Thank God: Tusker is On the Way!
Aug 11th, 2008 | By Rick | Category: News & Comment
Panda stew, Clarice?
Is anybody getting as sick of animated films about cute animals as I am? I’d like to take all those CG penguins and feed ‘em to all the CG Lions, and then stuff ‘em both down the gullet of those fat-butted pandas. God, who knew all those years ago what Toy Story would birth? I have such an aversion to these things that I have steadfastly refused to see Wall-G or Cellblock-A, or whatever it’s called.
And now, Variety reports another one on the way: it’s Tusker, the tale of a young elephant in India. And the project’s so good that it was cancelled in 2005 by DreamWorks animation. But fortunately for fake-elephant lovers everywhere, it was picked up by Imagi International, the visionary company who brought you the recent Ninja Turtle revival, TMNT. Says Variety:
Imagi describes “Tusker” as “the saga of a young elephant’s journey of discovery, heroism and redemption, which intersects with and renews the life of a reclusive old elephant who has always been an outsider.”
Be still my beating heart. It’s being produced by Brooks Breton (co-producer of the upcoming cinema landmark Avatar) and penned by Ted Talley, the screenwriter of Silence of the Lambs.
Hmmm . . . could be interesting after all: fried elephant, fava beans and a nice chianti, anyone?
[Editor's note: Some guy emailed me with the above piece, saying if I didn't publish it he'd kill my dog. Well, I'm not particularly fond of my dog, but I decided to publish it, anyway. When I asked him what his name was, the figure pulled itself up and said "Just call me ... the Cinema Curmudgeon." Whatever.]
RSS 2.0
I don’t think we had made each other’s aquaintance back when I was doing my second blog, Synchfish, had we? Because if so, and you read it, you would recall that I had a long post which elicited a fevered response in which I informed my readers of my hateful, vile disdain for CGI animated movies. I. Hate. Them.
So after a ton of comments NO ONE agreed with me. No one! I couldn’t explain myself well enough and still can’t. All I can say is that were I a paid critic I would give The Incredibles and Ratatouille respectable reviews. But I would still inform my readers that I didn’t like them personally. Since I am not a paid critic let me say that (DIVISIVE ALERT) I don’t understand people liking these movies. I find them to be trite. I remember feeling betrayed by people telling me Ratatouille was one of the best films of the year, or one of their favorites and then seeing lists or posts on their blogs about this great classic of cinema or that one and describing it as a favorite too and I’d think, “No it’s not you’re just posing. You like movies like The Incredibles, and that’s fine, but don’t try and convince that after gushing over Ratatouille that you really curl up on the couch with some popcorn and watch Scarlett Street ’cause you don’t and we all know it.”
So, as you can see, the topic fires me up. That above statement is an irrational feeling on my part. Anyone reading it should take it with a grain of salt. I don’t believe it to be true (although when I’m annoyed with CGI I do believe it to be true) it’s just that I HATE CGI ANIMATION. I’d rather watch a live-action movie any day of the week.
I remember your blog Synchfish, all right, but I don’t remember that post … I got to the site not long before you shut it down.
I’m with you on that, I can’t understand why they gushed about “The Incredibles,” for instance. It just seemed to me when I saw it so trite and shallow, and it made me wonder if all those who saw it saw the same film that I did. I haven’t seen Wall-E and might not see it, well, ever. Didn’t it remind you of the robot from “Batteries Not Included” or one of those? I am assured that it is the best thing since canned beer — and that would have to be something! — but I couldn’t bring myself to see it.
If I were a paid critic, I’d have to see crap like that and “the Incredibles” and “Cars,” not to mention the latest Sundance indie, which explores the deep interrelationships between five sensitive, self-involved yuppies and is tied up in a neat little bow by the end. Oh … that’s a different topic.
I hope your dog is at least grateful…
In all seriousness, I think it could end up being a pretty interesting film…maybe.
Nick, that’s the thing about dogs … they love you no matter what you do. They’re just stupid, that way.
Have to say I love Pixar’s films, but otherwise I totally agree. Yep, I want to gouge my eyes out every time I hear about another CGI flick starring talking animals.
There’s a very simple reason that so many people feel this way, including you guys — and it’s the same reason so many people hat country music. 98% of everything that gets put out within the genre stinks to high heaven, so everyone assumes that the whole genre is crap. Well, it’s not — just the vast majority of it.
There’s a good reason for this: there’s not a lot of competition in the “family film” market, and kids aren’t particularly discerning. CGI is incredibly easy to do (even if it’s very hard to actually do well), and kids love talking animals (whoever figures out why will undoubtedly be rich and famous), so the combination is obvious to the lazy. So is anyone still wondering why the result is always lazy? No? Good.
If you’re marketing a film with CGI talking animals, you have to work very hard to not make money, regardless of its quality.
Luke, I agree with you: one of the reasons there are so many bad cute-animal-CGIs out there is that its cheap to produce bad ones and they usually make money.
But I haven’t enjoyed a CGI-animated film of any kind, about any species, human or animal, since, oh, about, what’s the Pixar one about the fish? Anyway, that includes the critically-acclaimed The Incredibles, after which I just gave up watching them. The only reason I can think of to see one is that some of them are beautiful aesthetically. That’s why I might rent Wall-E when it comes out on DVD, although I have yet to do so for the last wonderkind CGI, Ratatouille, and I hear that it’s gorgeous.
I guess, along with Jonathan, I have something agin’ ‘em.
I wouldn’t exactly jump to defend The Incredibles — it’s a bit of an overblown mess that goes completely off the rails in the last act. But it does get better with repeated viewings — there are a lot of deeper themes that don’t reveal themselves at first.
I’d be interested to know what your complaints against Ratatouille are — I thought that that one, at the very least, had all the subtleties and nuance one expects from a decent Oscar-bait film (with the only real difference being that some of the characters were rats). I’ve only heard one other person criticize it, and his argument essentially boiled down to the fact that it was more sophisticated than most people want their “family films” to be.
Ok, I’ll take the bait: I’ll watch Ratatouille and report back. But maybe the rat thing’s part of my problem: as an ex-Biologist, I object to anthropomorphizing nature. Nature is fully fascinating enough without having to make it human.
And when you do make it human, ascribing human feelings to rodents or canids or fish, you do them ultimately a disservice. I am convinced one of the reasons we are in the environmental mess we’re in because we don’t have a clear-eyed view about nature, we don’t respect it for what it is. And how insulting is it to the rest of creation to think the ultimate compliment is to make it more human?
End of rant. For now.
You know what’s a good one? That one about how dogs go to heaven or whatever. I guess it’s all about dogs who are dying. I don’t know, I’ve never seen it.
It’s actually “All Dogs Go to Seven-Eleven, After a Light Dinner and a Show” If it were about dogs dying, it would be a lot funnier than it is. And I’ve never seen it either.
Most of the Pixar pictures are animated masterpieces.
TOY STORY and TOY STORY 2 are great films.
I’ve alway had a soft spot for MONSTER’S INC.
FINDING NEMO is a beautiful looking movie. And incredibly entertaining.
I really enjoyed THE INCREDIBLES. It was like an animated Bond film or something! But I do think Brad Birds earlier, traditional animated feature THE IRON GIANT is one of the all time best children’s movies of all time.
Haven’t seen RATATOUILLE or WALL-E, but plan on seeing both soon.
To just brush movies like this off is a crime. Most of them, yes, are garbage, but then again, I’d say 90% of cinema in general is garbage. Should we hate all movies then?
PS. I have seen SCARLET STREET. You can trust me!
Oh, but I do trust you, Joe. You know I do … even if I’ve never seen “Scarlet Street”.
Really, that Cinema Curmudgeon guy got me in so much trouble, especially with my dog … when he read that i didn’t like him all that much, he refused to fetch my slippers for a week!
I’m just not that interested in animation, though some films are enjoyable and worth the time. I don’t even know how to write about animated films–I’ve tried and failed.
As for CGI specifically, I really did love Toy Story and thought that Monsters, Inc. was a bit more than passable. The one bit of CGI I think is a true masterpiece of the form is the short that features Scrat from Ice Age. It was so much like a Wile E. Coyote/Roadrunner cartoon, cartoons the way I like them–short and silent.
It’s interesting that you brought the Roadrunner cartoons up. They’re a different style from a different time, the humor — although there could be satire in a Looney Tunes, Porky-Pig as Hitler comes to mind, there was none of the ironic distance, or winking at the audience as in the modern crop of animated films.
As for me, I’m not sure why I don’t appreciate most modern animated films. I’ll see Ratatouille, as I promised Luke, and then perhaps Wall-E to see what all the hubbub is all about.
For what it’s worth, the theatrical release of WALL-E is preceded by an excellent Pixar-made short that really does feel like an old Warner Bros. cartoon. It’s definitely worth seeing.
Rick-
I share your shoulder shrug when it comes to animated films. Well, I shrug, it sounds like you are more aggressive… anyways!
I just can’t get excited about animated features. When I saw The Incredibles I enjoyed it, but I left Ratatouille thinking “that’s the movie everyone adores? Man gimme The Secret of Nihm anyday!” and the same goes for
Maybe it’s just something that I haven’t learned to appreciate yet, like Jazz or Hou Hsiao-hsien.
Re: Ratatouille. Like you Rick I said I’d see it after my post and then I didn’t say anything because I didn’t want to open it all back up again. Like I said, as a reviewer I can understand seeing and thinking it was well made overall. But I try to avoid generalizations with movies (try, don’t always succeed) and specifically I found Ratatouille seriously lacking.
My first problem was the lead character of the clumsy, kind of dumb kid that pretends to be responsible for the great dishes the rat is making. I didn’t like him, at all. I found him insanely annoying to my senses and I am so very, very tired of the lovable dum-dum being the hero and the refined urbane characters being the villains. I can’t stand the dumbing down of everything anymore and this was just one more case of that.
The rat also fell flat with me. He and his dad and friends and brothers and cousins and on and on were the same brand of cut-up wild and crazy side characters that Disney started giving us decades ago.
Ridiculous premise. Now here is where I run into problems. You start complaining about the laws of physics in a movie about a talking cooking rat and people laugh at you. I understand, that this takes place in a fantasy world. I get that, I really do. I know rats can’t talk and cook. But that is the part of the movie where we understand, as an audience watching animation, that we have to suspend our disbelief. And we do. However, everything else in the film alerts us that aside from the rats talking, there is nothing in this world different from ours. It is Paris, the sun sets and rises, people breathe air, etc. And yet, to get the rat to cook in the kitchen they have it discover that if it pulls on tufts of our dumbass hero’s hair the rat can manipulate where he goes, what he grabs, how he seasons, etc. OH PUHLEASE!!!! I found that irritating to no end.
And then there is the fact that despite all the praise, what you get is the usual sitcomish boy meets girl, she hates him and then by the end… what do you think happens? Come on, stretch those brain muscles. That’s right, she falls in love with him. I would’ve have written “spoiler alert” before that but is it really necessary? And the crusty old critic turns around too and loves the rat and his cooking. And I was so moved by the end that I wanted to throw up on the screen.
As for gorgeous? It’s CGI. From the Star Wars movies to Ratatouille it all looks like a Thomas Kincaide painting to me. And I don’t find that gorgeous.
Not one of you has anything resembling a heart.
PS - Jonathan, aren’t you the guy who’s always (to me, anyway) talking about the great work that can be done within certain storytelling formulas? Which is not to say that “formula = good”, but many of your problems with “Ratatouille” seem to revolve around the fact that it’s working within a formula.
Also, to call “Ratatouille” an example of the “dumbing down” of our culture…come on. If the movie wanted to impart any kind of wisdom or message it was that, regardless of your background, your are capable of greatness. Call it trite, if you want, but it’s not “dumbing down” anything.
Oh, I’m so mad at you guys!
Bill, I had a heart, but I left it in my other suit. (ba-da-bing!)
I think that Jonathan has a point, though … We have successively dumbed down our expectations, over the years, as if it’s not American or populist or something to be intelligent, to be probing, to be analytical. I hate that. It’s one of the reasons the balance of intellectual power has headed East, a la Tokyo and Beijing. You can bet that over their, on their sit-coms and cartoons and such, the bad guys aren’t smart and the good guys dumb.
It remains for me to see said “Ratatouille” to see if I agree that it supports it or not …
The CGI film I had the most trouble with is Finding Nemo. Eye-poppingly beautiful? Yes! Ellen DeGeneras funny? Yes! Good for kids? Not so much. I think a film aimed at kids should be about kids, not about how a father finds his backbone. I’ve seen this over and over, where the adults become the center of a film for kids. Yes, I know kids might like to know that their parents will take care of them and rescue them from danger, but can’t adults stop being so bloody self-centered in films like this?
Marilyn — perhaps kids need to see reasonable role models? I don’t know … seems there are enough poor adult role models in the flickers that maybe it’s not a bad idea to show ‘em good ones once in a while.
Rick - I’ve only seen “Ratatouille” once, so I may be wrong, but I count a total of two “bad guys”: the head chef, and the critic. I’m not sure the critic is really a bad guy, but what’s at least unlikable about him isn’t that he’s smart, it’s that he’s jaded. He can’t lower his guard and see past the surface and simply appreciate quality (well, he can, as it turns out, but that’s the basis of the character).
I don’t disagree that in this country being intelligent is often depicted as at least “goofy”, but I don’t think “Ratatouille” is part of this trend at all. As for TV in Tokyo and Beijing, well, Tokyo has shows where people try to win money by completing difficult tongue twisters, and if they fail they get hit in the balls (seriously). And Beijing TV is whatever Hu Jintao lets it be. The grass is always greener, I suppose.
“Marilyn — perhaps kids need to see reasonable role models? I don’t know … seems there are enough poor adult role models in the flickers that maybe it’s not a bad idea to show ‘em good ones once in a while.”
I agree with this. I remember that Gene Siskel used to opine that, in family films, fathers were either dead, or they were assholes. In that sense (and in many others), Finding Nemo was quite refreshing.
I mean, for goodness sake, look at the garbage that makes up the vast majority of children’s entertainment these days, and people are complaining about Pixar, of all things? I really don’t get it.
Bill - Have you been having a comment relationship with Rick behind my back? Well, have you?
I think formulas are fine I just don’t like the characters in Ratatouille and didn’t feel they did anything remarkable with the formula.
As for the dumb vs the urbane, Ratatouille peeves me more with the dumb. The chef villain isn’t exactly an urbane intellectual. But the hero, the dumb guy, why? Why did he have to be the same old lovable doofus? Why couldn’t he be a normal intelligent guy who works with the rat? I don’t know. I gotta go. More later.
We’ve been having mad, crazy comment all this time. And I’ve still got those dropped Haloscan comments, I’m holding them hostage, so play nice.
I like formulas myself … I confess an irrational love for rom-coms, which are as formula-bound as kabuki theater. The mark of a good rom-com is what they do with the formula, how they take it and make it new and/or different.
What’s more formula-bound than a Western? (Somebody said there are only three Western plots. I can’t remember what they were, but I believe them.) but I still love them.
And I do like a movie that once in a while shows good male role-models.
Nice post Rick. I too have decided not to watch cute, juvenile animation pics with goofy-goody animals trying to (forcefully) make us put up our fake smile and wet our handkerchiefs with equal gusto. Though I’m not a dog-killer (or a dog-lover for that matter), I could have very easily been the one to have sent you the “mail”.
Shubhajit — Thanks: I don’t know anything about that cinema curmudgeon guy. I, for one, love dogs. Especially with some shallots in a white wine sauce.
Well, you’ve almost convinced me that having the father as the central character in Finding Nemo is a good thing. Almost. I was so irritated by it when watching, however, that I still think it was the wrong approach.
Well. I’m hurt. HURT I say! My arguments are cogent and well-reasoned, and I expect everyone to see instantly the reasonableness of my positions. I’ll never blog again!
Rick - Your argument falls down because you hate CGI animated films, ipso facto, Nemo’s father is inherently loathsome and unworthy of attention ex post facto, ergo, summa cum laude.
Fin.
You left out quo vadis.
Marilyn,
I think you’re committing the same fallacy that most American moviegoers do, i.e.:
animation = (exclusively) children’s film
The fact that Pixar chooses to use animation as a medium, and the fact that their films tend to be rated G, don’t necessarily mean that their targeting children exclusively. If you can prove that they are, your argument against Finding Nemo will have a lot more weight.
I would bet, though, that at least half of their dedicated fanbase consists of adults.
Luke - I realize that parents make up half the audience for children’s films and, therefore, must also speak to the adult audience. That said, it does not mean that Finding Nemo is an adult film. In the past, children’s films found wonderful ways to appeal to adults simply by telling wonderful stories or by including adult material that didn’t detract for the main storyline but that would fly over the heads of the kids.
I contend that Finding Nemo isn’t a story that is wonderfully told and that the father takes center stage. The film, however, has created comarketing of toys for kids, so it’s clear it was meant to be a children’s film.
http://www.animationxpress.com/index.php?file=story&id=2257
Guys, please check out the link above… Looks like there will be more than one Tusker for you chaps to bitch about…
Incidentally, I am writing and directing the Air Media project.
And if you want a film maker’s point of view on the issues you have been debating, do leave a post and I’ll be happy to reply.