AndyLaBryn
Posts 34
|
12/12/2007 10:04 PM
posted awhile ago
Making Money Or Making Art.
Recently had an good question of opinion presented to me. I caught the ad for Alvin and The Chipmunks on TV, and thought to my self. Jason Lee is pretty much a wanker for doing this movie. Directly after the ad, another popped up for an animated kids movie, starring Jason As voice talent. I have more respect for Jason Lee doing voice for an animated kids movie, than I would for him acting as silly as he sounds in a live adaptation of a ridiculous kids cartoon from the 80s. What do you think?
|
|
|
indieabby88
Posts 270
|
12/13/2007 12:56 PM
posted awhile ago
Re:Making Money Or Making Art.
I agree with you! I had the same reaction when I saw the trailer for "Alvin and the Chipmunks." Not only was I disappointed with Lee's involvement, but with David Cross, who also appeared in the trailer. Granted, I've gotten used to the idea of David Cross being in some truly crap films ("School For Scoundrels," "She's the Man") but it still breaks my heart a little bit to see someone talented wasting themselves in a bad movie.
I also agree with you on your second point. animated kids films still have potential to be considered art. Look at Pixar, for example. Just about everything they've put out over the years could be (and should be) considered art, especially Brad Bird's work on the more mature "Ratatouille" and "The Incredibles" (which, incidentally, Lee also lent his voice to). I'm not sure what animated film you saw the trailer for, but I'm hoping it will redeem Jason Lee a little by being better than "Alvin." Given what I've seen of it so far, it doesn't look like that will be too hard.
|
|
|
Risselada
Posts 1367
|
12/14/2007 4:46 PM
posted awhile ago
Re:Making Money Or Making Art.
I think there is just something really kind of creepy and without merit about these live action movies made out of cartoons where the people are real and the talking animal as animated. Well I speak as if there are a lot of them, but the only other one I can think of right now is Garfield, and I didn't even see it. But I also feel like they fit into this larger genre of movie versions of kind of corney source material that just comes out feeling totally different and creepy. I think it's the fact that Alvin and the Chipmunks as they are drawn in cartoons look NOTHING like the freaky critters that I've seen in ads for this movie.
|
|
|
AndyLaBryn
Posts 34
|
12/14/2007 8:24 PM
posted awhile ago
Re:Re:Making Money Or Making Art.
100% agreed. Although I still find it a little cheap for animators to go the digital route, It still takes a tremendous amount of talent to make the films coming out of Pixars studio. Viva American Pop! Viva Heavy Metal! Viva Akira! etc etc etc
|
|
|
Risselada
Posts 1367
|
1/4/2008 1:32 PM
posted awhile ago
Re:Making Money Or Making Art.
I'm not sure if you like David Cross, but he was also in Alvin and the Chipmunks. Check out this article which sort of asks the same question we've been talking about http://www.avclub.com/content/blog/david_cross_i_havent_worked_in_six
|
|
|
unemployedwaif
Posts 20
|
2/6/2008 2:51 AM
posted awhile ago
Re:Making Money Or Making Art.
Granted that I have no desire to see Alvin and the Chipmunks, Underdog, Garfield and it's sequel or any of the other digitized cartoons of past generations, I have to admit that one of my guilty pleasures is the first live action Scooby-Doo movie that came out a number of years ago. The digital effects used for Scooby-Doo are rather horrible and the plot, dialogue, and acting are laughable, but there is something about it that keeps me pleasantly content during the hour and a half of its runtime. I'm fairly certain it is Matthew Lillard and his point on acting as Shaggy and his amazing ability to act with an invisible gargantuan dog.
|
|
|
Risselada
Posts 1367
|
2/7/2008 2:49 PM
posted awhile ago
Re:Making Money Or Making Art.
Did you maybe just also have a natural, predisposed affinity for Scooby-Doo in general? I have entertained the thought of watching that movie just for that reason alone.
|
|
|
unemployedwaif
Posts 20
|
2/7/2008 7:32 PM
posted awhile ago
Re:Making Money Or Making Art.
No more so than Garfield, Alvin and the Chipmunks and the others that I grew up watching as a kid. There is something within the idiocy of the film that has kept it one of those guilty pleasure movies that I'll make a point of watching when it happens to be on. However, I was a big Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan so maybe the fact that Sarah Michelle Gellar is in it might have initially drawn me into it. Hrm, now that I've admitted that fact I will forever not be taken seriously. Hehe, oh well.
|
|
|
unemployedwaif
Posts 20
|
2/7/2008 7:43 PM
posted awhile ago
Re:Making Money Or Making Art.
Back to the original question, I totally agree that voice work is more or less an easy way for most mainstream (and even some unknowns) to make a decent amount of money without them really being tied to the project. There names appear in the advertising yet once the film is released no one really pays too much attention to it. I know Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie and most other A-listers have contributed to at least one animated feature in their careers yet I can't really even think of them. I can only really recall the "better" or more notable films like Aladdin (with Robin WIlliams as everyone knows) and Howl's Moving Castle (with Christian Bale and Billy Crystal), etc. that have been recognized not for simply their entertainment value but the work as a piece of art.
|
|
|