PDA

View Full Version : Garfield teaser trailer


Edge
12-12-2003, 11:45 AM
Here it is:

Click (http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/garfield/)

SuperMax
12-12-2003, 12:45 PM
Wow

I never knew Garfield had so much energy. His got more energy than superman in this trailer.

Where Jon? and The Really Happy Odie?? hmmmm sausage dog as oddie?

I guess theyre not staying true to the comic all that much. Looks okay I guess.

DCHAD
12-12-2003, 01:36 PM
:beer: :thumbsup: Tha sounds like Bill Murray voicing Garfield!

HotBox
12-12-2003, 02:50 PM
why why why oh why did people not learn from scooby doo, dont do cartoon characters with that photoreal look it just doesnt work

mattregnier
12-12-2003, 04:27 PM
Add that to my Cats vs. dog list, the good ol circular file recepticle please...*ahem

When is hollywood going to learn 2d does NOT translate to 3D!

SheepFactory
12-12-2003, 04:31 PM
whats not working?!

I had quite a laugh with the trailer , i think garfield is animated beautifully!

personally cant wait to see this movie.

PhilOsirus
12-12-2003, 05:40 PM
Well they couldn't make a movie about Garfield if it was to be as bad as the cartoon show with a pace as slow as that of the comic books. It's just too bad Oddie isn't 3D as well. Guess it's a money thing. Garfield looked great anyway:)

AnimBot
12-12-2003, 05:48 PM
That is not Garfield this movie looks scary.

RobertoOrtiz
12-12-2003, 05:51 PM
Bill Murray!
:thumbsup:
It is very Ironic that the got him since
the late Lorenzo Music used to do Garfield's voice on the TV show.
And he was a dead ringer for Bill ( so much so, that he did his voice in the Ghostbusters TV show)

-R

MaTaDoR
12-12-2003, 05:51 PM
Ouch... my hopes gone down the drain.. oh well..

not looking like garfield at all, not acting like him and why oh why use a REAL DOG?

lildragon
12-12-2003, 06:45 PM
I thought it looked great, kinda bummed about not having the CG odie in there with his slobbering tongue and spastic behaviour, but it looks fun and very family oriented ala Stuart.

As for not staying totally true to the comic, it's a nice decision imo, after years and years of the same lazy garfield it'd be quite boring to watch that in this day and age... again, putting a lil spark in him is a welcome change, and it's not even change persay, cause Garfield's is a troublemaker, and now he has a lil pep in his step.

I especially love the balance of realism and cartoon in Garfield, they captured him well enough to pass off both... again ala Stuart Little. Nice fur and lighting too, Rhythm & Hues did an excellent job, kudos and hats off to them.

It's very easy to slag off on something, but posting something contructive does take thought...

-lild

MaTaDoR
12-12-2003, 07:05 PM
hey there, was that last post for me?

I might of posted on the focused critique section? oh no wait.. no I didnt.

chadtheartist
12-12-2003, 07:16 PM
I don't like Garfield's design either. I'm not saying the 3D model is bad, it's just not Garfield. The key to me for making a movie with Garfield would be to stay true to his character, and this obviously doesn't. Call it artistic direction, or whatever, but this doesn't look like Garfield in any way, shape or form. If the preview didn't have the word Garfield all over it, I bet many people would be hard pressed to recognize that this actually is a Garfield movie.

Just my opinion of course.

lildragon
12-12-2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by MaTaDoR
hey there, was that last post for me?


Gotta love sarcasm, and to answer your question, Nope, it's a thread about Garfield not Matador, and reading your post it doesn't surprise me you won't have anything good to say, I mean since you don't even find cartoons funny and all.

-lild

axxxj
12-12-2003, 07:51 PM
hmmm is it just me or is thier no garfield their it takes me straight to the apple movie trailers page....

mattregnier
12-12-2003, 07:56 PM
To elaborate on my earlier post, I just feel that there was no need to attempt Garfield in 3D. Don't get me wrong, the model/lighting/textures look great. He appears to mesh well with the environment. It's just the classic 2D garfield cartoons are what we've come to know and love. It's just difficult to deal with the fact he's in 3d space walking around interacting with humans and a real environment. I feel the same way about scooby doo, I mean it worked as a cartoon in 2d, so why not just make a polished 2D feature length cartoon. It seems that the execs said "Hey 3D is so hot right now, it can't be anything but". It just scream that trend of, "If it's not cg or it's not live action, then it sucks". Maybe I'm just not one for change and mainstream hype.

AWAKE
12-12-2003, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by mattregnier
....It seems that the execs said "Hey 3D is so hot right now, it can't be anything but". It just scream that trend of, "If it's not cg or it's not live action, then it sucks". Maybe I'm just not one for change and mainstream hype.


Cg IS so hot right now. But not this CG.

The character does not for one second look like the comic. The only reason anyone knows it's supposed to be garfield is because of the web address and title sequence. I cant bring myself to like it.

It will most likely make money, depending on the release date, and they'll do another sequel, like scooby.

I'll bet it turns a profit. crap.

Slurry
12-12-2003, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by axxxj
hmmm is it just me or is thier no garfield their it takes me straight to the apple movie trailers page....

I'm getting the same thing...no Garfield to be found...

~S

SGT.Squeaks
12-12-2003, 08:34 PM
during halloween I went to universal studios and the dogs that play odie (two dogs play odie, they look identical because they were bred for the movie.) were there. I got to play fetch with them and roll around like a little kid. It was a blast, and the dogs were really cool. HA!

Even though I love the real odie dogs to death, they should have used a cg odie. If they use a cg garfeild why not? its better to go one way or another, not both. Plus they dyed odies hair for this movie. When I met the dogs the dye was just starting to go away, so they looked all goofy. Why go through the trouble of breeding special dogs and dying them when they could just use cg dogs that would match garfield?

well, I will probably see this movie because I was once a huge garfield fan, hopefully I can go with an open mind.

Unled
12-12-2003, 08:57 PM
I see no Garfield either. I even did a search and it came up empty. What's going on? :shrug:

chadtheartist
12-12-2003, 09:11 PM
That's weird. It was there earlier today, and now it's gone. Maybe it wasn't supposed to be released yet?

Ronski
12-12-2003, 09:51 PM
weird eh, I watched it at work but now it doesn't work at home. I guess someone released it to early or something? As to the trailer it looks fine to me, nothing special but then I never really got into the original strip, the dog should have made it for sure though, it was the play between them that was funny.

One comic strip I'd really want to see as a film is Calvin & Hobbes :thumbsup: Wonder if that's in development hell somewhere?

Cheers,
Kieron

D3-2go
12-12-2003, 10:46 PM
i don't have any access to this teaser as well. darn it. i loved Garfield so much i have a Garfield on top of my monitor at work. i wish i get to see it soon. this is the first i heard that Garfield is having a movie.

NUKE-CG
12-13-2003, 01:47 AM
I just accessed the site, and downloaded the trailer fine.. :shrug:

He looks different than I thought, the eyes I believe.

I cracked up when I saw him hit the glass, and slide down, obvisously a joke aimed at the well known Garfield car-window toy which used suction cups, family car used to have one haha.

rotaryman
12-13-2003, 01:56 AM
I have to agree with a lotof you for the most part, aside from sharing the same hur color as the comic, the CG garfield does not look anything like the comic. But I think that was intensional, if they were to try and make garfield look like the comic one, I don't think that it would work, the suspension of disbelief would fall through the cracks. plus their are a lot of cheats to achieve the 2D look that even if you were going to trying to stay as close to the 2D version as much as possible, you'd still have problems and Garfield would look more like a picasso painting than a cat. So I think that the comprimise was unfortunately necessary to pull the cg character off.
As far as the Odie being a real dog, thats kinda a shame, cause it play Odie off as a lesser character than Garfield, when in the comic they were equal in every grounds, a duo like Abbot and Costello, Penn and Teller, the smothers brothers and lets not forget Jay and Silent Bob. So my opinion is its sketchy, I don't see how a real dog will be able to match the synergy that the cg Garfield. However considering the art direction they took for Garfield, I do cringe at what Odie might have looked like if he was cg.
Now on to the CG, Not to start a pissing contest but I'm a little disturbed by the animation and lighting in this movie. Don't get me wrong, its excellent and all, but there are parts where it falls apart, and I am putting my guess on two things, the rig and the fur. Now the fur is a double edged sword, it does mute some of the blemishes caused by the rig but at the same token mutes out a lot of secondary and facial animation. When ever I though what Garfield looked like, i always envisioned him with a coat like Otis from the friskies advertisements, not long like he has. As far as the rig, I am still trying to put my finger on it, but some of the animation does look a little stiff, I think I have to watch the treaser quite a few more times before I can give an explicit critique.
With all that being said, I'll still go see it, it looks like it will be a lot of fun! :D

RockinAkin
12-13-2003, 06:20 AM
The CG does look good, but this movie does NOT.
That is NOT the garfield i know.

And wtf is up with that dog - please tell me thats not supposed to be Odie!?
With all the promise that CG brings - why, oh why wouldn't Odie be animated as well?

Two good reviews of the trailer from Rottentomatoes:

"After seeing that trailer, I'd rather be butt****ed with a 10 inch thorn and poison ivy covered dildo than sit thru this movie. My God, what have they done?"

*loads two shotguns and protects Calvin & Hobbes with his life*

Brettzies
12-13-2003, 10:58 AM
Garfield looks ok in some of the shots. Some look really wierd though.

But yeah, ODIE, too bad he isn't CG too. I was hoping for some character in him. I suppose, they didn't want to spring the cash to do TWO cg characters...but Odie doesn't talk, so it would have been really cool. Of course, isn't there a cat-girlfriend for Garfield and a cute little kitten as well. Ah well, I guess we'll see how it is when it comes out. Personally, I was never really that excited about the idea, and the teaser doesn't really improve that. Kids I think will like though.

PhilOsirus
12-13-2003, 06:26 PM
I think we should wait before we jump on it. Yes Odie will not be 3D, that's too bad. But I think as a trailer it is normal that they would show us one with Garfield full of energy, not one where he just sits there and wants to sleep.

projectcoil
12-13-2003, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by DivideByZero

"After seeing that trailer, I'd rather be butt****ed with a 10 inch thorn and poison ivy covered dildo than sit thru this movie. My God, what have they done?"


<Butt****s the guy with a 10 inch thorn and poison ivy covered dildo.>

chadtheartist
12-13-2003, 06:54 PM
OT: I wish sites would post disclaimers that their site may contain objectionable material. That quote from rottentomatoes is vulgar and highly indescent. I couldn't imagine my kids coming across a site like this and reading a review of a movie that should appeal to them (IE Garfield), and then read that quote. Sad.

elfufu
12-13-2003, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by chadtheartist
OT: I wish sites would post disclaimers that their site may contain objectionable material. That quote from rottentomatoes is vulgar and highly indescent. I couldn't imagine my kids coming across a site like this and reading a review of a movie that should appeal to them (IE Garfield), and then read that quote. Sad.

like the kids would care about a disclaimer.

chadtheartist
12-13-2003, 08:22 PM
Well, morals and ethics are something I like to teach everyone, and that is something my kids will look to uphold. A disclaimer would work fine.

elfufu
12-13-2003, 08:42 PM
not to take this off course but my parents are christian and raised us very well. that dont mean i didnt watch cinemax after hours when they werent watching....

not to say you are a bad parent (im sure youre great) but disclaimers and ratings for kids are this

XXX= you gotta watch this
R= this is definately cool maybe some nudity and alot of F words
pg 13= if theres nothing else..... ok i'll watch it
pg= boring
G= zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

look at GTA3 and look at Eminem the biggest $ makers are not happy things. Dont get me wrong i totally agree with you but unfortunately that is the way kids minds work.

at least kids 10 years and older. im sure pre 10 likes preety things. its 1-2 grade elementary school where it all go to hell my man.

anyways like i said im sure youre a great parent, and i would probably be the same as you. just a thought.

PhilOsirus
12-13-2003, 11:14 PM
But at least the kid can be reprimended and hence won't stumble on such articles the next time if he (the kid) does not wish to. Do kids HAVE to be disobediant now?

rotaryman
12-14-2003, 01:03 AM
heheh disclaimers! the holy grail of "a$$ covering." Honestly thats what it boils down to. Should any legal tension arise, discaimers basically "sorry we warned you, its not our responsiblity."

so I agree with what you say elfufu, hell that was me, 13 years old I was watching R movies, thats just because there wasn't much that catered to my tastes at my age range, except ninja turtles.

But as far as kids have to be disobediant as you say Phil, it just a part of growing up, the whole rebelious mentality that almost every child goes through. As a child we look up to a lot of people in our lifes, parents, teachers, older siblings especially, so we want to be like them in every way. But in our young state of being we quickly make the connection between restriction and age and how that limits us to be like the people we look up to. So children will rebel to try and prove to them self and others that they can obtain the level of maturity to do the things that they are ruled out from doing. At least thats my take on the whole salami.

PhilOsirus
12-14-2003, 02:14 AM
Yeah but that doesn't mean we should open the flood gates and tell them to have fun swimming. Maybe they won't always listen, but it's better than just letting them on their own.

We ask parents to be responsible, but when they are we say they are simply fooling themselves into thinking their kids will listen? What kind of backward thinking is that?:rolleyes:

elfufu
12-14-2003, 02:46 AM
well for example.. when i visited switzerland a few years back i was in shock when i saw nudity in all advertisement and strip clubs would have all nude images of their entertainers in front of the club on a main street where all the children walking by could easily see. however not one kid ever looked and stared . its the cookie jar mentaity the fact that we make it so taboo to hear and see certain things is what makes us want to see it so much.

Put those same images in America in front of a club and the kids would be going nuts (no pun intended)

PhilOsirus
12-14-2003, 03:14 AM
I understand that but it does not compare to the word ass****ing being present in a review of a Garfield movie trailer. It is extremely unprofessional, and unprofessionalism can be criticized.

zappenduster
12-14-2003, 03:37 AM
Originally posted by rotaryman
I have to agree with a lotof you for the most part, aside from sharing the same hur color as the comic, the CG garfield does not look anything like the comic. But I think that was intensional, if they were to try and make garfield look like the comic one, I don't think that it would work, the suspension of disbelief would fall through the cracks. plus their are a lot of cheats to achieve the 2D look that even if you were going to trying to stay as close to the 2D version as much as possible, you'd still have problems and Garfield would look more like a picasso painting than a cat. So I think that the comprimise was unfortunately necessary to pull the cg character off.

hmm i wouldnt say the toones in spacejam did look picasso like or anyone did think that about roger rabit both are fun to watch they dont really kill the amusement by using 2d characters and live footage

i think something like that would also have worked on garfield btw. isnt there another toones movie from warner in the cinemas now ?

rotaryman
12-14-2003, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by zappenduster
hmm i wouldnt say the toones in spacejam did look picasso like or anyone did think that about roger rabit both are fun to watch they dont really kill the amusement by using 2d characters and live footage

i think something like that would also have worked on garfield btw. isnt there another toones movie from warner in the cinemas now ?

No no no! I mean't a 3D CG character trying to resemble the 2D original. See they can get a way with the perspective cheats in roger rabbit and space jam because the characters are still traditonally drawn. But to try and make the 3D version of a character match the 2D Is damn near impossible. Take Mickey Mouse for example, possibly the most well known cartoon character in the world, perfect example of anotomy and perspective cheats, look at a portrait of mickey and his nose is below his lower eyeline, look at him in profile and his nose is drawn above eyeline. So certain comprimises have to be taken into effect to transpose a character from 2D to 3D. Mickey probably isn't the best character because his look has evolved over time, and we have excepted 3D versions of him whether it be a plush toy or a man in a suit. But other characters like Garfield are different. There are certain things like his smile that is probably damn near impossible to obtain in 3D and if so, whould be a nightmare to rig, I mean most of the time the corners of his mouth rest on the same plane as his pupils, right in the middle of his eye, now to see a 3D version of that would probably give kids nightmares. But on that same note I think they could of added a bit more of the original character to the model, with out sacrificing too much.
I am just curious who made the decision that he should look like that and what was the premiss of the deciding factor.

Joss
12-14-2003, 06:15 PM
This whole Garfield movie would have sold me better if the entire movie was cg. I'm a sucker for nice cg environments and such.

And yes, I have all the Pixar DVDs. :scream:

RockinAkin
12-15-2003, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by Joss
This whole Garfield movie would have sold me better if the entire movie was cg. I'm a sucker for nice cg environments and such.
I agree - it seems like it would fit in better if it was entirely CG, instead of forcing it to work in the live action setting.

Rabid pitbull
12-15-2003, 05:34 AM
odie should be cg, and Garfield... well he should be Garfield. Slow lazy and eating, certainly not dancing. They didn't even do a good job translating the character to 3d. Someone else said it best. If it didn't say Garfield all over the trailer you wouldn't have ever guessed it.


:sad:

BoydLake
12-15-2003, 08:52 PM
I think Garfield does look a bit weird, but it's much better than I was expecting. I am disappointed Odie is not cg though. But hey, look on the up-side.... Jennifer Love-Hewitt. nuff said!

Neil
12-16-2003, 01:24 AM
Doh, took me long enough to find this thread ;)

Garfield was in that trailer? I only remember seeing JLH with a sweet sweet bob haircut. :bowdown:

Kidding aside. The 3D ascpect of it is awesome, and impresses any CG luver. We've already established that with countless reviews on here, that CG works for us, but doesn't sell soley to the public. (Hulk, nuff said).

Garfield IS lazy. By character and design (note the ill proportions = fat) How is he flipping and flying all over the damned place?! Ok, so as Lil said, they added spunk to his step. Well, i didn't want spunk. That's like making David Spade a nice guy (don't want it, he's a smart ass, and that's what makes him funny) or telling Chris Farley to slow down and relax (again... why do the opposite of what makes him funny?)

Could you make a movie about a cat that lays around all day and is still funny? Well the comic strip did it for years and worked for me. I think it would be a challenge for the writers. Can it be done, yes! Did they want to put that much effort into it, apparently not. I wouldn't be surprised if they resort to the 'sliding down a railing and legs splitting to crush his balls' joke.

Yes, i'm basing all this on a few scenes and seconds of film, but in those few seconds he did things that i would never comprehend to be done in the entire 1-1/2 or 2 hours. So i think my comments are justified.

BoydLake
12-16-2003, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by Neil
I only remember seeing JLH with a sweet sweet bob haircut.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

CGTalk Moderation
01-16-2006, 10:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.