Cool News
These CGI critters will send you OVER THE HEDGE in glorious Quicktime!
Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with a little trailer for ya' for one of Dreamworks' upcoming CG toons called OVER THE HEDGE. I saw this sucker played big last night before CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT (which is f'n great, review pending) and it wasn't bad. I wish Dreamworks would try to step a little closer to Pixar with their character humor, but I have to say that this trailer did make me smile a bit. Got some great voice talent, including Bruce Willis, Wanda Sykes, Steve Carell, Garry Shandling, Nick Nolte and William Shatner. I hope it's a winner. Enjoy!
CLICK IT HERE TO WATCH... WHAT DO WE CALL 'EM? HOW ABOUT "STEVE"? CLICK HERE TO WATCH STEVE!
-
+ Expand All
-
Hmmm. Meh.
Kids liked Madagascar. You realize I will be taking my kids to this although it seems...uninspired.
Oh well.
Hmm. First?
yeh. -
burp and fart jokes rule.
-
When are we going to have Season 2 of "Sanders" on our DVD shelves! Argh! I'll check this trailer out, but if there's even a whiff of a pop-culture reference I'm x'ing that bitch fast.
-
and you'd think they'd put at least one funny gag in the trailer
-
Oct 06, 2005 3:46:49 AM CDT
Yknow, I remember when Computer animated films had an edge that
by theginger twit
Seriously, A bunch of dumb fuck animals trying to talk to a hedge? Why not make it a Hedge lined with Statues... and these little dopey fuck animals try and communicate with, i don't know, the biggest and boldest looking one. The point I'm maing is, how stupid do they think kids these days are?? it just makes the executives making these films look stupid if they can't even address these little issues. Man I hate everything!!
-
no one cares, sorry.
-
Oct 06, 2005 4:20:29 AM CDT
CGI animation has been going down the shitter for years, startin
by tubbs tattsyrup
The first few CGI films were a wonder. TOY STORY was just incredible, one of the best animated films ever, surpassed by its sequel but still a classic. MONSTERS, INC was pretty good, too. Hell, Dreamworks' first movie, ANTZ, was alright even. But Antz also marked the beginning of the end, and why CGI films have been getting worse (Incredibles doesn't count, however). OK, the fault lies with fucking Dreamworks. Their two biggest faults unfortunately tend to be their biggest selling points: the casting of "names" rather than decent voice actors, and the use of pop culture references in place of, you know, actual JOKES. How the fuck did Shrek beat Monsters, Inc to an Oscar? Sure, it was more popular, I guess (and that's a draw to Oscar voters but it's also another story) but looking back at them both now, Monsters Inc had far more original and actually, FUNNIER humour and a better story and characters and, well, everything. Dreamworks, ever since then, has relied TOTALLY on its voice casting to get audiences. Look at last year: they had SHARK TALE, Pixar had INCREDIBLES. Shark Tale's trailers were popping with "names" who simply played themselves in the movie...Incredibles used the actual MOVIE to advertise the movie. That's not to say Pixar is blameless: they've advertised stars' presences on occasion, but they've also cast DECENT VOICE ACTORS in their films, as appropriate to the characters. And guess what? It's those characters that are the most memorable. As for the pop culture references (now joined by fart and poop jokes)...well...see ICE AGE for the results of that. Is some bizarre animal doing a Vulcan hand-signal to a cave painting of a UFO funny? No, not even to a Trekker like me. It's tired. Not even worthy of a laugh to signify you get the reference, partly due to the fact that it's a FUCKING OBVIOUS reference. Brings me to another point: Notice how Shrek pretty much only references pretty recent films? Yeah. Exactly. And it's just not funny anyway. GrrrrrrRRR! Wallace and Gromit can be good without endless references (I'm aware it has them, but it's still funny in its own right and doesn't use the refs as its sole source of laugh-revenue...I have seen it by the way as it's been out for weeks in NZ). Fuck Dreamworks, fuck the casting of modern CGI films. Augh!
-
although i HATE WAITING SO LONG FOR THESE MOVIES TO F--CKING COME OUT!!! MAY 19, 2006? ISN'T THAT WHEN THE DA VINCI CODE COMES OUT? HOLY freaking god. i think this year to year connect with shark tale's madagascar teaser was kinda obvious.
-
Oct 06, 2005 5:47:19 AM CDT
They have famous people doing the voices...I have to go see this
by rupee88
How could I resist a rodent voiced by Avril Lavigne!?!?!? It's irresistible....fuck, I hate my fellow humans.
-
I am so there for this one :-)
-
yeah, what he said
-
it's an entirely different thing called over the hedge. otherwise the v.o announcer would say "based on the hit comic strip" instead of "from the makers of shrek and madagascar" which we know already.
-
An informal pole has revealed that EVERYONE thinks she's grating and unfunny. I guess Herc probably likes her.
-
i havent bothered with all of them, but from what ive seen of their offerings, they care more about big names doing the voices and "timely" sight gags than any heart. which is why, 30 years from now, no one will be watching shrek or robots, but there will be a digitally remastered (or whatever they call it then) toy story or finding nemo for a limited time only...
-
...only with the artistry and feeling removed.
-
Typical DreamWorks, pop-culture-filled and with plenty of burps for the kids to giggle at. I'll take the trailer with a grain of salt. All I'd say is that Bruce Willis as RJ does nothing for me, he sounds gruff and tired, not scheming and clever. What happened to Jim Carrey?
-
What are dreamworks doing? they're stylizing their characters (to make them easiler to animate) they're filling their films with cheap jokes and they're just losing all respect. Pixar and Blue sky are infinatly more talented because they're storytellers before animators and comedians. Dreamworks might as well call this madagascar 2.
-
This would have been a perfect chance for a company to translate a known property into CG and use the medium to hilight the look of the original. Instead it just looks like some Maya demo and everyone is off cangratulating themselves for rendering thousands of strands of hair. And it still doesn't look "real." Part of the genius of Pixar is that they pick projects that fit the medium. Toys, Bugs, Fish, and Cars, all virtually hairless, don't call for too much fuss and don't distract from the story. And with The Incredibles, they developed a look that worked and then animated it. What a waste of money and talent this Hedge is.
-
My subject title is obviously a joke. I'm usually not a nay-sayer, but as an Animation Director, it burns me to the core to see bland talentless voice talent with a big name to highlight an Animated Feature. Mr. Willis is great in his live action movies, but from the sound of his voice, he'd be better off staying out of the voice talent arena... unless he's playing himself..... selling cars in Japan.... or whatever. Shatner on the other hand... ALWAYS up for entertainment! That man is a PILLAR in the institution! DONE!!!
-
and I want the wasted memory spce back.
-
...I'm not sure what this cartoon is supposed to teach children, except maybe to hate their parents for eating food.
-
Oct 06, 2005 11:00:37 AM CDT
started out ok, got pretty brainless halfway through...
by chief redcock
-
PC in cartoons must die now.
-
Lovers can crawl up Katzenberg's ass
-
Those are name actors the producers hope will bring people into the theater. There are scores of people nobody ever heard of who actually are "voice talent" and could have done just as well or better than these millionaires.
-
Oct 06, 2005 2:42:53 PM CDT
I'll have to go with the consensus on this one: Dreamworks a
by orbots commander
Pixar tells timeless stories full of whit and bursting with imagination and well-constructed plots. Dreamworks is happy with wanna-be hip, pop-culture savvy, and 'sophisticated' offerings that turn out to be highly mediocre. Can't quite figure out Blue Sky yet: Ice Age is Pixar quality while Robots leans towards Dreamworks type stuff. What happened to Katzenberg? He was the guy, if you remember, who developed Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King. Now he churns out stuff like Shark Tale and Madagascar.
-
not by producing quality CGI animbated films, but by trying to oversaturate the market with a bunch of mediocre ones, thus ruining the public's appetite by sheer quantity. Devious Dream works. Or maybe mediocre is just the highest their bar can reach. Considering how far in advance voice tracks are laid down, Dreamworks did a decent job at predicting which celebrities would still be tidy lil name grabs to stick on their ads, considering Shats recent emmy and Carrel's success. Of course Avril Lavigne was a complete miss (and thus not mentioned in the trailer).
-
It's pretty obvious if you've read it. I never pictured R.J. having that deep of a voice though, and the "jeepers" comment may be changed to Jesus in the actual flick, as most trailers usually don't showcase the "adult language" that's present in the actual movie.
-
i was ok with it but i wanna hear jim's voice in ANYTHING. bruce willis is fine but he was wasted as spike in rugrats: go wild! and garry shandling should probably quit while he's ahead.
-
...Bill Waterson on a feature length Calvin and Hobbes movie. Will never happen, but would be the best movie ever made.
-
I must admit that this trailer makes the movie look terribly contrived, shallow, and un-funny. Story and characters should be king, not the voice talent or the aesthetic. Relying on pop-culture references and big name voice talent isn't going to keep Dreamworks afloat for much longer. Cute characters, without substance, get old fast and aren't as memorable. Woody and Buzz, Mike and Sully, and Dory and Nemo are memorable because of the apparent pathos and warmth of the characters. Dreamworks always seems to go for the quick cheap thrill instead of the long-term and more endearing story line. Disney's older stories are "generational", meaning that parents have passed the joy of them on to their children (Snow White, Bambi, Cinderella, etc). It's not easy to do that with Shrek because so much of that humor is time-sensitive. The next generation of children aren't going to understand a large portion of the humor in Shrek because it's very specific and relevant to the year of its release. I wish Dreamworks would shift their focus to the strength of the story instead of the burp jokes and pop-culture references.
-
The trailer is a bad calling card for this film. The actual film is much better, better than Madagascar. It has a good story and it has heart. You will see- BUNKYBOO HAS SPOKEN.
-
I know it's much more fun to completely rip on everyone, but Wanda Sykes is great teamed up with Larry David. The scene where Larry mistook an African-American gentleman for a valet was one of the funniest in the series. Just because she had a horrible Fox sitcom doesn't mean the woman isn't funny.
-
Oct 06, 2005 10:48:03 PM CDT
Voice Actors using their talent versus Famous Actors using their
by regicidal_maniac
Billy West has more on this dire situation in this interview with TheOnion AV Club: avclub.com/content/node/240/1/1 and in this RealPlayer interview with WGNradio: http://tinyurl.com/af8wd
-
That the overarching theme of this movie won't be so much "food", but that "Man's encroachment into nature is evil, and we must learn to live with our gentle creatures, not push them out of their own environments"
Make me gag. -
Oct 07, 2005 1:30:44 AM CDT
I gotta give some shit now to the people who bag on Shrek....!!
by theginger twit
The argument is that shrek references too many movies ... well fucking wake up. Shrek references not only famous movies but also famous Fairy tales. Thats that the point of the whole franchise is. Its a fairy tale Ogre living in a fairy tale universe where all fairy tales converge... and yes, Modern film can have a place in the fairy tale universe of old. Now, heads out of arses puleez.
-
Oct 07, 2005 1:47:49 AM CDT
Dreamworks' CG animation "edginess" and "irreverency" in sto
by prof. pop-cult
And all these celebrity voices: William Shatner, Wanda Sykes and AVRIL LAVIGNE in the same movie?? Our country truly has gone to hell. Maybe I'm old and cranky now. Ah, what the fuck.
-
My problem with "Shrek" is not the fairy tale references -- I'm fine with that stuff (in fact it's the only reason the sequel was even halfway watchable). The reason "Shrek" will never stand the test of time is because of the pop-culture material which immediately dates it. The "Cops" parody, the awful "Matrix" gag, that stuff is going to hurt the film in the long run. Heck, forget the long run, that shit bothered me when I saw it in the theater. Admittedly, "Shrek" is a minor offender compared to the pile called "Shark Tale," but I think if "Shrek" had used less modern references (and bodily function business) it could have been considered on the level of a Pixar film. As it stands, the "Shrek" titles are merely entertaining.
-
As is the oscar it got. Smoke em while you got em folks, it's time for the cockroaches to inherit the earth.
-
Pixar the ruler of all CGI movies. Sure Monsters INC was probably their weakest, but sure as hell better than any over-rated Shrek. And whoever made Ice Age, blurgh!
-
And they always show too much in the trailers. And that "burp my ABCs" joke was nicked from the Futurama video game.
-
...can be my Dad. I want to lick milk out of his bright pink teets. He'll be the only reason why I'll see this thing. Some day.
-
Oct 07, 2005 9:25:08 AM CDT
"Is some bizarre animal doing a Vulcan hand-signal to a cave pai
by minderbinder
Made me laugh. But what do I know, I'm a fucking cretin. (pronounced with the short "i")
-
As someone mentioned, it looks like an updated version of POM POKO, about the racoons who take on humans in a war, minus the war. I guarantee I'm gonna be blazed up when I see this.
-
Oct 07, 2005 5:35:10 PM CDT
I'm as cynical as any over thirtysomething in this place, bu
by orionsangels
The characters looked appealing and I laughed, plus it looks gorgeous!
-
THAT'S HOW EXACTLY THEY GET AUDIENCES! look at the new tv ad for montigan on tuesday, you'll see.
-
Oct 10, 2005 12:42:00 PM CDT
What are you hanging around here for? Go see the Wallace and Gr
by stan the bat
Man, that is a wonderful movie.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 159 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 144 total posts 142 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 155 total posts 140 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 45 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 196 total posts 45 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 34 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 32 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 513 total posts 29 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 118 total posts 27 posts