Animated Shows Get....Live-Action Movies?

F

FunFungirl

New member
Over the past couple of years, and continuing today there have been a lot of movies made which have roots as cartoons... These movies, have partial CGI animation at best.

These movies are...

Dudely Do Right
George Of The Jungle
Garfield
Fat Albert
Transformers
Bratz
Underdog
Alvin And The Chimpmunks
And the upcoming Ben10 movies on Cartoon Network.

And propably sevral others I'm forgetting...

What's UP with this? I understand it's cheaper and faster to make live-action as opposed to fully animated. But I mean, why so many?

I'll admit, I wasn't very psyched about Transformers, and it was a LOT better than I expected.

But...Garfield, and Bratz were both disapointments to the people who watched them. And not many people are expecting good things from Underdog, or Alvin...

I would REALLY love to see Underdog fully animated, even if it meant modern animation, and a new voice actor for the main character. I wouldn't care. The nostagia would be there, and isn't that the point? For the old-school fans? The ONLY real reason I want to see it at ALL is because Jason Lee is in it. That's it.

I'm not interested in Alvin And The Chimpmunks.

Can anybody explain why there's so many live-action translations to animated shows? Don't the studios and directors know the core audience is the people who liked the original shows? So why not stick to the original formula?
 
Well, they're probably making those kind of movies because either they wanted to see if there's still a market for any of cartoons or just to make money since kids movie are are the cheapest movies to make for Hollywood. Also you forgot to mention Fat Albert, that was made into a live action film as well.
 
I'm sure lots of people have forgotten (or would like to forget) about that movie.

Anyway, I agree with the thread creator. Turning animated TV shows into live action movies is vastly overrated. If we really must have movies based on cartoon shows, they should be, like the shows that they're based on, animated. My opinion.
 
But however, there is an exception when it comes to reception of live action animated movies, Transformers is certainly one of the best movies of the summer, you can't go wrong with Michael Bay.
 
*nods* edited.

And I think you have a point with the money issue. I just wish they'd think about the older audience who saw the shows as kids. They'd get more money THAT way I'd think. If Underdog was animated, I'd see it, no question.

Everybody in my theater for Transformers was an adult. And they went NUTS when Optimus Prime said his first lines.
 
Premise aside, it depends on HOW they go about it. While I didn't enjoy the plot of Garfield, the CG-animated fat cat looked pretty cool to me.

There is going to be a level of cheezy factor for some of these movies and some concepts will be easier to translate into 'live action' than others.

Chipmunks-- while it looks like they took more of a realism route than the cartoon design of the characters, we'll have to see more than the short trailer.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
 
Q: Why so many live-action movies based on cartoon shows?

A: Because Hollywood has run out of original ideas a long time ago, and an easy way to bring an audience to a movie theater is with a known commodity, like a cartoon show we've all grown up watching, as opposed to a completely new idea that people may not be willing to take a gamble on.

Q: Why are so many of these movies live-action as opposed to animation?

A: Because it's easier and cheaper to shoot a live-action movie than it would be to sit down and fully animate one. Plus, live-action films give B and C-list actors a chance to earn a quick paycheck.

Q: Why so many?

A: Despite the low-quality, many of the pictures do make a substantial amount of money at the box office. And as we all know, whenever something in Hollywood turns out to be even partially successful, there are inevitably going to be a dozen imitations coming right behind it. Ripoff is the sincerest form of flattery, after all.
 
I actually kind of like it when they make live action movies based on cartoons. Its okay as long as they don't mess with the story (as in Alvin & the Chipmunks)
 
True. There are also references to Sailor Moon in Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds.

It's more in the genre of something like, say, Spiderman where there was a cartoon to draw influence from, but it wasn't the only source, and less like a straight-up cartoon adaptation like Underdog.
 
I've noticed that too, Speilberg's daughter is a Sailor Moon fan that and Speilberg likes Anime. Anyway, there is another live action animated film people probably never even heard of, does anyone recall a live action Fist of the North Star starring Dante "Prince Zuko" Basco?
 
Personally, Underdog gets it just as bad. The original being a superhero based show with some humanoid animals.

And while I understand making some changes to appeal to the mainstream audience, not everything has to be made into a sitcomish type movie to do so.
 
I am getting annoy this.

Here is why cartoon are being made into live action.

Alvin and Chipmucks, Bagdasarian Production has annouced in doing a live action/CGI adaption to the 60 Alvin Show in 2004.

Fat Albert, Bill Cosby did written the story, he might wanted to to do a live verison of his show.

Transformers, Steven Speilberg wanted to bring the Transformers to life.

Bratz, is also based a on toyline. It was created to follow the success of their toyline.


Garfield is based on a comic strip

You forgot to mention George of the Jungle and Dudley Do Right.

Some of them a fell, some become successful in the box office.

The Underdog Movie will help bring back interest in Underdog, the DVD is even out. Let not forget the Alvin and Chipmuck which might bring back the chipmucks craze.
 
Well thanks to the live action, Transformers became hot again howver Bratz not so much, the film was bound to be bad anyway while Transformers was bound to be great ever since Michael Bay came on board.
 
Speaking of which, I'd like to point out, according to one of the special features in the Beavis and Butt-head Do America DVD, that MTV apparently had an idea of making a live-action Beavis and Butt-head movie. Their idea was that it was going to star David Spade as Beavis and Chris Farley as Butt-head. Obviously, Mike Judge knew it was a terrible idea, so, as you know, it was scrapped and the movie stuck to it's animated roots. Think what a "thrill" a live-action version would have been. :/

Also, I'm curious, what ever happened to that live-action DBZ movie that was apparently supposed to be produced by Fox? Was it cancelled or did it never even exsist?
 
Back
Top