I said nothing when they made a Garfield movie. I said nothing when they made, not one, but two Alvin movies. I said nothing when they made a Yogi Bear movie. (Actually, I think I said something, but I can’t remember.)

    But a Smurfs 3D movie?


    I didn’t think movie studios were that out of ideas, but apparently the executives at Sony Pictures turned to each other and said “you know what we need? Another cruddy CGI 3D movie that will get kids to drag their parents to the theatre so they can spend tons of money on overpriced tickets.”

    It’s gotten to the point where every week, there is another movie coming out, with a big 3D tacked onto the end of it.

    And it’s gotten to the point where, someone, somewhere, for whatever reason, thought turning another old cartoon series into a modernized, urbanized, CGI movie was a decent idea. (But c’mon — we all know this is just for profit.)

    And no matter how many negative reviews you throw at these piles of cinema vomit, they keep coming out with them. And for whatever reason, the writers/producers/director/studio find it funny, and “hip” to urbanize the characters of these old cartoons, just to appeal to the next stupid tween generation. Be it with celebrity cameos from the latest hack, making the characters talk in ‘gangsta’ slang, or having them do a full out cover of a recent pop/urban song. (See Alvin)

    Or to make the humour really really really stupid (Yogi).

    And for whatever reason, people still pay money to see them.



    [also this is my 1700th post!]

  2. CGI + 3D =/= Good

    CGI can make anything; it can make cities, monsters, people, explosions, anything you can think of. The only thing it can’t do, is make a good movie (ditto with 3D). As noted in the posts’ title: CGI and 3D added together will not always equal a good movie. You could make an entire movie out of computer graphics, and snazzy effects, and eye-boggling third dimensions, but it will not make your movie any better. (If you rely solely on CGI or 3D, it definitely won’t save you.)

    The movie studios know this, but they don’t care. CGI, and movies in 3D are what’s popular at the moment, so they will pump out things like “Clash of the Titans” in sad attempts at cashing in on the fad - and they’ll do so for as long as the fad goes on (which, according to movie-fads, could be a while.) Many studios now are trying to convert movies shot in 2D (like Clash of the Titans) into 3D, which is just an obvious attempt to garner more profit from raised ticket prices.

    When talking about the how Paramount has toyed with the idea of converting the upcoming Transformers 3 movie into 3D, Michael Bay said “you can’t just shit a 3D film" (I doubt even 2D will be able to save Transformers 3.) Even James Cameron, the guy who created the 3D movie to end all 3D movies (Avatar) said in an interview that the rush 2D to 3D conversions create an inferior product.

    ”..you’ve got people quickly converting movies from 2D to 3D, which is not what we did. They’re expecting the same result, when in fact they will probably work against the adoption of 3D because they’ll be putting out an inferior product.”

    Animated movies like “Toy Story” and “Ice Age” were popular for a number of years, until the movie studios saturated the market with sub par computer-animated-for-the-sake-of-being-computer-animated movies, at which point the movie-going public collectively tossed up their hands saying “Enough! We’re sick of them!” The same will surely happen for 3D movies as well.

    The entertainment business latches on to whatever is popular, and rides the popularity until the product or method is overused and despised. They couldn’t even care less that they’re green lighting obviously horrid movies because they know if it’s in 3D, people will go see it anyway, regardless of the fact that it’s a waste of money. Stupid spoof movies like “Scary Movie” were popular long after their golden years (of which there were none) because the studios kept green lighting those awful scripts from cinema parasites Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. Why did they keep green lighting the scripts you ask? Because they knew people would go to see them anyway, and they knew they were going to make lots and lots and lots of profit! Because of this, we got barraged with cinema cancers like “Meet the Spartans,” “Date Movie,” “Epic Movie,” and the creatively titled “Disaster Movie.” (It’s creative for the fact that it’s a pun about the movie’s quality.)

    I have an idea. And it might seem like a scary idea at first, but humour me. How about, we all go to movies whichare good? Heh? How about that? How about, instead of going to movies like Clash of the Titans, 2012, Transformers, Bounty Hunter, Scary Movie, and the excruciatingly long list of others, we go to see movies that may - I don’t know - actually be worth our time and money? That way, the studios will only green light movies that are actually good, making those bad movies an every-once-in-a-while thing. (In other words, lets make the movie landscape more like a sea of water with a bit of turd in it, as opposed to a sea of turds with a bit of water in it.)

    Wait, I just discovered a flaw in my plan. Knowing us, we’ll probably get sick of good movies too. You know what, never mind. It’s hopeless.