# Furry CGI movie in the pipeline



## JoeStrike (Jun 2, 2010)

cartoonbrew.com led me to this anthro movie website:

http://normalthemovie.net/

Not the greatest animation in the world, but it might be interesting since it's from some little studio & not another Pixar/Dreamworks extravaganza.


----------



## paxil rose (Jun 2, 2010)

Looks like crap, dawg.

Enjoy convincing yourself to like an obviously subpar childrens movie because you think it's going to be a victory for furrydom.


----------



## 8-bit (Jun 2, 2010)

Lol, no. It looks like garbage.


----------



## BluDitto (Jun 2, 2010)

It's like Pixar if everyone was talentless.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jun 2, 2010)

Coming from a little studio is not a guarantee of quality.
For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRWo3sYsWmw


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jun 2, 2010)

So I guess I'm the only one who thinks this looks less terrible than all the other CGI movies Hollywood has shat out lately? Although I will say the graphics aren't very good.

I guess I care enough to take a look when it gets released, but I still wish we could go back to the old days of 2D animation,


----------



## JoeStrike (Jun 2, 2010)

paxil rose said:


> Looks like crap, dawg.
> 
> Enjoy convincing yourself to like an obviously subpar childrens movie because you think it's going to be a victory for furrydom.



Why are you being so _mean_ to me, what did I ever do to hurt you?! :cry:

Hey, I made no claims whatsoever for its quality, animation- or story-wise. However two of my favorite animated films in recent years are "Hoodwinked" and "Igor" - both of which feature less-than-Pixar-quality animation, but really funny scripts and characters. (In fact, _everyone_ should rent "Hoodwinked" just for its "Critters Have Feelings" and "I'm a Tree Critter" songs.)


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jun 2, 2010)

I keep asking myself what makes Pixar the gods of animation right now anyway. I don't think their movies are any better than all those other CGI movies that's been coming out lately.


----------



## Machine (Jun 2, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> I keep asking myself what makes Pixar the gods of animation right now anyway. I don't think their movies are any better than all those other CGI movies that's been coming out lately.


I would have to agree. Nothing looks really worth seeing in theatres lately.


----------



## Aden (Jun 2, 2010)

The homepage with the character groups in poses looked pretty good, but it all fell apart with the motion in the trailer.

Character animation is hard.


----------



## paxil rose (Jun 2, 2010)

JoeStrike said:


> Why are you being so _mean_ to me, what did I ever do to hurt you?! :cry:




Why you gotta be so mean to me
Why you gotta drag me down just to make me see
You know I don't listen good and I'm always in need
So why you gotta be so mean to me


----------



## Aeturnus (Jun 2, 2010)

I'm going to wait until I see more trailers before judging it.


----------



## Jelly (Jun 2, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> I keep asking myself what makes Pixar the gods of animation right now anyway. I don't think their movies are any better than all those other CGI movies that's been coming out lately.



Because you don't know anything about animation.
i guess that's what it really comes down to


----------



## Hateful Bitch (Jun 2, 2010)

The most depressing part is that there is probably already porn of it on FA :/


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jun 3, 2010)

Jelly said:


> Because you don't know anything about animation.
> i guess that's what it really comes down to


I know enough to say that pretty much all animated movies that came out before the 21st century had a lot more heart, emotion, character and even some originality. Nowdays they're all just generic family comedies because animators are too chickenshit to have any serious moments when characters die or any other scene with something resembling emotional depth.

Seriously, if The Lion King was made today in CGI it'd be Simba being voiced by Will Smith and going all "I'LL TELL YOU HOW I BECAME THE FRESH PRINCE OF AFRICA". Ugh.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 3, 2010)

Fuck you, Kellie, Wall E had shitloads of emotional depth. I love that robot.


----------



## Thallis (Jun 3, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Fuck you, Kellie, Wall E had shitloads of emotional depth. I love that robot.



Up was also a work of art.


----------



## Rahne (Jun 3, 2010)

Looks quite nice.  I'd love to check it out. It may not be of the best quality, but this looks like it's being made by an independent studio. Everyone stop for a second and comprehend the two words "independent studio". That means a lot of things; There probably isn't going to be a lot of funding, it probably won't have tons of marketing, it's probably going to be on a relatively small budget. This isn't Hollywood. Seriously, it probably isn't going to be the BEST thing ever, but give the guys some damn credit for actually putting out something like this, with what LOOKS like a pretty small budget. Seriously, cut the studio some slack, people. It still looks GOOD by the standards of an independent studio. 



paxil rose said:


> Looks like crap, dawg.
> 
> Enjoy convincing yourself to like an obviously subpar childrens movie because you think it's going to be a victory for furrydom.



Obviously subpar, eh? Sooo, you're going to throw full, absolute judgement out here for the full product of something you haven't even _fucking seen_... based on a small preview. Wow... way to sell yourself short, dude. You can't accurately pass judgement on something you haven't fully seen. That's just stupid.



Kellie Gator said:


> I keep asking myself what makes Pixar the gods of animation right now anyway. I don't think their movies are any better than all those other CGI movies that's been coming out lately.





Jelly said:


> Because you don't know anything about animation.
> i guess that's what it really comes down to



That's a matter of heavily subjective opinion, Jelly. Just because she feels that way doesn't mean she knows nothing about animation. I happen to agree with her. Personally, the very last animated CGI movie I saw that I even considered GOOD was Bolt.


----------



## SwingandaMiss (Jun 3, 2010)

Furry fandom? Going public? Not likely... It's at least a year or two down the road.

Not the best CG I've ever seen, but if it's an indie then it's definitely higher up.


----------



## Aden (Jun 3, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> I keep asking myself what makes Pixar the gods of animation right now anyway. I don't think their movies are any better than all those other CGI movies that's been coming out lately.





Kellie Gator said:


> I know enough to say that pretty much all animated movies that came out before the 21st century had a lot more heart, emotion, character and even some originality. Nowdays they're all just generic family comedies because animators are too chickenshit to have any serious moments when characters die or any other scene with something resembling emotional depth.





Rahne said:


> Just because she feels that way doesn't mean she knows nothing about animation. I happen to agree with her. Personally, the very last animated CGI movie I saw that I even considered GOOD was Bolt.



Wall-E
Up

Your arguments are invalid.


----------



## Eske (Jun 3, 2010)

Out of curiosity, are there any other recent examples of good, depthful CGI films aside from Up and Wall-E?

I think a lot of family movies (ahem, Disney) have become dumbed down and lack serious depth, lately.  But Pixar is the one company which sticks out in my mind when it comes to animated films which actually _do_ have a lot of meaning and heart.  Movies like The Wild, Madagascar, and Open Season are the ones that make me cringe.


----------



## Aden (Jun 3, 2010)

electropanda said:


> Out of curiosity, are there any other recent examples of good, depthful CGI films aside from Up and Wall-E?
> 
> I think a lot of family movies (ahem, Disney) have become dumbed down and lack serious depth, lately.  But Pixar is the one company which sticks out in my mind when it comes to animated films which actually _do_ have a lot of meaning and heart.  Movies like The Wild, Madagascar, and Open Season are the ones that make me cringe.



Up and Wall-E really did raise the bar for emotional depth in a CG film, but there are many recent CG films that were very well-done. How to Train Your Dragon was actually a good example of this, IMO. More "casual" good CG films in my opinion include Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Kung-Fu Panda, the original Shrek (good for its time, at least), and Surf's Up (give it a chance). These films have fairly standard plots, but the characters are well-written and actually have depth in a non-graphical sense. I would include "9" in the list if the film plot was as good as the backstory. Oh well.

Can't really go wrong with Pixar. While they have their average, light films such as Cars, The Incredibles, A Bug's Life, etc., there are obviously stand-outs. Ratatouille was great, I thought, as was Finding Nemo. 

\I might be the only Pixar fan who doesn't enjoy the Toy Story films much.


----------



## Wreth (Jun 3, 2010)

electropanda said:


> Out of curiosity, are there any other recent examples of good, depthful CGI films aside from Up and Wall-E?
> 
> I think a lot of family movies (ahem, Disney) have become dumbed down and lack serious depth, lately.  But Pixar is the one company which sticks out in my mind when it comes to animated films which actually _do_ have a lot of meaning and heart.  Movies like The Wild, Madagascar, and Open Season are the ones that make me cringe.



Eh I life diffeent movies for different reasons. I love madagascar because it's hilarious. But I  like it in a different way to Wall-E


----------



## ChocoboKing (Jun 3, 2010)

Doesn't look all that bad imo. 

CG movis these days tend to be fairly good overall. I have yet to see up but i hear good things


----------



## ryan-the-otter (Jun 3, 2010)

BluDitto said:


> It's like Pixar if everyone was talentless.



talent or not, Pixar still writes atrociously cliche and commercial cartoons.  They can all go to hell.


----------



## Rahne (Jun 3, 2010)

Aden said:


> Wall-E
> Up
> 
> Your arguments are invalid.



Nah, doesn't make the arguments invalid. I said Bolt was the last movie I personally considered to be good. It's a matter of subjective opinion; Nothing stated in this entire thread is actually a "fact", it's all opinion.

And my mistake. I forgot about How To Train Your Dragon. That was a great movie.


----------



## JoeStrike (Jun 3, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> I know enough to say that pretty much all animated movies that came out before the 21st century had a lot more heart, emotion, character and even some originality. Nowdays they're all just generic family comedies because animators are too chickenshit to have any serious moments when characters die or any other scene with something resembling emotional depth.



I don't think there's _any _shortage of heart in 'How to Train Your Dragon' or 'Kung Fu Panda.' (It always amazes me how DreamWorks can go back & forth between films like those to lame, lazy efforts like Monsters vs Aliens or Shrek part 2,067.)

Chickening out on death scenes is so common in so many of these films, it's become known as the 'Disney Death:'

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisneyDeath

Okay, here's a SPOILER on the subject:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

in 'Princess and the Frog' Ray the firefly, one of the main supporting characters actually really does die for real. However, he _is_ resurrected as a star in the sky to be alongside 'Evangeline,' a star he believes is another firefly... so I guess he's really not dead either, after all; forget I said anything.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 3, 2010)

Thallis said:


> Up was also a work of art.


I still have not seen that. I need to.


JoeStrike said:


> stuff, including spoilers


For future reference, we do have spoiler tags on this forum. Just use {spoiler} and {/spoiler}, except with brackets like normal codes.


----------



## Jelly (Jun 3, 2010)

Rahne said:


> Just because she feels that way doesn't mean she knows nothing about animation. I happen to agree with her. Personally, the very last animated CGI movie I saw that I even considered GOOD was Bolt.



It isn't about what you like, it's about the quality of the animation following principles, not avoiding challenging emotional scenes with subtlety, and using groundbreaking technique. I'm not even talking about why Pixar films are typically "better" than their peers' from other animation studios.

also, lasseter had a heavy hand in bolt's production
not that that means it was pixar, but dude runs a tight ship



Kellie Gator said:


> I know enough to say that pretty much all animated movies that came out before the 21st century had a lot more heart, emotion, character and even some originality. Nowdays they're all just generic family comedies because animators are too chickenshit to have any serious moments when characters die or any other scene with something resembling emotional depth.



Definitely standing by initial opinion.
no offense or anything

There were some great films back then.
There were also some totally wretched films back then.

I can't say that most Pixar films are made for anyone other than human beings, honestly.


----------



## BasementRaptor42 (Jun 3, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> I know enough to say that pretty much all animated movies that came out before the 21st century had a lot more heart, emotion, character and even some originality. Nowdays they're all just generic family comedies because animators are too chickenshit to have any serious moments when characters die or any other scene with something resembling emotional depth.
> 
> Seriously, if The Lion King was made today in CGI it'd be Simba being voiced by Will Smith and going all "I'LL TELL YOU HOW I BECAME THE FRESH PRINCE OF AFRICA". Ugh.



Watch Up and Wall-E, then come back and reconsider that post.


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Jun 3, 2010)

JoeStrike said:


> I don't think there's _any _shortage of heart in 'How to Train Your Dragon' or 'Kung Fu Panda.' (It always amazes me how DreamWorks can go back & forth between films like those to lame, lazy efforts like Monsters vs Aliens or Shrek part 2,067.)


 
Maybe they make those lame movies to hold ppl of till they can get the better ones out?
Never saw monsters vs. Aliens or the new shrek movie yet.

I did really enjoy the How to Train your Dragon tho.  Maybe cause I love dragons? :3


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jun 3, 2010)

BasementRaptor42 said:


> Watch Up and Wall-E, then come back and reconsider that post.


I watched them both in theaters, Up is good but I'm still don't get it. What makes Pixar the best people in the industry, what makes these movies such masterpieces? I don't notice any major difference between these animation studios at all, but I suppose Dreamworks focuses more on cringe-worthy comedy.


----------



## Aden (Jun 3, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> I watched them both in theaters, Up is good but I'm still don't get it. What makes Pixar the best people in the industry, what makes these movies such masterpieces?



This question is really hard to answer concisely. But honestly, the best way to find out is to attempt to do anything these guys can do. Seriously. Just try spending a day trying to animate, say, an old man sitting down in a chair, and give it as much realism and character as Pixar animators.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jun 4, 2010)

Aden said:


> Pixar are the best because I SAID SO.


lol


----------



## Aden (Jun 4, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> lol



Uh, sure thing bro. But seriously, have you ever tried doing anything they do?

A lot of it doesn't even register in your head, that's how good they are. You tend to not notice very realistic animation, instead noticing a lot more readily when you see bad animation. So if the animation is all very well-done and realistic, your brain starts to take it for granted.

Related: Pixar uses zero motion capture on principle. All that sweet, sweet animation? Done by hand.

\Although I do have a bit more weight behind my opinion on these things seeing as _it's my college major_

Edit: to clarify that last statement, not saying my opinion holds more value, I'm saying that I have more experience in that field so my opinion has been developed a lot.


----------



## Fuzzy Alien (Jun 4, 2010)

Kellie doesn't like technology in movies, pay no attention to her.


----------



## Stratelier (Jun 4, 2010)

Any information about this upcoming flick that doesn't come from their own website?  I close tabs from Flash based homepages, almost on principle.



Aden said:


> This question is really hard to answer concisely. But honestly, the best way to find out is to attempt to do anything these guys can do. Seriously. Just try spending a day trying to animate, say, an old man sitting down in a chair, and give it as much realism and character as Pixar animators.



Be _very_ cautious about playing the "try it for yourself" card in a discussion....



			
				Aden said:
			
		

> You tend to not notice very realistic animation, instead noticing a lot more readily when you see bad animation. So if the animation is all very well-done and realistic, *your brain starts to take it for granted.*



Agreed, the majority is always taken for granted and it makes the minority stand out so much more.

For Pixar, not only do they keep a tight rein around their production values but also around the scriptwriting which is another reason for their success:  The animation's good but so too is the story and audiences will probably remember that longer.



> Related: Pixar uses zero motion capture on principle. All that sweet, sweet animation? Done by hand.



General mo-cap only captures the actors' movements and body posture; it misses out on the subtleties at best, and at worst dives headfirst into the Uncanny Valley where the character model _looks_ like a real person, but doesn't _move_ like one.  Say what you will about Cameron that's one thing he at least got right about _Avatar_ was using additional mo-cap exclusively for the actors' _faces_, so that the animators could reproduce at least some of the subtleties.


----------



## Altamont (Jun 4, 2010)

ryan-the-otter said:


> talent or not, Pixar still writes atrociously cliche and commercial cartoons.  They can all go to hell.



I think the amount of wrongness in that statement literally turned my soul inside out.

Augh...the pain...

I mean, I guess you could call Pixar's movies atrociously cliche and commercial, if you were also going to say that...that...

My God, I can't even come up with a snarky parallel to how unbelievably uninformed/ignorant that statement is.*

*Disclaimer: In my opinion, of course.


----------



## Altamont (Jun 4, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> I watched them both in theaters, Up is good but I'm still don't get it. What makes Pixar the best people in the industry, what makes these movies such masterpieces? I don't notice any major difference between these animation studios at all, but I suppose Dreamworks focuses more on cringe-worthy comedy.



Well, there'a that, and there's the whole "Pixar develops three dimensional characters with realistic emotional motivations that accompany plot-lines that always put the theme and emotional context of the overall film rather than straying from it to make pop-culture non-sequiters"

You know. That.

I mean, I don't mean to sound pretentious or anything, but when you compare films like Over the Hedge and Up (or, to use other, equally valid Pixar examples: The Incredibles, Finding Nemo, and Toy Story Two), there really is no...well, comparison.

Sure, Over the Hedge may have it's funny moments, but the heart just isn't at the same place Pixar's films are. Bruce Willis and Steve Carrell are funny sure, but they were cast for star power, and not for their ability to craft realistic and believable emotions on to a character.

This is fine, of course; well all need cheap summer entertainment as much as we need thought-provoking art. But can you really compare snarky pop-culture references to the emotional journey that Pete Doctor & Co. were able to take us on in Up in just the first ten minutes? Or perhaps the contemplative allegory that Wall-E was able to achieve (well, for most, anyway), without using dialogue for a good half of the movie?

I mean, sorry to rant, but it's difficult for me to see how anyone who loves film _can't_ see the genius in Pixar. I mean even my least favorite film of theirs, _Cars_ is still _really good_.

And Dreamwork's _best_ film I've seen (so far) is _Kung Fu Panda_. And that couldn't even touch _Cars_.


----------



## Ames (Jun 4, 2010)

Thallis said:


> Up was also a work of art.



I never got why there was so much hype about Up.  I thought it was meh.

Also, this thing is a joke, right?

RIGHT?


----------



## Wreth (Jun 4, 2010)

Altamont said:


> Well, there'a that, and there's the whole "Pixar develops three dimensional characters with realistic emotional motivations that accompany plot-lines that always put the theme and emotional context of the overall film rather than straying from it to make pop-culture non-sequiters"
> 
> You know. That.
> 
> ...




Cars was absolute shit.


----------



## Eerie Silverfox (Jun 4, 2010)

I hated Wall-E and the fat people where disgusting.


----------



## Slyck (Jun 4, 2010)

No furry PHP movies?


----------



## Aden (Jun 5, 2010)

Eerie Silverfox said:


> I hated Wall-E and *the fat people where disgusting*.



Yep, that was kinda the point.


----------



## FlahtheBat (Jun 7, 2010)

It looks great. For once someone is showing the decent side of the fandom


----------

