation alone. Combining live action and animation in any meaningful way (Roger Rabbit quality) is so labor intensive, where as to do it with CGI it's easier because the computer can match up the camera shots and get the right angles, lighting, etc, on the characters without an artist having to figure it all out by hand. Wow, didn't realize that.... I never knew it was that expensive.
Downhome Posted March 27, 2004 Report Posted March 27, 2004 Here is a new trailer. http://progressive.stream.aol.com/aol/us/m...d_trlr02_dl.mov
KingPK Posted March 27, 2004 Report Posted March 27, 2004 forget Odie, THAT'S NOT GARFIELD! geeze the old Roger Rabbit effect would have worked just fine! The CG crap looks awful. Unfortunately "the Old Roger Rabbit effect" costs TONS more to do right. Disney was pouring millions into finding out a way to get the roger rabbit effect in CGI because to do a sequel to WFRR was going to costs 100's of millions for just the animation alone. Combining live action and animation in any meaningful way (Roger Rabbit quality) is so labor intensive, where as to do it with CGI it's easier because the computer can match up the camera shots and get the right angles, lighting, etc, on the characters without an artist having to figure it all out by hand. Wow, didn't realize that.... I never knew it was that expensive. It also took about a year and a half (I think) after the live action filming was done to hand paint all the animation in. We're talking tens of thousands of individual drawings here. They pretty much had to film the live action with Bob Hoskins talking to an imaginary rabbit while Roger's voice actor did the lines off-screen. Get the DVD that came out last year. It's pretty damn interesting to find out how much went into making that movie.
Kardo Posted March 27, 2004 Report Posted March 27, 2004 God damn does Garfield look bad. He has an appetite for adventure? Since when?
Ravenbomb Posted March 27, 2004 Report Posted March 27, 2004 Yeah, the DVD is great. The acting job everybody in the movie did is WAY more impressive after you see how the movie was done.
DMann2003 Posted March 27, 2004 Report Posted March 27, 2004 Makes me wonder how Bob Hoskins didn't get an Oscar nomination
Guest Vitamin X Posted March 27, 2004 Report Posted March 27, 2004 They should have cast this guy into doing the live-action Garfield... He's even got his own web site! Then he could match up with live-action Odie.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now