Garfield Gets Real

Weird-- But I like the textures they've used on Garfield and Odie as seen on the cover art. Very smooth.

There isnt much art up there right now, so I can't really judge it past that.
 
Is this Garfield (the movie) 3 or something different?

The movies while only did okay in the states were a hit internationally so I know they were making a third movie with the same cast but with a CGI Odie this time. That website mentions it getting a limited theatrical release so who knows maybe it became that?

Looks pretty promising though.
 
Well, at least it's keeping the character designs from the comic strip. Already it's got the upper hand over the live-action movie.
 
A Tail of Two Kitties the most popular animated film ever in China?

Really?

But already, Garfield Gets Real has gotten my attention because Garfield looks like Garfield and Odie looks like Odie. Between this and the new series, I think I'm actually getting excited for the property.

Just don't let me see A Tail of Two Kitties or I might hit something.
 
Given their options, it doesn't surprise me. I think China banned animated movies because the government decreed that talking animals are evil or something.
 
Now this is what Garfield & Odie should look like!

BTW, I haven't seen either movies. Are they any good? I've heard as many positive reviews of them as I did negative, so I'm curious.
 
It looks like this one is Direct-To-Video. I mean, Disney kinda stopped the Direct-To-Video racket, but 20th Century Cat--er, Fox has decided to dominate it, as a way of trying to compete with Miramax releasing the Pok?mon movies!
 
I just hope Davis doesn't sell everyone out by having this movie follow on from the live-action movies, even if the designs ARE faithful to the originals.

EDIT: I just read the Wikipedia article, and it looks like this is just going to be a(nother) self-tribute that plays on itself! That's even worse than following on from the live-action movies! I can't believe it! We remain faithful to his work all these years and this is how he repays us?! It's the first original animated Garfield material since Garfield and Friends, and this is we get? FORGET IT!! I'm not even going to bother with this one!

Garfield is tired of doing a daily comic strip so he decides to go to the "real" world, but then learns his comic strip will be canceled unless he "returns" to his own "world". Give me a break! What's this supposed to mean? Is Davis considering retirement or something? How does he REALLY feel at the moment?

Does anyone know if he did this on his own accord, or if Fox "compelled" him to do it?

Oh and another thing, regarding the upcoming TV series. If it airs in primetime on the FOX network, that I think that will be the "ultimate betrayal" (for lack of a better desctiption) of this long-running FAMILY property.

BTW, I personally don't think I was giving away anything. It's just a basic premise of the movie. I don't think it "spoils" anything.

I'm sorry for the severity of my post, but I never thought the actual creator would do something like this. Does Davis even CARE anymore? Don't answer that, because...only he can.
 
If it's worse than Fat Albert, then it is! All you can do, now, is stuff your face with endless amounts of food until you either die OR end up happy with yourself, whichever comes first.
 
For the record, this isn't the first time Garfield has gone to the "real" world.

I mean....there is Garfield & Friends...
 
The first one was pure blah. I remember watching it in the hotel room on a California vacation, and I kept on wondering when it was going to be over.

I waited for the second one too hit HDTV, and despite an equally un-original plot, I found it TEN times better and more fun than the original. Plus it's got John Cleese in it, so you can't go wrong with that :). Seeing as how it's a castle, there's lots of talking animals, I kept on expecting them too do a Monty Python Grail joke somewhere :).



Uhm, dude, chill. While it's not a great plot idea, I think it could be interesting/fun if pulled off right. The original Garfield toon had ALLOT of Behind the scenes TV references, so why is this any different? Mark Evanier must have been watching the show that came on before(after?) Garfield, TMNT and wrote one of my favorite Garfield episodes 'Mistakes will Happen'. Although he left out a few other ones that are pretty common, for more obvious easy too spot mistakes for kids :)..
 
Now i'm pretty certain it has nothing to do with Garfield 3 which is good.


For some reason the live action movies really hit it with the international audience.

And between your points, buying the Garfiend and Friends DVDs and the comic that is actually entertaining again i'm also excited about the property.


They aren't as bad as people make them out to be however they are made specifically for their target audience. You'll be entertained but probably not something you'll watch again on your own. You have to take it for what it is, a kids movie.


maybe they thought the cgi garfield was a real cat ;)



Well we know nothing about this yet and the information coming from wikipedia isn't the most reliable. That plot while not too great doesn't seem that bad either, i'd definitely want to see more about this project before I make such negative opinions.

I think Jim Davis seems like a nice person that cares about his fans, he read my letter and replied it with a garfield drawing. Much more than I can say about a lot of people.
 
Garfield and Friends was different. In that show, he was always in "his world" with the humor being self-aware (i.e., it regularly, "broke the fourth wall"). In this movie, he's visiting "our world" (which in this case means our dimension) in which he is a fictional character in a comic strip, and because of that, Garfield has "suddenly disappeared" from the pages of his comic strip, and if he doesn't return to "his world", the comic strip will be cancelled in "our world".

You see, it's similar in concept to that so called "Rocky and Bullwinkle" movie they pushed on us years ago. ("Quick, let's go to a commercial!.....What is this, PBS?" "I could fly if I wanted to."). Also, yes the concept is also similar to that so called "Fat Albert" movie as well. For that reason, is Garfield going to meet his "creator" while in "our" world? Once again though, don't answer that.

As for his voice, Dave Coulier (replaced Music as the voice of...Peter Venkman) is the obvious choice, but then Thom Huge (voice of Jon) could do it too...unless they bring back Bill Murray. Anyway, who can fathom what will be done here?...

In any case, this is totally different from how Garfield and Friends did it. If Garfield was just in his own world, then it would be okay, but when you do a movie, where a fictional character somehow comes to "our world", that more or less means that it's just a (self) tribute that plays on itself.

(sigh) I'm just tired of all the stupid showing off going on. I want to watch MOVIES, not an hour and 45 minutes of showing off (besides, we are always taught in school that no one likes a show off). For that reason, I now think that Davis must have really sold out this time (IMO, his involvement in the first live-action movie was just lip service). I recently got the new "Isis" DVD set, and there was an episode where she talks about "having faith". Is that what I'm supposed to do? Mind you, this isn't the first time this has happened (besides R&B and Fat Albert, there have been others as well, and not just animated, but live-action prime time as well). As unrealiable as Wikipedia sometimes is, the information strives to be accurate.

I'll tell you what, it comes out in November, right? I'll wait for more information, but I have to tell you. November is 4 months away, so it is reasonable to assume that this is what it will be about.
 
Okay, that's your problem.

You read Wikipedia. Any wackadoo could edit Wikipedia. I should know, I've contributed an article or two.

But just as people could put accurate articles on the site, they could also put totally wrong articles on the site. If there has been scarce news about a project, you're more often to get inaccurate articles than correct ones. Take everything you read on Wikipedia with a grain of salt.

And if you doubt my claims about Wikipedia being a source for incorrect material, then google these three words:

"Go Go Gadgetinis"
 
Back
Top