>one week
>I am forgotten....
What went wrong?
This movie has been out for a little over a week yet nobody is talking about the story, the writing, the characters or anything that doesn't involve Bobby Driscoll or seething over Gadget and Zipper. Not even the "I CLAPPED WHEN I SAW THE THING" people seem to give a shit anymore. What happened?
Other urls found in this thread:
People have lives outside of Disney Plus originals
lmao
I'm talking about the crappy cel shading.
Yes user it's obvious that Any Forums and specifically (you) have "forgotten" it. It's forgotten. Got it. Nobody is obsessively dwelling on it. No ass is permanently blasted. None. No traces of damage control even. Uh uh. Literally sailing the misty waters of oblivion. Gone.
Beyond the outrage it was not a particularly memorable movie.
It read just like whatever mass crossover a teen with no writing experience would come up with, and that's it.
Maybe you liked it, maybe you found every second of it agonizing, but in the end it's just... There.
btw the director said the bad guy wasn't supposed to be making fun of Bobby Driscoll.
archive.is
>The Big Bad character Bob and Jimmy work for has his own connection to that idea of being outdated. Initially called “Sweet Pete” by people who have encountered him, their employer turns out to be a middle-aged version of Disney’s Peter Pan, voiced by Arrested Development and Bojack Horseman’s Will Arnett.
>As he explains to Chip and Dale, once he hit puberty and started growing facial hair, he couldn’t exactly play “the boy who never grows up” anymore, and he had to drop out of show business.
>Akiva Schaffer says the film’s creative team didn’t want to make fun of child actors, but that they were keying off the ways former young stars are sometimes unable to continue their acting careers as adults.
>He calls it one of the sad things that happens in Hollywood.
>“So we were like, Well, so what if that gets applied to a cartoon?” he says. When the writers were considering child cartoon characters who might be appropriate for the storyline, Peter Pan was an obvious choice. The fact that he’s a Disney character also made things easier, since the filmmakers didn’t need to go through lawyers to license his appearance in the movie.
Anons who went to the screening of the movie said he was asked the same thing and had the exact same answer. Seems like damage control to me.
Beyond the seethe it is just boring.
In whose deluded mind is the bottom image an improvement over the top?
>When the writers were considering child cartoon characters who might be appropriate for the storyline, Peter Pan was an obvious choice. The fact that he’s a Disney character also made things easier, since the filmmakers didn’t need to go through lawyers to license his appearance in the movie. But another very popular character was strongly in the running for the film’s Big Bad.
>“I will be honest, we also had a version that we played with that we did not have the rights to yet and never attempted to [get],” Schaffer says. “That was a grown-up Charlie Brown.”
Everyone laughed a bit at Sonic the Manhog and then slowly realized how shit everything else was.
Explain how it's not.
>expression are worse
>composition is the same
They're both clumsy and off model compared to the original designs. The CG version gets smooth animation out of it at least
This once again proves that Rescue Rangers was always a forgettable property. If even something with this much love put into it failed, why bother with more?
>The CG version gets smooth animation out of it at least
jfc nigga you can't be serious
If you sell bottled hepatitis blood labeled as wine you're not really "proving" people don't like wine, user.
>expression are worse
Wrong
>composition is the same
Its a redraw of the scene. no shit the composition is the same
One that prefers expressive cartoons?
Oh, was it staggering and choppy in your opinion? It would actually take more effort to do that with CG instead of relying on automated smooth inbetweening
I see, the more awkward and off-model the more expressive. It does unironically make sense
>What went wrong?
Nothing. Most marketing budgets only cover one week of internet shilling.
After the first week, word of mouth gets out and shilling becomes a waste of money.
This isn't rocket surgery.
You say that but you don't really mean it
>If even something with this much love put into it failed
>this much love
>main character of star wars getting a show is the same as a slightly known 80s cartoon getting a reboot
>main character of star wars
that's not luke or rey
The only part I really liked was the chiefs moving speech on why he did it.
>you're better than this
>lol no I'm not