A place for those who "Trust the Fungus"

It was announced that Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future) has plans to release a remake from the animated movie Yellow Submarine on 3-D, using the motion capture; so I was thinking if the 3-D will keep the same essence from the original movie.

What do you think, guys? It's a good idea, or bad idea?

Old news. Movie sucked then, it'll suck now.

incognitus wrote:It was announced that Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future) has plans to release a remake from the animated movie Yellow Submarine on 3-D, using the motion capture; so I was thinking if the 3-D will keep the same essence from the original movie.

What do you think, guys? It's a good idea, or bad idea?

You're joking, right? Robert Zemeckis is drunk off his own power-- he made some great films, Death Becomes Her, Back to the Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, but every film he's done with motion capture has sucked. What's the point in remaking a Beatles movie, anyway? Are they really that starved for ideas? It's mind-baffling how stupid of an idea that is.

Yeah, I've been a bit confused by Zemeckis lately. I haven't seen his Christmas Carol, but I'm sure it's better than the other mo-cap films he's done. I also heard that he's doing another Roger Rabbit using the technology.

Phlibbit wrote:I also heard that he's doing another Roger Rabbit using the technology.

Well, this is probably when we know, he's gone too far.I mean jeez! I know, motion capture, looks pretty cool but, if your wanna make a movie so real that, then just use live actors! What was wrong with the first Riger Rabbit? I mean if your putting Eddie Valiant in there, and want Bob t o voice him again, I can understand that, though you don't HAVE to him, in order for this to be a sequel! Or if your making anything Roger Rabbit related, just never mind.

Phlibbit wrote:I also heard that he's doing another Roger Rabbit using the technology.

Unbelievable. Just, mind-boggling how incredibly stupid he is. No one in their right mind should support the motion capture technique, because it looks like walking, talking corpses. I have never seen anything more clearly in my life-- Robert Zemeckis must be stopped. Someone needs to beat some sense into him, he used to make movies, now he just makes creepy cartoons. But they're not cartoons, they're zombies.

MerrittTheFerret wrote:No one in their right mind should support the motion capture technique

I dunno, the actors who sign on to do these motion-capture things seem to endorse it. It makes "hitting their marks" easier, or so I've heard. I think the technology's getting better, though, and the characters may not look quite so undead in the years to come.

Prime Evil wrote:

MerrittTheFerret wrote:No one in their right mind should support the motion capture technique

I dunno, the actors who sign on to do these motion-capture things seem to endorse it. It makes "hitting their marks" easier, or so I've heard. I think the technology's getting better, though, and the characters may not look quite so undead in the years to come.

I just view it as laziness, really. Beowulf, The Polar Express, and A Christmas Carol would have all been much better movies without the use of motion capture. I simply don't see why any movie other than Lord of the Rings and a character like Gollum would need motion capture.

Prime Evil wrote:

MerrittTheFerret wrote:No one in their right mind should support the motion capture technique

I dunno, the actors who sign on to do these motion-capture things seem to endorse it. It makes "hitting their marks" easier, or so I've heard. I think the technology's getting better, though, and the characters may not look quite so undead in the years to come.

It's that kind of mentality that lets the soulless Hollywood machine pump out crap like "The Polar Express."

There's just a level to it of how that kind of technology should be utilized. Pixar movies are one thing. Video games are another. But why make a movie where everyone is lifelike and NOT use real actors? I just don't see the advantage of trying so hard to replicate what can be so easily obtained by...filming a human person.

conclusion: bad idea

MerrittTheFerret wrote:

incognitus wrote:It was announced that Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future) has plans to release a remake from the animated movie Yellow Submarine on 3-D, using the motion capture; so I was thinking if the 3-D will keep the same essence from the original movie.

What do you think, guys? It's a good idea, or bad idea?

You're joking, right? Robert Zemeckis is drunk off his own power-- he made some great films, Death Becomes Her, Back to the Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, but every film he's done with motion capture has sucked. What's the point in remaking a Beatles movie, anyway? Are they really that starved for ideas? It's mind-baffling how stupid of an idea that is.

I'm sorry, MerrittTheFerret, I'm not jokin'. This is the proof.

Now that is one sexy Submarine.

On March 14, 2011, Disney dropped out of the project, citing the unsatisfactory performance of A Christmas Carol, the disastrous opening weekend results of Simon Wells' Mars Needs Moms; criticism towards motion capture technology was also a factor. Zemekis's digital film studio, ImageMovers Digital, had already been closed by Disney in May 2010.

Although Disney bowed out of the project, the film is not completely cancelled; Zemeckis has the freedom to take the project to another studio

Looks like Zemeckis i'ts having a few problems

*groans* Oh god no, a Yellow Submarine remake? I can only hope this IS a bad joke!

I'm not a big fan of the Beatles (yes because of the 'Bigger than Jesus' thing, no I'm not religious but I'm pretty shocked about it being said!) but I especially dislike them due to a few unpleasant experiences of my own. Most notably... one Beatles-related unpleasantness caused by my mum actually occurred just months before George Harrison died! Yes I hoped something -anything- could be done to make up for what my mum did, and no I didn't wish death on anybody but I won't deny I cannot help but wonder if Harrison's death was far more than a coincidence!

In fact I heard somewhere Mark Chapman murdered John Lennon because of 'Bigger than Jesus' - and I cannot help but wonder if the fact he carried out the murder in the month of December (i.e. the month in which Christmas is celebrated) is thus more than just a coincidence! Such is another point in favour of why I feel it is risky to play Beatles music (yes including their Christmas songs) in December - you never know, any religious folk who too may not forgive the Beatles for this famous slur might have a little extreme something to say about playing their music in His holy month!

Zemekis? Didn't he make the Back to The Future movies? Wow..I wonder how he is gonna pull this one off..kinda a hard movie to remake. Never really seen the original movie though, just some clips.

Star Ma'am wrote:I'm not a big fan of the Beatles (yes because of the 'Bigger than Jesus' thing, no I'm not religious but I'm pretty shocked about it being said!)

"Bigger than Jesus?" No, no, you and countless others have it wrong. What he said was, "We're more popular than Jesus now." I do not believe he meant it as a good thing--what Jesus was to 4BC Israel (healing people with his touch, etc.) he felt the Beatles were to 1964 UK/US. None of them liked being chased around by hordes of screaming girls, from what I've read. Naturally, though, people took it the wrong way.

Prime Evil wrote:

Star Ma'am wrote:I'm not a big fan of the Beatles (yes because of the 'Bigger than Jesus' thing, no I'm not religious but I'm pretty shocked about it being said!)

"Bigger than Jesus?" No, no, you and countless others have it wrong. What he said was, "We're more popular than Jesus now." I do not believe he meant it as a good thing--what Jesus was to 4BC Israel (healing people with his touch, etc.) he felt the Beatles were to 1964 UK/US. None of them liked being chased around by hordes of screaming girls, from what I've read. Naturally, though, people took it the wrong way.

Oh yes I know the expression is 'more popular than Jesus', I'm using a variant I have often heard of the term.

Yes I know it was taken the wrong way - however, we must bear in mind even in the now-'free' days of the 'swinging sixties' religion was still pretty much 'in vogue' (for lack of a better term; i.e. I say 'in vogue' as in it still being pretty common back then, before it eventually died down with a lot of people breaking free) so saying something like "We're bigger/more popular than Jesus!" seems pretty risky to me, especially after what Mark Chapman did.

So naturally, my own dislike of the Beatles aside I shudder when I hear any of their music during the month of December. I'm always like "I'm not willing to take that risk!" LOL