| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 08/03/2007 : 01:07:38
Is anyone here as surprised by the appearance of the title character in the upcoming movie Underdog? It seems to me that depicting Underdog as a real/realistic dog misses the point of the character entirely. I think that the character -- who in the original TV series walks upright -- is essentially human and not canine. Underdog is no more a dog than Donald Duck is a duck.
The issue of cartoon anthropormphization is a surprisingly complex one. Like our beloved family pets, cartoon animals all undergo a certain amount of humanizing. We give them human names, ascribe to them human emotions, and imagine them getting into human-like adventures. But some cartoon animals are more human than others. The comic strip dog Marmaduke, for instance, lives a dog's life. He is the pet of a suburban family, walks on all fours, and communicates only with barks, growls, and whimpers. On the other end of the spectrum is a character like Donald Duck, whose life bears no resemblance to that of an actual duck. Donald is really just a human character disguised as a duck. (Or, to put it another way, Donald is an abstraction of a human being, and making him a duck is just part of that abstraction.) Somewhere in the middle are characters like Garfield and Scooby-Doo, who lead the lives of animals (both are pets who depend upon humans for food and shelter) but whose personalities are undeniably human. Scooby can even sort of speak, which makes him more human than Garfield. But even here are subtle gradations. Note the slight difference between Scooby and the Jetsons dog Astro (another character voiced by Don Messick). It seems to me that Astro is a few degrees more dog-like, and Scooby is a few degrees more human.
But getting back to Underdog. In the TV series, he is eminently human, despite having some canine features. His name is really a convenient pun on the nature of his character. Shoeshine Boy/Underdog is an underdog mostly in the figurative sense: he is the little guy who overcomes adversity, which made nerdish Wally Cox ideal for the role. Casting swaggering, wisecracking Jason Lee as Underdog seems to be another profound miscalculation by the makers of this film.
I think the only way to put Underdog into the "real" world with human actors would be to do it Roger Rabbit style. Ah, Roger -- another almost completely humanized cartoon animal! Even more human than Bugs. Note that Bugs does not usually wear clothes, plus he lives in a hole in the ground *and* has to deal with hunters (Elmer) and other predators in the wild (Taz).
P.S. - For a brilliant insight into this issue of "cartoon animals as disguised humans," please please please read the wonderful short story "Walt & Will" by Max Apple. It's a fictionalized retelling of the creation of Mickey Mouse, and the central issue is whether Mickey is really a man or a mouse.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 08/11/2007 : 10:01:29
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
2. The real issue I wanted to talk about. I think Chipmunks and Underdog are part of a larger, problematic trend that will continue as CGI takes over for cel animation in the movies. Filmmakers want to take well-known cartoon characters and translate them to live-action movies. That works okay when the characters are human, but when they're animals it becomes a problem due to the use of CGI. CGI is a very literal medium. It aspires to copy real-life three-dimensional objects, with realistic texture and shading. The problem here is that cartoon animals are usually very abstract, both in character design and in personality. The comic strip "Garfield," for instance, is not so much about one specific cat as it is about cats in general. Garfield is an abstraction of a cat, you could say, so it's appropriate that Jim Davis designed him in a very cartoony, non-realistic way. Same thing with Scooby Doo. When Garfield and Scooby became CGI characters, the CGI animators tried to find a balance between making them look like real animals (i.e. realistic fur, ligaments, musculature) and giving them somewhat cartoony facial features (i.e. large, expressive eyes). I feel that this resulted in characters who looked neither like cartoons nor like real animals but instead resided in some creepy middle ground between those two worlds. The characters' eyes are a major problem. In the comics, Garfield's eyeball is just a black dot. In cel animation, Scooby's eyeball is a black dot. The black dot works because it conveys the idea of an eye in a simple, yet abstract manner. But you take that character's eye and give it a more realistic eyeball (as was done to both Garfield and Scooby in their CGI incarnations), and the abstraction no longer works. It looks too much like an actual eye now. It's too representative to function properly as a cartoon. As Scott McCloud explained in his book Understanding Comics, cartooning isn't just a way of drawing. It's a whole approach to storytelling.
Talk about hitting the nail on the head, Joe! Thanks for putting a niggling feeling I had about comics turned CGI movies, but could never put into words. I'm a HUGE Garfield fan (I will only allow two comic strips on my MyYahoo homepage - Garfield and Doonesbury), but I could never bring myself to go see the Garfield movie, and now I understand what it was that kept me back.
Thanks! |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 08/11/2007 : 08:28:16
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
[quote]Originally posted by Joe Blevins
2. The real issue I wanted to talk about. I think Chipmunks and Underdog are part of a larger, problematic trend that will continue as CGI takes over for cel animation in the movies. Filmmakers want to take well-known cartoon characters and translate them to live-action movies. That works okay when the characters are human, but when they're animals it becomes a problem due to the use of CGI. CGI is a very literal medium. It aspires to copy real-life three-dimensional objects, with realistic texture and shading. The problem here is that cartoon animals are usually very abstract, both in character design and in personality. The comic strip "Garfield," for instance, is not so much about one specific cat as it is about cats in general. Garfield is an abstraction of a cat, you could say, so it's appropriate that Jim Davis designed him in a very cartoony, non-realistic way. Same thing with Scooby Doo. When Garfield and Scooby became CGI characters, the CGI animators tried to find a balance between making them look like real animals (i.e. realistic fur, ligaments, musculature) and giving them somewhat cartoony facial features (i.e. large, expressive eyes). I feel that this resulted in characters who looked neither like cartoons nor like real animals but instead resided in some creepy middle ground between those two worlds. The characters' eyes are a major problem. In the comics, Garfield's eyeball is just a black dot. In cel animation, Scooby's eyeball is a black dot. The black dot works because it conveys the idea of an eye in a simple, yet abstract manner. But you take that character's eye and give it a more realistic eyeball (as was done to both Garfield and Scooby in their CGI incarnations), and the abstraction no longer works. It looks too much like an actual eye now. It's too representative to function properly as a cartoon. As Scott McCloud explained in his book Understanding Comics, cartooning isn't just a way of drawing. It's a whole approach to storytelling.
These are excellent points, Joe. There's another alley-way to the topic, albeit one only reached through some jungle-diverting undergrowth. That's the whole matter of robot proto-typing and some very unexpected signers of development checks [that's cheques if you're British] ...
Film studios have long had an R&D relationship with government/military. It's not direct, it's extremely rarely talked about, and to trace the trail often leads down cross-streets of organized crime and multi-national corporations.
Big film studios maintain very active development departments - indeed the expected activities of these dept.s - i.e. screenplay development - forms an extremely handy way to extract a percentage of taxable income.
But there's another kind of technological development that grew out of original art and sfx departments. These are where such film techniques as motion control and animatronics were perfected. It doesn't take a degree in physics to understand the relationship of such techniques to robotics.
Of course the core activity of American film studios is producing films. [Well -- inside the US that is. Ever since the anti-trust laws busted the incestuous relationship between the development-production-distribution-exhibition nexus, studios which are or have become international are not so constrained abroad. And it's in that global arena that, for example, tied exhibition arms derive most of their income from two sources other than ticket sales: on-site food sales and property development.]
But anyway, within the US studio activity is aimed at making films to supply a greedy market of theatrical distribution, video rentals and sales, tv sales, etc
So it's extremely easy to disguise some of the less film-related development of robotics, facial recognition, voice prints and a handful of other specialisms which are co-funded and of special use to industry, government, and the military.
It's a fascinating area and one surrounded by barbed wire. I got a glimpse of it about 20 years ago when I was researching The Dream Factory, a tv documentary series about film studios for an independent documentary company based in London.
|
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 08/11/2007 : 04:00:30
Two more things I wanted to say about this topic:
1. The reason I (jokingly) suggested that Edward Norton play David Seville is basically the same reason he's been cast as Bruce Banner in the next Hulk film. Norton excels in playing guys who are calm-looking on the outside but are seething cauldrons of rage on the inside. I never realized it until this very thread, but "The Hulk" and "The Chipmunks" (at least the original "Chipmunks") are about the same thing: anger. The Hulk saga is a dramatic, action-packed take on the subject, while "The Chipmunks" puts a comedic spin on the same topic. Like Bruce Banner, David Seville is a guy whose main problem is keeping his anger under control. The template for most of the old Chpmunks records is the same. Dave wants the Chipmunks to behave and be polite. He warns and threatens. Alvin, the rebel, keeps provoking him, and eventually Dave loses it and starts screaming. The conflict between Alvin and Dave is essential to all good "Chipmunks" stories. The reason Jason Lee is not a good foil for the 'munks is that he excels in playing easygoing goofs. (See My Name is Earl for an example.) Getting pissed-off doesn't seem to be one of his strengths as an actor. One of the things that made the original 'munks records so funny (at least to me) is that Ross Bagdasarian, Sr. played the anger so real. Listen to "Japanese Banana." His anger builds slowly and realistically through that record. He really seems like a guy who's trying to keep his anger in check.
2. The real issue I wanted to talk about. I think Chipmunks and Underdog are part of a larger, problematic trend that will continue as CGI takes over for cel animation in the movies. Filmmakers want to take well-known cartoon characters and translate them to live-action movies. That works okay when the characters are human, but when they're animals it becomes a problem due to the use of CGI. CGI is a very literal medium. It aspires to copy real-life three-dimensional objects, with realistic texture and shading. The problem here is that cartoon animals are usually very abstract, both in character design and in personality. The comic strip "Garfield," for instance, is not so much about one specific cat as it is about cats in general. Garfield is an abstraction of a cat, you could say, so it's appropriate that Jim Davis designed him in a very cartoony, non-realistic way. Same thing with Scooby Doo. When Garfield and Scooby became CGI characters, the CGI animators tried to find a balance between making them look like real animals (i.e. realistic fur, ligaments, musculature) and giving them somewhat cartoony facial features (i.e. large, expressive eyes). I feel that this resulted in characters who looked neither like cartoons nor like real animals but instead resided in some creepy middle ground between those two worlds. The characters' eyes are a major problem. In the comics, Garfield's eyeball is just a black dot. In cel animation, Scooby's eyeball is a black dot. The black dot works because it conveys the idea of an eye in a simple, yet abstract manner. But you take that character's eye and give it a more realistic eyeball (as was done to both Garfield and Scooby in their CGI incarnations), and the abstraction no longer works. It looks too much like an actual eye now. It's too representative to function properly as a cartoon. As Scott McCloud explained in his book Understanding Comics, cartooning isn't just a way of drawing. It's a whole approach to storytelling. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 09:15:40
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Okay, Watership Down was fine, because they didn't interact with humans. The Babe movies were cute but because only the other animals could hear him 'speak'. I understand that the dogs in the live-action 101 Dalmations didn't talk to the humans, but I loved the animated one so much that I couldn't bring myself to see those. But I'm afraid I just can't handle a non-animated Underdog. Call me a purist but if animals are going to use language, then that language should be only understood by other animals, and not humans. If you're going to break that rule, then don't use live-action - leave it to the fantasy world of animation.
Oooh -- it's the animation police! Run! Run!
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 07:22:06
Okay, Watership Down was fine, because they didn't interact with humans. The Babe movies were cute but because only the other animals could hear him 'speak'. I understand that the dogs in the live-action 101 Dalmations didn't talk to the humans, but I loved the animated one so much that I couldn't bring myself to see those. But I'm afraid I just can't handle a non-animated Underdog. Call me a purist but if animals are going to use language, then that language should be only understood by other animals, and not humans. If you're going to break that rule, then don't use live-action - leave it to the fantasy world of animation. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 04:13:22
Watched the Underdog movie and it is just bizarre. Underdog in this movie is indeed a dog. He gets genetically modified and starts to talk and fight crime.
So there's all these references to the original show. It's kind of an origin story like the first Superman or Spider-Man movie. He starts talking in rhyme after he hears a hot dog vendor doing it, his owner makes him the Underdog uniform out of his dad's college sweater, and so on. Polly Purebred isn't a reporter anymore, she's the dog owned by the cute school reporter.
Of course, kids won't have characters talking in rhyme. That's just stupid, and Polly tells him so. Then they talk about poop and butt-sniffing. I can't imagine a fan of the original show being satisfied with it, and no kids are going to get the references, so who do they think this movie is for? |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 08/07/2007 : 20:44:36
Well, obviously he's not going to be playing the big green guy himself, that'll be CGI, just like in the last (bad) Hulk movie.
For what it's hurt, I heard he did uncredited rewrites on Frida. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 08/07/2007 : 17:03:07
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
quote:
Originally posted by duh
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
He's currently filming or just finished as The Hulk. Green Norton 
Wow! I can picture Norton saying, "You wouldn't want to see me angry."
According to IMDb, Norton is also writing the screenplay! This worries me, not because often times if the star is writing the screenplay, it means that there was some kind of "creative differences" between everyone and he would have walked if he didn't have creative control of the screenplay. Also, Norton never wrote a screenplay in his life.
Well, let's give the green guy a chance! We don't KNOW he's never written a screenplay ... only that none that we know of has ever been produced. And with a film this size it won't be Norton who's making bottom line studio decisions. He may well have brought the project to the studio in the first place. There are so many hoops to be jumped through before the studio would have greenlighted the film.
Of course -- you may be right, but at this stage it's a bit previous to get concerned ... doncha think?
I think my biggest caveat is that I've always pictured the H. as a far more beefy guy than Norton ... although with sfx and prosthetics etc it's bound to be some mother of a transformation!
|
| GHcool |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 18:05:04
quote:
Originally posted by duh
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
He's currently filming or just finished as The Hulk. Green Norton
Wow! I can picture Norton saying, "You wouldn't want to see me angry."
According to IMDb, Norton is also writing the screenplay! This worries me, not because often times if the star is writing the screenplay, it means that there was some kind of "creative differences" between everyone and he would have walked if he didn't have creative control of the screenplay. Also, Norton never wrote a screenplay in his life. |
| duh |
Posted - 08/05/2007 : 19:26:57
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
He's currently filming or just finished as The Hulk. Green Norton
Wow! I can picture Norton saying, "You wouldn't want to see me angry." |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 08/05/2007 : 07:59:48
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
I hope Hong Kong Phooey doesnt have the same fate as Underdog. I dont dont want Hong Kong Phooey to be a mild mannered dog. It's not what it was intended for. lets hope someone makes HKP better than UD.
Let's not. Not that I ever cared much for HKP, but really, can't Hollywood just leave these old classic cartoons alone? Enough is enough already!
|
| TitanPa |
Posted - 08/05/2007 : 05:57:25
I hope Hong Kong Phooey doesnt have the same fate as Underdog. I dont dont want Hong Kong Phooey to be a mild mannered dog. It's not what it was intended for. lets hope someone makes HKP better than UD. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 08/04/2007 : 17:47:31
I think Jason Lee would make a way better David Seville. Something tells me this is not a role that requires "complexity." |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 08/04/2007 : 17:29:39
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Of course, Ed Norton would be a better Dave Seville than Jason Lee. Why didn't anyone in Hollywood think of that?
If they did, he'd probably have turned it down. I'm guessing he's had far more interesting offers lately and is booked up for the next 5 years at least!!! He's currently filming or just finished as The Hulk. Green Norton
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 08/04/2007 : 16:36:18
Of course, Ed Norton would be a better Dave Seville than Jason Lee. Why didn't anyone in Hollywood think of that?
|
|
|
