Another piece of CGI garbage!


WHEN, OH WHEN will these people stop ruining their own classics? If Rankin/Bass wants to make new films, here's a crazy idea...TRY COMING UP WITH SOMETHING ORIGINAL! And while you're at it, try using stop motion instead of CGI. If Tim Burton can do it, why can't they?

reply

For the simple reason that stop-motion animation is very time-consuming and expensive today. Corpse Bride and Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit are the only two even remotely recent feature-length stop-motion animated films, and both took literally years and years to make. CGI is just easier and cheaper today.

Besides, having actually seen this, I can say with confidence that aside from one or two continuity problems with the original (Irontail's name and the fact Antoine is suddenly a caterpillar again), Here Comes Peter Cottontail: The Movie isn't actually that bad. I only bought it because it was the only way I could, at the time, acquire the original film on DVD, and I fully expected it to be terrible, full of "hip" pop culture referances that would instantly date it. It manages to be, shock of shocks, a cute and almost completely innocent movie, particularly the character interaction between Junior, Flutter and Munch.

I could have done without the character of Jackie Frost though, and the "let's freeze the world" plot has indeed been done a zillion times over, but when all is said and done I can't find anything in the film that makes it "garbage." It's intended for children, and I think you're being too critical of it.

reply

[deleted]

Your main beef seems to be that it's CGI and not stop-motion. Why do so many people hate CGI and think it's "soulless" when it's no different than doing traditional animation except that it's on a computer? And yes, stop-motion takes quite some time to do, if you're doing a film that is entirely stop-motion as opposed to just a few scenes.

And honestly, if people would look at the pros and cons of the story the movie is trying to tell, instead of just focusing on the fact it's CGI, maybe they'd find something of merit, but unfortunately when it comes to films of this nature, all anyone can seem to focus on is how it's animated, which is a very broad, unfair way of judging it.

What *I* care about is the charming, funny story the movie tells. And in that respect, it could easily be considered worthy of being a sequel to the original Rankin-Bass film. To say it's unworthy simply because it's shoddy CGI is ridiculous; the original film was done using shoddy stop-motion.

reply