No, no, no, no, no, no, no...

[rrfan3267]

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=52143 (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=52143)

Warner Bros. is planning to bring "Tom and Jerry" to life as CG characters that run around in live-action settings, says Variety.

The studio-based Dan Lin, currently producing the upcoming Sherlock Holmes (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=45650) and executive producer on Terminator Salvation (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=45650), will adapt the classic Hanna-Barbera property as an origin story that reveals how Tom and Jerry first meet and form their rivalry before getting lost in Chicago and reluctantly working together during an arduous journey home.

Eric Gravning is penning the script.

Warners owns the rights to Hanna-Barbera's slate of popular animated properties and has several of them in development for bigscreen adaptation. Those include Robert Rodriguez's version of The Jetsons and producer Donald De Line's Yogi Bear.

"Tom and Jerry" originated as a series of 114 animated shorts, produced by MGM's toon studio between 1940 and 1960, and won seven Academy Awards. New toons were produced after that, and Warner Bros. released Tom and Jerry: The Movie in 1992 as a feature-length toon.

[wiley207]

In the words of Moe Syzlak...

"Oh, DEAR GOD no!"

This has become a REALLY bad trend, and is just about worse than CGI talking animal movies (too many of those lately as well, like "Surf's Up," "Ratatouille," "Kung Fu Panda," "Madagascar 2," etc.)

And wasn't there supposed to be a live-action Marvin the Martian movie in the works too? THAT I definitely don't wanna see in the theaters.

The only big-screen adaptation of a cartoon I liked was "The Flintstones" film from 1994, and I even liked some of the 2002 "Scooby-Doo" movie. The Flintstones movie also had an awesome cover version of their opening theme by the B-52s! Now why couldn't the Scooby-Doo movie have done something like THAT?

Listen, Hollywood. You have GOT to stop with this "classic cartoons going live-action on the big screen" treatment!

[Bugsy-Kun]

Oh god! I'm now tired of the CGI stuffs and their ways to adpat classic characters in a computer film. Did Hollywood can't understand that's don't work?

[cpdavison]

The comments in the thread you posted are priceless!

Craig D.

[Marty26]

Well, we all know why they do it: Even though Toy Story came out more than thirteen years ago, CG movies are still almost failproof money makers (with Doogle being, I believe, the only one to bomb at the box office). So now just about every studio is trying to milk them for all they're worth. And I can just imagine: Bruce Willis will be the voice of Tom and David Schwimmer will be the voice of Jerry (after all, finding big-name voice talent to play characters their voices don't really fit is currently the CG Movie way!).

Anyway, hopefully this concept will get enough of a backlash that the film is eventually cancelled. Come to think of it, wasn't there already a proposed CG-adaption of a classic series that was eventually canned due to constant backlash from consumers?

[rrfan3267]

The comments in the thread you posted are priceless!

Craig D.

Yes they are. Here are a few of my favorites:


"There is no God."


"Sweet! It'll be interesting to see how their running gags will look in real life. Wonder if Robin will be in this one as well?"


""...as an origin story that reveals how Tom and Jerry first meet and form their rivalry before getting lost in Chicago and reluctantly working together..."

They were a cartoon cat and mouse that lived in a house and bashed each other with frying pans. What the hell are they talking about?? An origin story??

This is ridiculous!! Is there nothing they won't pillage from the past to pander to pre-existing audience markets??"


"People who are hatin on this movie need to stop. IDK why stupid people like you guys alwayz judge a movie before it even comez and hitz da screen. I dont care wut yall say, i luv both garfield and alvin and chipmunks and scooby doo. They were all very good movies to me. I love when they make cartoons come to life, itz so exciting to see them come to life like that. If you guyz dont like it, letz see you come up with something better. The Jetsons and Yogi Bear movies are probably gonna be fantastic. Before you start judging, at least let the trailer come out or the teaser jeez. I personally think im gonna love every minute of it. :D"


"I hope this is a complete reimagining of the Tom and Jerry universe - darker, grittier. Christian Bale as the voice of Tom and someone unexpected but perfect - Ray Liotta - as Jerry. Cutting edge special effects action with Bruckheimer at the helm.

Seriously, it couldn't suck worse than that."


"Please stop raping my childhood Hollywood!"


"It worked for "Rocky & Bullwinkle," so why not? Oh, wait a minute..."

[AndrewGilmore]

As if poor Tom hadn't been neutered enough already by now.

[Brandon Panther]

Will Richard Kind be voicing Tom?

[J. B. Warner]

Just one more movie for me to ignore, I guess.

[Marty26]

By the way, I honestly don't remember the name of the proposed CG-movie adaption of a classic cartoon that was eventually canned due to constant backlash. Could somebody help me out here? :confused:

[Ray Pointer]

It's obvious that there is a great deal of poverty in the creative thinking department at Warner Brothers. I continue to stress that the most APPARENT property well suited for a live action interpretation is JONNY QUEST. It has all of the elements of the SUPERMAN and BATMAN properties with the type of science fiction adventure that would employ the top Art Directors designers, and Special Effects teams. In these times of economic challenge, not only would this put people to work, but given the right combination of talent, could be a very profitable film. But to revisit TOM AND JERRY in CG? It sounds like Warner Brothers needs to follow our nation's example and make big changes in it's administration.

[David Gerstein]

No kidding, Ray—they've been bushed by their own devices for a long time.

[J Lee]

"Warner Brothers doesn't have an original bone in its body!"

--- Daffy Duck, from "The Bugs Bunny 51 1/2 Birthday Special".

Kudos to Greg Ford for figuring this out and getting it on to film 18 years ago. Though I suppose Warners could have decided to go with the other current trend, which would have been a Tom & Jerry feature done in Flash animation while using pseudo-Mary Blair designs for all the other incidental characters.

[Matt the Y]

My, how time does fly! Is it April 1st of this year already?! Last time I checked my calendar, it was still January!

Oh, wait, you mean this is REAL?! :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(

[samtheq]

And while we are on the subject of CGI stinkers, let's not forget the all-time worst opening ever...DELGO!

[That 70s Mom]

Wasn't it the Kung Fu Mr. Magoo movie that disappeared?

I'll be the lone dissenter - I think they could make this work, as long as they stay faithful to the original series, meaning NO dialogue for Tom or Jerry (and put a lid on the sex and poopy jokes, though that may be asking too much. At least keep a PG rating at worst). After all, they were constantly put in realistic human-world settings like the house, bowling alley, golf course, pool hall etc. Might be fun to see them in an updated setting like a shopping mall or theme park.

[nickramer]

Let's hope WB gets flooded by angry emails and letters for these projects and hope that they get pernamently shelved. I also hope that the bonehead who approved these ideas steps down.

[Glowworm]

*sigh* That concept didn't work when they came out with that ridiculous Tom and Jerry movie in 1992-and that was ANIMATED! The same with all those direct to video Tom and Jerry movies(Shiver Me Whiskers, Tom and Jerry and the Magic Ring,etc...) Tom and Jerry Tales doesn't really work either. I think it's because these reproductions lack the charm(and violence-don't forget all the wonderful violence) that the originals had.

So yeah-no Tom and Jerry in 3D please.

[J Lee]

Really, the only place CGI should be used involving Golden Age characters would be if you were trying to do a recreation of the feel of the 1930s Popeye or Betty Boop cartoons, and used GCI for the 3-D backgrounds in place of Max Fleischer's tabletop sets. But the characters were designed with 2-D in mind, and if you're going to do any type of story that's true to what made them popular in the first place, 2-D is the only way to animate the characters.

[WoodpeckerWoody]

It's obvious that there is a great deal of poverty in the creative thinking department at Warner Brothers. I continue to stress that the most APPARENT property well suited for a live action interpretation is JONNY QUEST. It has all of the elements of the SUPERMAN and BATMAN properties with the type of science fiction adventure that would employ the top Art Directors designers, and Special Effects teams. In these times of economic challenge, not only would this put people to work, but given the right combination of talent, could be a very profitable film. But to revisit TOM AND JERRY in CG? It sounds like Warner Brothers needs to follow our nation's example and make big changes in it's administration.

I'm not American but that is spot on. Live-action/CG Tom and Jerry film will be total failure and 92 film was no good.

[WoodpeckerWoody]

Let's hope WB gets flooded by angry emails and letters for these projects and hope that they get pernamently shelved. I also hope that the bonehead who approved these ideas steps down.

I wonder if it is the same bonehead as is running the "family" division.

[Bradskey]

It's obvious that there is a great deal of poverty in the creative thinking department at Warner Brothers. I continue to stress that the most APPARENT property well suited for a live action interpretation is JONNY QUEST. It has all of the elements of the SUPERMAN and BATMAN properties with the type of science fiction adventure that would employ the top Art Directors designers, and Special Effects teams.

A good idea I think. But I would actually want them to DO Johnny Quest, true to the original and complete, non-PC warts and all, even base it in the 60s with cool retro jet-age technology "of the future". But no, they would not be content with that, it would have to "based" on Johnny Quest, sort of like the "Real" Adventures, and no doubt feature plenty of obnoxious CG special effects, including a CG Bandit for comic relief (I have no doubt about that one). They will never fail to disappoint.

As for T&J, its bad enough they already raped Garfield and the Chipmunks (okay I don't really care about the Chipmunks), now this? Nothing is sacred.

[Bradskey]

Really, the only place CGI should be used involving Golden Age characters would be if you were trying to do a recreation of the feel of the 1930s Popeye or Betty Boop cartoons, and used GCI for the 3-D backgrounds in place of Max Fleischer's tabletop sets. But the characters were designed with 2-D in mind, and if you're going to do any type of story that's true to what made them popular in the first place, 2-D is the only way to animate the characters.

I like that idea. I don't trust them to execute it correctly, EVER, but I like the idea. Brilliant.

[cpdavison]

CGI backgrounds in a traditional animated movie? It'll never work!

What's that? BEAUTY & THE BEAST ball room scene? Um...

How about a VAN BEUREN Tom & Jerry CGI feature? Or a "Tom & Jerry Meets Tom & Jerry" team up?

Or how about if I just clam up now?

Craig D.

[The "Chase"]

http://www.cafardnaum.info/bah/facepalm.JPG

All I'm saying...

[cartoonfan4ever]

By the way, I honestly don't remember the name of the proposed CG-movie adaption of a classic cartoon that was eventually canned due to constant backlash. Could somebody help me out here? :confused:

Was that the Marvin Martian movie? I haven't heard anything about so I don't know if it's still in production or not.

As for the Tom & Jerry movie. I'm truly afraid to see the trailer. :eek:

[A. Flea]

Grab your torches and pichforks boys, it's time for an old fashioned angry mob!
http://www.bobpitch.com/anon/ginger_angry_mob_01.gif

[zavkram]

It's obvious that there is a great deal of poverty in the creative thinking department at Warner Brothers...It sounds like Warner Brothers needs to follow our nation's example and make big changes in it's administration.

I heartily agree! I, too, have a problem with Hollywood's current trend of producing feature-film adaptations out of old cartoon shorts, TV shows and remakes of classic films that, as someone else already pointed out, can never really be improved upon...

A case in point, I had heard a few years ago that someone was seriously considering doing a remake of "Casablanca". I haven't heard about it since then, perhaps public backlash caused it to be shelved indefinitely.

[Brandon Panther]

http://www.cafardnaum.info/bah/facepalm.JPG

All I'm saying...
Well, now that you've posted that, I'll post my own disapproving pic, which has surfaced on this board a few times...

http://www.natalieportman.com/albums/public_2006_unscripted-session-weaving/hq023.sized.jpg

Now matthew just needs to post his "beating a dead horse" gif, and we'll have all three.

[Dirty Skunk]

I love Tom and Jerry, but I can't see this working. The very nature of Tom and Jerry's dialogue-free antics really only suit the less-than-10-minute format. Any longer and you can't really sustain it.
I can understand why they're making a CGI film, and their motivation - I just don't think it will be a popular or critical success. But hey, prove me wrong. Prove me wrong.

[nickramer]

I bet they'll get Crack Stuntman to voice Jerry, since he did a "good job" on the Strong Badman movie and is no longer working on the "Cheat Commandos".:p

That's all a joke there by the way.

[Thad]

A case in point, I had heard a few years ago that someone was seriously considering doing a remake of "Casablanca". I haven't heard about it since then, perhaps public backlash caused it to be shelved indefinitely.

Yep, and it was going to star Madonna... no joke.

[Brandon Panther]

I wouldn't mind seeing a remake if "Citizen Cane". I'm probably one of few people that doesn't care much for that movie, despite it being considered the greatest movie ever.

[The "Chase"]

I bet they'll get Crack Stuntman to voice Jerry, since he did a "good job" on the Strong Badman movie and is no longer working on the "Cheat Commandos".:p

That's all a joke there by the way.

But he will like Tom lines better, so he'll eventually become Tom's voice!

You know, if that actually happend, I actually pay cold hard cash for it! At least for the camp value of it...

[Matthew Hunter]

Let's see, how many Warner Bros. animated/ comic book properties have become big, expensive movies?

Scooby Doo? Check.
Looney Tunes? Check.
The Flintstones? Check.
Batman? Lotsa checks.
Superman? uh-huh.


Tom and Jerry?


wait for it....


http://www.bittermancircle.com/my%20images/BeatDeadHorse.gif

[Leviathan]

Shoehorning Tom and Jerry into what is essentially the Jimmy Hart version of The Rescuers is about the lowest bar that could ever be set for a T&J movie. Any like-action movie Warner does can only be, at worst, second-worst.

[Glowworm]

Shoehorning Tom and Jerry into what is essentially the Jimmy Hart version of The Rescuers is about the lowest bar that could ever be set for a T&J movie. Any like-action movie Warner does can only be, at worst, second-worst.

Yeah-come to think of it -the Tom and Jerry movie was an awful lot like the Rescuers-likable little girl at the mercy of a hideous *****y red headed woman who uses the girl in order to gain access to possible riches in a criminal way. Not to mention the said woman is accompanied by a male lacky.

THe only good thing in that movie at all was a very short and unexpected cameo in which a bunch of animals-mainly dogs and cats are released from their cages-among them is Droopy who says "Hello,all you happy people."

[Ray Pointer]

Really, the only place CGI should be used involving Golden Age characters would be if you were trying to do a recreation of the feel of the 1930s Popeye or Betty Boop cartoons, and used GCI for the 3-D backgrounds in place of Max Fleischer's tabletop sets. But the characters were designed with 2-D in mind, and if you're going to do any type of story that's true to what made them popular in the first place, 2-D is the only way to animate the characters.

I'm glad to see that you realize this also. It's not to say that it couldn't be done, but let's not let the cat out of the bag. Too many good ideas have the potential of leaking out of here.

[ohmahaaha]

It's obvious that whoever is driving this decision wants to extend the economic downturn to the movie-going industry ...

I wonder if the eventual DVD will be edited for politically incorrect content.

(I know, sorry ... had to go there.)

[Ray Pointer]

Let's see, how many Warner Bros. animated/ comic book properties have become big, expensive movies?

Scooby Doo? Check.
Looney Tunes? Check.
The Flintstones? Check.
Batman? Lotsa checks.
Superman? uh-huh.

Tom and Jerry?
wait for it....


But BATMAN AND SUPERMAN work, and have worked in live action since the serials of the 1940s because the are realistic fantasy.

[Ray Pointer]

I like that idea. I don't trust them to execute it correctly, EVER, but I like the idea. Brilliant.

I was saying this very thing about 10 years ago.

[Ray Pointer]

Let's hope WB gets flooded by angry emails and letters for these projects and hope that they get pernamently shelved. I also hope that the bonehead who approved these ideas steps down.

Why "hope"? Start a letter writting campaign. But in order for it to be a success, state your concerns objectively and diplomatically if you want to be taken seriously. There was a certain party who had a personal vision to see the POPEYE cartoons in an official release who was mounting a personal crusade for years that nearly caused the entire matter to not happen at all. He became such a nusance that the head of King Features actually told him to "back off." So a word of advise: Be sure that when you go into battle that you do not enjoy the fight too much that you end up falling on your own sword.

[Matthew Hunter]

But BATMAN AND SUPERMAN work, and have worked in live action since the serials of the 1940s because the are realistic fantasy.


I wasn't saying whether they worked or not, I was just listing adaptations of Warner-owned cartoon properties.

[Bradskey]

I wasn't saying whether they worked or not, I was just listing adaptations of Warner-owned cartoon properties.

Yeah, but those are really comic book properties. Making any cartoons out of them was an adaptation in the first place. Well now that I think of it that was true for Popeye also, but comics and cartoons are closely-related and the cartoons were pretty faithful.

Anyway I think the Marvel and DC's Batman properties have been pretty successful as live-action features, and I actually think many of them are good. So I think Ray's onto something with this realistic fantasy stuff. There are even "sorta" realistic fantasy properties that could potentially be successful, even with the dreaded CG/live action mix, like Space Ghost. Then again, Scooby Doo fits into that group and I think everything they've done with him for the past decade has been dreadful.

But CG Tom & Jerry, Looney Toons, etc, that's almost criminal. They're 2D characters, the dimensionality is already built into the character design. It doesn't generally work to pop the character out of the cell as an inflated Gouraud-shaded version of himself, you just end up with Reiser's butt-face Popeye. The alternative is to ignore the character design a la Garfield except probably even more disturbingly realistic. No thank you.

[larriva9/11]

will adapt the classic Hanna-Barbera property as an origin story that reveals how Tom and Jerry first meet and form their rivalry before getting lost in Chicago and reluctantly working together during an arduous journey home.

Chicago, huh? Now, I hope they don't hit the bottom of the barrel and drag Oprah into the storyline, if you get my drift:twoshoes:

[Bradskey]

Chicago, huh? Now, I hope they don't hit the bottom of the barrel and drag Oprah into the storyline, if you get my drift:twoshoes:

If she's busy they'll get Whoopi

[Matthew Hunter]

Yeah, but those are really comic book properties. Making any cartoons out of them was an adaptation in the first place. Well now that I think of it that was true for Popeye also, but comics and cartoons are closely-related and the cartoons were pretty faithful.

Anyway I think the Marvel and DC's Batman properties have been pretty successful as live-action features, and I actually think many of them are good. So I think Ray's onto something with this realistic fantasy stuff. There are even "sorta" realistic fantasy properties that could potentially be successful, even with the dreaded CG/live action mix, like Space Ghost. Then again, Scooby Doo fits into that group and I think everything they've done with him for the past decade has been dreadful.

But CG Tom & Jerry, Looney Toons, etc, that's almost criminal. They're 2D characters, the dimensionality is already built into the character design. It doesn't generally work to pop the character out of the cell as an inflated Gouraud-shaded version of himself, you just end up with Reiser's butt-face Popeye. The alternative is to ignore the character design a la Garfield except probably even more disturbingly realistic. No thank you.

Agreed. Batman works in almost any medium because he is a human character who has no super-powers other than brains, agility and high-tech gadgets. That sort of thing can translate well into radio, comics, movies, whatever...and there have been plenty of great adaptations ("Batman the Animated Series", "The Dark Knight") and bad ones (Filmation/H-B crap, anybody?) Superman, too, is pretty basic.

I don't think CG is a bad medium to use for any character, provided you have a good story, good design, keep his or her basic, fundamental traits intact. What makes so many of these CGI/live-action mix things suck is a failing in one or all of those factors. Bad story ("Rocky and Bullwinkle"), bad design ("Scooby Doo", Garfield") and bad understanding of character ("Underdog", "Inspector Gadget") are the big three.

The only one I've ever seen really NAIL the idea and do it right was "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"...perhaps because it had a good story, kept the designs of both old and original characters believably integrated, and hung the story on its own characters, so that pre-existing characters played pivotal parts, but did not have to be rethought to do so. And it wasn't even CGI...it had computer assistance, but the animation was all hand-drawn, as I recall.

[JPox]

Tom & Jerry as CG characters? Nope, wouldn't work.
I can't see a film version featuring "live action" characters where their main purpose was chasing and comedy slapstick working at all.
We already know how the film is going to be: Talking Tom, Talking Jerry, Becoming friends. Just think of the live action "Garfield" and add a mouse.

There's way to many films being produced featuring CG characters these days. It just seems to suck the imagination from audience's minds now. We're becoming desensitized from the "whimsy" and "fun" that animation/live action films used to bring to viewers. It's a shame these films are becoming "main stream" now. Hopefully we'll see something new in the future. 3D seems to be coming back...

[larriva9/11]

Well, better that than a CGI Heckle & Jeckle...

[Ray Pointer]

Agreed. Batman works in almost any medium because he is a human character who has no super-powers other than brains, agility and high-tech gadgets. That sort of thing can translate well into radio, comics, movies, whatever...and there have been plenty of great adaptations ("Batman the Animated Series", "The Dark Knight") and bad ones (Filmation/H-B crap, anybody?) Superman, too, is pretty basic...The only one I've ever seen really NAIL the idea and do it right was "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"...perhaps because it had a good story, kept the designs of both old and original characters believably integrated, and hung the story on its own characters, so that pre-existing characters played pivotal parts, but did not have to be rethought to do so. And it wasn't even CGI...it had computer assistance, but the animation was all hand-drawn, as I recall.

I understand your listing of adapted properties, Mathhew, what I was pointing out was those that were the most successful and logical properties suited for live action due to the fact that they were based on exagerated realism. There are more representational of reality with a fantasy element. They are not grounded in two-dimensional graphic design that is more stylization than illustrative as superhero comics are.
Cartoon animals that parody life, take on human characteristics and speech do not exist in the real world. This is something that is the basis of what we here seem to understand, but perhaps becomes confused in the minds of those who see adapting cartoony animals to CG to make them more "real." They are not "real." The fact is that they exist in their own dimension, which is the flat, drawn medium. Taking them beyond that and portraying them in any other manner is to remove them from their true element, making them something that they are not. These are the reasons why such executions have not been as successful, and the past efforts should prove this. But I suppose that "the powers that be" continue to be ignorant of their own history since they have not learned from their mistakes.

Dave Fleischer's grandson, Larry Weinberg is a busy CG Animator who has worked on many projects such as the CG versions of SCOOBY DOO and GARFIELD. He mentioned to me his desire to do OUT OF THE INKWELL in CG. I mentioned to him that it would not work for a character like KOKO THE CLOWN since his is essentially liquid, and his very existance depends upon being a two dimensional drawn figure that makes the transition into a three dimensional reality. He is also a creation of imagination and the human hand crossing over into a world that is a mixture of nature and human creation. This is a far more interesting contrast and combination. This was not to say that some aspects of reality could not be executed in CG, but then what would be the point when that already exists and can be photographed? Larry seemed to realize my point.

In like kind, the reason why ROGER RABBIT worked is because the very premise is based on the true representation of the cartoons as ink and paint creations. If they had been executed in CG, gags such as "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way," or the threat of being submerged into the "dip" would not have had any connection or comedic and dramatic impact. These were among the many elements that made the film great because there was a total understanding of how the make proper use of the medium to serve the story without the use of gimmick technology for its own sake.

[Marty26]

Tom & Jerry as CG characters? Nope, wouldn't work.
I can't see a film version featuring "live action" characters where their main purpose was chasing and comedy slapstick working at all.
We already know how the film is going to be: Talking Tom, Talking Jerry, Becoming friends. Just think of the live action "Garfield" and add a mouse.

There's way to many films being produced featuring CG characters these days. It just seems to suck the imagination from audience's minds now. We're becoming desensitized from the "whimsy" and "fun" that animation/live action films used to bring to viewers. It's a shame these films are becoming "main stream" now. Hopefully we'll see something new in the future. 3D seems to be coming back...

Exactly. Producers have become so weary of mediocre movie revenues (thanks to the bombing of films like Treasure Planet and Return To Neverland relative to films like Shrek and Ice Age) that they now won't even consider doing another hand-drawn 2D animated movie. To them, 2D animation is "passe." A relic of the past. I'm sure that, if Disney manages to produce something really great with The Princess And The Frog, they'll be able to prove that 2D animated movies can easily perform just as well as CG movies. Hell, I hope TPATF performs better than any CG movie this year so that producers will know that you don't necessarily need "cutting edge 3D technology" to make a good film. Particularly with the recent box-office failures of films like Delgo and the heavily-promoted Igor.

Here's the general formula for a CG film:

-Main character is a talking animal.
-Cast of characters is inappropriately voiced by whatever random celebrity can sell the main character by his/her name.
-Cute childlike supporting character.
-Broadway-style background music.
-Some kind of plot relating to oppression.
-Smart-alecky personality for main character(s).

[CueBallCat79]

Here's the general formula for a CG film:

-Main character is a talking animal.
-Cast of characters is inappropriately voiced by whatever random celebrity can sell the main character by his/her name.
-Cute childlike supporting character.
-Broadway-style background music.
-Some kind of plot relating to oppression.
-Smart-alecky personality for main character(s).

And they always end with a pop song.

[Ray Pointer]

Again, the industry needs to take its lead from our new administration and "clean house." There is no imagination or original thinking and a severe suffering from corporate inbreeding.

[dandu]

How about a CGI with Van Beuren's Tom and Jerry :D
We can update the story so that it begins in 1967 in San Francisco. Tom and Jerry meet in a hippy camp and trade LSD for mushrooms. The rest of the movie focuses on their drug induced hallucination!

[speedy fast]

Okay, I haven't read much of this thread, but I wonder if Tom and Jerry talk throughout this movie. I hope that it's not jsut titled "Tom and Jerry", or "Tom and Jerry: The Movie" (I don't think "The Tom and Jerry Movie" is taken yet). And why must these live-action adaptions basically be prequels, sowing the origin stories? Does it really matter how Tom and Jerry met? They should just be seen as enemies from the start, maybe begin with a chase sequence (besides, an introduction will contradict Tom and Jerry Kids...)

[JPox]

Well, better that than a CGI Heckle & Jeckle...
Don't give 'em any ideas! BTW, wonder what happened to the CG Mighty Mouse film?

[A. Flea]

When Heath Ledger died, the deal kinda feel through. As they would have no-one to voice mighty mouse.

[Bradskey]

The rest of the movie focuses on their drug induced hallucination!

Sounds true to their cartoons.

[Brandon Panther]

When Heath Ledger died, the deal kinda feel through. As they would have no-one to voice mighty mouse.
What, Jason Lee was unavailable?

[larriva9/11]

If she's busy they'll get Whoopi

Yeah, just generally, that'd be interesting--essentially Buppifying the Mammy Two Shoes character until there's absolutely nothing offensive about her other than the de facto original source...

[Jack G.]

How about a CGI with Van Beuren's Tom and Jerry :D
We can update the story so that it begins in 1967 in San Francisco. Tom and Jerry meet in a hippy camp and trade LSD for mushrooms. The rest of the movie focuses on their drug induced hallucination!A VB Tom & Jerry head film?

At least it's an original idea. And the characters aren't so classic that it would hurt them.

Let me know when it comes out! :)

[dandu]

I'll get to that when I finish redrawing and colorizing the Tom and Jerry cartoons

[Bradskey]

It's obvious that there is a great deal of poverty in the creative thinking department at Warner Brothers. I continue to stress that the most APPARENT property well suited for a live action interpretation is JONNY QUEST. It has all of the elements of the SUPERMAN and BATMAN properties with the type of science fiction adventure that would employ the top Art Directors designers, and Special Effects teams. In these times of economic challenge, not only would this put people to work, but given the right combination of talent, could be a very profitable film.

A good idea I think. But I would actually want them to DO Johnny Quest, true to the original and complete, non-PC warts and all, even base it in the 60s with cool retro jet-age technology "of the future". But no, they would not be content with that, it would have to "based" on Johnny Quest, sort of like the "Real" Adventures, and no doubt feature plenty of obnoxious CG special effects, including a CG Bandit for comic relief (I have no doubt about that one). They will never fail to disappoint.


http://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/jonny-quest-the-real-adventures.html

I had no idea, my nightmare scenario for this property almost happened! Apparently it will be given some other random title/characters so they won't be defecating on JQ again, thanks apparently to Speed Racer, because of course by some bold decree of Zeus this script is just SO good. Zac Efron????? Why? Oh nevermind, I don't have to ask, they want to market it to tween girls -- yeah, that's the market Johnny Quest was aiming for all along, silly me. :eek:

[nickramer]

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/jonny-quest-the-real-adventures.html

I had no idea, my nightmare scenario for this property almost happened! Apparently it will be given some other random title/characters so they won't be defecating on JQ again, thanks apparently to Speed Racer, because of course by some bold decree of Zeus this script is just SO good. Zac Efron????? Why? Oh nevermind, I don't have to ask, they want to market it to tween girls -- yeah, that's the market Johnny Quest was aiming for all along, silly me. :eek:
Calm down, doc. Just be glad it's now going to be a live-action rip-off instead of a actual live-action version.

[Fibber Fox]

Zac Efron????? Why? Oh nevermind, I don't have to ask, they want to market it to tween girls -- yeah, that's the market Johnny Quest was aiming for all along, silly me.

Sounds like typical corporate thinking, Brad. Get the broadest possible audience for the huge post-production cash outlay. Indiana Jones-type action stuff for the guys. Metrosexual boy for the girls.

There's no way the original Jonny Quest would be attempted. The suits would first decide a story can't revolve around a pre-teen boy. Too young. So they'd age him. And add a girl backstory to widen the plot possibilities (and so an all-male cast doesn't trigger gay-joke sniggers from critics). In other words, what you'd have wouldn't be Jonny Quest any more.

Too bad. I liked the original show and watched it every week. It was well-written (parts of it scared my sister) and Hoyt Curtin put together a good score. To me, it was the among the last of the watchable Hanna-Barbera shows.

F. Fox
http://yowpyowp.blogspot.com

[The Silver Fox]

as long as they don't goof around with the series bible of the original then
the series in CGI or CGI / Live format works.

Bad crossovers bombs that come to mind, rockey bulwinkle movie,
Looney Toons Back in actions ( though I yet to see) but some elements
didn't follow what Clampett/Jones/mckimson/freeling set in the originals

medium okay CG or adapted movies but some elements were missed

Jetsons movie (1988)- over 80's the 60's series that had elements on the
1960's verison ignored or forgoten.

Tom and Jerry toon movie- ideas forgoten, and script not well written.

Duddly Do right - script did not make sense and was not very true to
the original.

::

other movies i read that are in the works now
Gummi Bears - I read on a web site this script in the works may be out in 2015 or 2020 unknown if going to be a CG or movie adapt of the 1985 series, it was not mentioned.

Tom Slick - was supose to be released orginally in 2006, but when Bulwinkle flopped at the box office, it was shelfed but it to may be coming.

Roger Ramjet- another rumered movie adapt of the series.

also rumered is movie verions (ddvd ) Top Cat, and a woody woodpecker
movie.

I do not mid a movie adapt of any tv series, so long as they keep true to
the original, and try there best to keep the original series bibles of the
series, its when that is changed that when the movie for me not as good.

Like Hulk, i grew up on the 78 CBS series with Bill Bixby, and the Movie version was not as belieable as the series, as now we here more on DNA
and Bio tecnology.

[Studio Toledo]

Again, the industry needs to take its lead from our new administration and "clean house." There is no imagination or original thinking and a severe suffering from corporate inbreeding.
This is how I feel on a daily basis!

[Ray Pointer]

Apparently the lesson was not learned in 1992 when we finished TOM AND JERRY: THE MOVIE. Why must the public be put through this again? Honestly, the film companies need to serious clean house and get rid of these people who have no original ideas or actual creativity. They are wasting the company's money and taking fantastic salaries while being so seriously untalented and unimaginative. There are so many people out there with great ideas and actual talent, but are shut out due to the barriers put up by the corporate bureaucracies that shield shams such as the types operating within the studios. Such is the result of corporate 'in breeding"-idiots.

[Studio Toledo]

Apparently the lesson was not learned in 1992 when we finished TOM AND JERRY: THE MOVIE. Why must the public be put through this again?
I dunno.

Honestly, the film companies need to serious clean house and get rid of these people who have no original ideas or actual creativity. They are wasting the company's money and taking fantastic salaries while being so seriously untalented and unimaginative. There are so many people out there with great ideas and actual talent, but are shut out due to the barriers put up by the corporate bureaucracies that shield shams such as the types operating within the studios. Such is the result of corporate 'in breeding"-idiots.
It's almost as if they don't want to go with anything 'original' when they know a good thing is to keep on staying on the path they've already set.

[Ray Pointer]

I dunno.
It's almost as if they don't want to go with anything 'original' when they know a good thing is to keep on staying on the path they've already set.

These days, people are really selective about how they spend their money. They are not as wiling to waste $8 or $10 a head on a bad movie.
And if it is bad, the word gets around. When such bad productions show poor boxoffice returns, the "powers that be" blame it on the medium, saying "animated features don't make money," or in the case of 2D animation, "There no audience for Traditional Animation, it's all 3D now."
But there have been some bad CG features too. It's not the medium, it's the content-STUPID! And the assumption that the public is just as stupid is a gross underestimation. The track record of these latter day revivals has been consistent--DISMAL! The thinking behind retreading these old properties is to exploit them due to their reputation based on the talents who made them decades ago. The trouble is, those talents are no longer around, and passing them onto a new generation that had nothing to do with the evolution of these charicters has consistently resulted in disaster.

What the "suits" do not see is that there is more to it than displaying a visual representation of the characters. It is the content of the story and an understanding of the characters on the part of those handling them that makes the whole thing work. The one time in recent years that this was successful was in WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT? And that is already history since we are now 21 years past that.

With regards to another incarnation of TOM AND JERRY, or a "raising from the grave," the question is why? Hasn't enough damage been done? Even when I worked on the 1992 feature, Joe Barbera was a consultant. But the script was not good, and Joe was going through the motions to fulfill a contractual obligation. He was not that involved other than to get angry about bad drawings done by an Assistant Animator that I was given to rework.

[Studio Toledo]

These days, people are really selective about how they spend their money. They are not as wiling to waste $8 or $10 a head on a bad movie.
sad really, nothing like my mom would would take me to a movie nearly every week of her life (usually we went to the reduced-price theater near us that had $1 admissions in the 80's).

And if it is bad, the word gets around. When such bad productions show poor boxoffice returns, the "powers that be" blame it on the medium, saying "animated features don't make money," or in the case of 2D animation, "There no audience for Traditional Animation, it's all 3D now."
Really.

But there have been some bad CG features too. It's not the medium, it's the content-STUPID!
What I've often notice time and time again. Nobody gives animation it's due.

And the assumption that the public is just as stupid is a gross underestimation. The track record of these latter day revivals has been consistent--DISMAL! The thinking behind retreading these old properties is to exploit them due to their reputation based on the talents who made them decades ago. The trouble is, those talents are no longer around, and passing them onto a new generation that had nothing to do with the evolution of these charicters has consistently resulted in disaster.
That's how I feel too.

What the "suits" do not see is that there is more to it than displaying a visual representation of the characters. It is the content of the story and an understanding of the characters on the part of those handling them that makes the whole thing work. The one time in recent years that this was successful was in WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT? And that is already history since we are now 21 years past that.
True, but I often like to look back on that film with pride personally (won't be anoter one like it I bet).

With regards to another incarnation of TOM AND JERRY, or a "raising from the grave," the question is why? Hasn't enough damage been done? Even when I worked on the 1992 feature, Joe Barbera was a consultant. But the script was not good, and Joe was going through the motions to fulfill a contractual obligation. He was not that involved other than to get angry about bad drawings done by an Assistant Animator that I was given to rework.
Sad really. They do like to play "Beat the Dead Horse" from time to time with these properties.