MovieChat Forums > loa14
loa14 (70)
Posts
Did I mishear that "fluffing" joke?
Why were they so horrible to the dad?
Why do all studio animated films have the same template?
Borat ripoff, but has sweet moments
The two strangest things
Naive and forgettable
It’s good! 8/10. (Spoilers inside)
View all posts >
Replies
Yes, it's absolutely calculated. They will get kickbacks for this in some form or another.
My first thought when I saw the call center was, "That's quite unusual. That call center would surely be in India." It serves a plot point, but yes, quite interesting that the call center was not quite as diverse as the rest of the cast. Curious, even!
>> Isn't that one of the big animal flesh-eaters' argument, that because animals are dumb and have no soul/sentience, it's perfectly ethical to brutally and bloodily slaughter them
Although I am impressed at your level of research into this issue, there is a critical flaw in your thesis:
One of the characters in the movie is called "Ginger". Everyone knows that Gingers do not have souls.
I hope that this information is helpful to you. Thank you.
There’s no sarcasm, StinkyPoopyPants. I’m just tired of these LA city slickers trying to fool us good hardworking folks. Well, they can’t fool me!!!!!!!!.
You are correct. This film was quite simply nonsensical. It is astonishing that a motion picture production company the size of DreamWorks SKG did not spot these glaring plotholes at the script stage, and inform the British filmmakers of these inaccuracies, before filming began.
Another clear error is with the filming process used. At times, we can see fingerprints and other defects appear on the faces of the so-called "chickens". I took it upon myself to research this over my Christmas break, and it so happens that there is not a single chicken in this entire film! Instead, the objects we were duped into watching moving around the screen are, in reality, convincing fakes made out of some sort of putty-like substance.
I was even more dismayed when I learned that the chickens seen on screen were not actually talking. Instead, professional chicken imitators spoke into a microphone and the resulting farce was captured on a cassette tape. The resulting sounds were then overlaid onto the footage in time with the "chickens" moving their beaks, and the deception was complete.
With this level of pure sneakiness, is it any wonder that box office revenue is in decline?
I agree entirely with your critique of this so-called entertainment film. The Tweedys were clearly woefully out of their depth in the business world, and had no business being involved in animal husbandry.
Mrs. Tweedy's purchase of the pie machine was no doubt one of many poor business decisions which caused great stress to her loving husband. Not only was it enormous and prone to mechanical faults, which her long-suffering husband was able to rectify in astonishing time with his intelligence and good grace, but not once did we see a scene where Mrs Tweedy discussed the financial implications of owning such a sophisticated piece of machinery with her husband: the Cost of Goods Sold, the net profit, and of course, the ever-important Earnings Before Interest and other Depreciations. This is quite simply unthinkable, nay, irresponsible even!
I propose a reading of Chicken Run contrary to prevailing message of the day: this is a masculinist film. All of the problems come from the toxic femininity of Mrs Tweedy and her scheming ways, as she hides behind a veneer of selling pies with a "Woman's touch". It is female privilege that enables the continued exploitation of her avian sisters. And it is only her greed that finally causes her to have her comeuppance. Meanwhile, Ginger, via her repeated escape attempts, creates trouble for poor Mr Tweedy, who only wants to please his wife and earn a good living, but is repeatedly hit, belittled, and made a fool of. It is Mr Tweedy who is forced to assemble the monstrous pie machine - a slave to the demands of his controlling wife. This is a clear metaphor for men being the actors for women's dirty work. And it is Rocky - played by the well known diplomat Melvin Gibson - who ultimately inspires the chickens and paves the way for their freedom.
>> WTF do you mean by 3D shots?
Calm down, sweetie. You're a little aggressive.
There are shots - usually corridors or other architectural features in buildings - that have a 3D depth effect. I think the technology was called "Deep Canvas" but could be wrong.
Also, you're almost correct re South Park. The second episode onwards was done in PowerAnimator, with them later changing to Maya. The first episode was literal cutouts.
>> The film’s animation is as good as anything Miyazaki has accomplished in his long, respected career. It remains hand-drawn, with computers used only in the distribution process (not the creative one).
Uhhh... there are literally 3D shots in the film, and all the Ghibli movies have been digitally painted since Princess Mononoke...
What "right wing backlash"? A handful of videos on YouTube? Oh, what a backlash.
You are so pliable it's amazing.
Which character? It is never stated, and not obvious.
Are you sure you aren't just looking for things to be upset by? I get it, I don't like to be lectured by a film I just paid $20 to see. I'd rather screen out the woke lecture movies than feel like a sucker.
But you'e got the wrong one. Have you actually seen the film? There are no lectures or finger-wagging woke moments at all.
I AGREE WITH YOU AND YOUR SENTIMENT. GOOD DAY TO YOU!
View all replies >