Abour Ben 10 RAT's success... [Archive]

Silverstar

11-27-2007, 04:09 PM

I think the Ben 10 cartoon is doing well enough; it's become one of the network's mainstays, it's got lots of merchandise and there's supposed to be an animated sequel series in the works.

Dudley mentioned this in another thread: part of the reason the movie did so well (though not the only reason) was because CN had been promoting it non-stop for the past 2 or 3 months. A lot of people tuned just to see what all the hype was about. The 'ram ads for a movie down everyone's throats for months on end' technique seems to work, how else can you explain Re-Animated doing so well? It sure wasn't due to the excellent writing or fine acting.

bigddan11

11-27-2007, 04:14 PM

Ben 10 is the highest rated show on the Fried Dynamite Action Squad line-up. It has always been rated higher than Poke'mon Diamond & Pearl, even when it's running reruns. The weekday reruns also draw decent numbers, which is why it gets more spots. I believe the success can be contributed to not only the kids, but also their parents wanting to watch the live-action movie. Some parents feel they have outgrown cartoons, but they haven't outgrown movies.

I don't see why this couldn't have been asked in the ratnigs thread though.

Blackstar

11-27-2007, 04:33 PM

Movie06

11-27-2007, 04:48 PM

I've since been told that the animated Ben 10 movie rather well ratings wise, and was promoted nearly as much as RAT. So I have to wonder, why couldn't Ben 10: RAT have been animated? Why is CN so fixated on live action anyway?

Ratings and attention, which network wouldn't want that besides I'm betting Ben 10: RAT was kind of CN's answer to the live action Transformers since they know lots of people like the film.

D Dubbs

11-27-2007, 06:04 PM

Ratings and attention, which network wouldn't want that besides I'm betting Ben 10: RAT was kind of CN's answer to the live action Transformers since they know lots of people like the film.

Yeah, the attention factor is definitely an issue. Ben 10: Race Against Time got a lot of hype from outside sources such as TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly, while Ben 10: Secret of the Omnitrix barely received any coverage outside of CN.

Dr.Pepper

11-27-2007, 06:39 PM

Yeah the Ben 10 show gets good ratings. I still don't see why that movie did as good as it did.

desi

11-27-2007, 07:43 PM

Well, I tuned in to see the movie because I liked the CGi shown in the ads. I also wanted to see how characters would differ from their animated counterparts.

...but the movie was Cookie Monster's crap. The characters were uninteresting and unfunny. I didn't see the whole thing becaus it was that bad.

I say the ratings have something to do with the show itself and the curiousity of an average human.

D Dubbs

11-27-2007, 07:48 PM

I say the ratings have something to do with the show itself and the curiousity of an average human.

Well, a lot of people here seemed to think it was a decent movie, so I'm sure most kids of the Ben 10 fandom loved it...

It'll be interesting to see how the encore airings did, though.

80's guy

11-27-2007, 07:55 PM

Entertaintment Weekly gave it a B-

DBZNarutoWarrior

11-27-2007, 08:32 PM

Yeah, the attention factor is definitely an issue. Ben 10: Race Against Time got a lot of hype from outside sources such as TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly, while Ben 10: Secret of the Omnitrix barely received any coverage outside of CN.

Yeah, I think RAT did well because of the HUGE promotions, and CN kept slamming it in your head for (OVER) a month of the same commercials telling viewers to tune in (which didn't work on me SUCKA!!!!:p ). But Ben 10 isn't as bad as some of the shows they have, I mean I have no reason to like it, but I think I can see why people would like it, especially the kids. I just never really could get into it. I'm glad that an action series is doing well, I'm not at all happy a live-action movie did well though. I won't get into anything else though, because that's going to get this way off topic.:sweat:

Silverstar

11-27-2007, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by Blackstar http://forums.toonzone.net/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?p=2718942#post2718942)
I've since been told that the animated Ben 10 movie rather well ratings wise, and was promoted nearly as much as RAT. So I have to wonder, why couldn't Ben 10: RAT have been animated? Why is CN so fixated on live action anyway?

Ratings and attention, which network wouldn't want that besides I'm betting Ben 10: RAT was kind of CN's answer to the live action Transformers since they know lots of people like the film.

I can go along with the quest for ratings and attention (although CN could garner an equal amount of both just as easily by producing quality animated shows as opposed to just trying to be a sheep and trying to copy Disney and Nick-like Gary Potter said, the cartoons could do extremely well if only the people in charge of the network actually took the time to care about them), but I don't see any connection between Ben 10: RAT and Transformers at all. How are they anything alike? There weren't any giant robots in Ben 10: RAT.

Movie06

11-27-2007, 10:48 PM

but I don't see any connection between Ben 10: RAT and Transformers at all. How are they anything alike? There weren't any giant robots in Ben 10: RAT.

The thing is, they both went for a realistic approach, both directors had exactly the same intentions for their respective movies although both of them have different budgets and the type of CGI they had.

Master Moron

11-27-2007, 11:26 PM

I wonder how well Ben 10: RAT would have done if it had been animated (I know that CN would never do this because a) the last Ben 10 animated movie didn't do so well in the ratings and b) because CN has this idee fixee that kids like live action more than animation). A better question would be how much CN would have promoted the movie if it had been animated. I find it difficult to believe that Ben 10: RAT did so well just because it was live action.

It did. I for one watched part of it just because it was live action. No, it has nothing to do with me being prejudiced against cartoons, it's because it's cool to see an animated series get turned into a live action movie. Do the people on this forum really not understand this? Why do you think people are so excited about the live action Dragonball Z movie? Because this will be their first(technically second) time that they actually get to see their favorite characters in live action. Your suggestion that they should have made Race Against Time an animated movie makes no sense. There's already an animated TV show. What would be the point in making an animated movie? We've already seen that and been there. This movie was a chance for the audience to see the characters in a way that they've never been seen before. I understand that this is Cartoon Network, but the prejudice against live action on this forum is just ridiculous.

Duke

11-28-2007, 12:19 AM

Yea, one of the main reasons people tuned in was to see how the aliens would work in CG. I mean, head to the talkback and sizeable chunk of the discussion deals with the aliens.

It also helped that this was an action/adventure film, which is a change of pace from all the comedy films CN has.

Antiyonder

11-28-2007, 12:28 AM

We've already seen that and been there. This movie was a chance for the audience to see the characters in a way that they've never been seen before. I understand that this is Cartoon Network, but the prejudice against live action on this forum is just ridiculous.

If it was just live action adaptations of a cartoon, then it would certainly work, but it seems like they'll be adding more live action whether it's cartoon related or not.

And it's not even about prejudice towards the medium but about amount. See, live action program is a dime a dozen so the few networks that are dedicated towards are cartoons, should be heavy on the "cartoons". Because we've already seen that and been there with Live Action as well.

Silverstar

11-28-2007, 08:30 AM

Why do you think people are so excited about the live action Dragonball Z movie? Because this will be their first(technically second) time that they actually get to see their favorite characters in live action.

Slightly off-topic, but I'm not looking forward to that live-action Dragon Ball Z movie at all. It's my personal gut feeling that this movie is going to suck flaming rubber tires, for the simple fact that DBZ can't be done in live-action; too many elements, effects and characters from DBZ could only properly exist in animation.

Sometimes translating cartoons to live-action works, but often it doesn't. Examples are numerous: Underdog, The Flintstones, Fat Albert, Rocky & Bullwinkle, Dick Tracy, George of the Jungle, Dudley Do-Right, Super Mario Brothers, Bratz, Josie and the Pussycats. I think that there is a slight cultural and artistic bias towards live-action features. One reason is financial: live-action is less costly to produce. Also, as Blackstar mentioned, some people do indeed think that cartoons are strictly kiddie fare, and would be more inclined to sit through an live-action feature on the grounds that the medium is "more mature." Several live-action features based on cartoons have contained a tag line like, "Your favorite characters have grown up" or "Hey, this is no cartoon".

Blackstar

11-28-2007, 08:31 AM

It did. I for one watched part of it just because it was live action. No, it has nothing to do with me being prejudiced against cartoons, it's because it's cool to see an animated series get turned into a live action movie. Do the people on this forum really not understand this? Why do you think people are so excited about the live action Dragonball Z movie? Because this will be their first(technically second) time that they actually get to see their favorite characters in live action. Your suggestion that they should have made Race Against Time an animated movie makes no sense. There's already an animated TV show. What would be the point in making an animated movie? We've already seen that and been there. This movie was a chance for the audience to see the characters in a way that they've never been seen before. I understand that this is Cartoon Network, but the prejudice against live action on this forum is just ridiculous.

CN could have made Ben 10: RAT a CGI animated feature. That would have been different. I do understand that producers would want the movie to be a different experience than the TV show that it's based on, but live action is not the key to making everything great. Many animated productions ONLY work in animation. Would the Charlie Brown movies have succeeded with live actors? Hell no! You wouldn't expect The Simpsons or South Park to succeed in live action, so why should the same be assumed for Ben 10 or DBZ?

I guess I'm in the minority, as I don't think it's so great to see cartoons shows turned into live action movies. That's never really been that interesting to me, especially when you consider how many live action movies based on cartoons have failed over the years. The Flintstones movie sucked. The Super Mario Brothers movie sucked. Disney's Underdog movie sucked. Fat Albert: the movie sucked. The Bratz movie basically tanked. And the success of the Scooby Doo live action movies was cult at best. Street Fighter: the Movie with Jean-Claude Van Damme also sucked. I honestly would have been more entertained just playing the game for 2 hours straight. So tell me how exactly live action cartoons are superior to animated ones? 'Cause quite frankly, I just don't see it.

And for the record, I'm not anti-live action, I'm just pro-animation. Live action has it's place, but that place should not be the so-called "Home of cartoons". And when I change the channel over to CARTOON Network, I expect to see a smegging CARTOON, not a bunch of has-been or never-will-be actors cavorting across the screen pretending to be cartoon characters for 2 frelling hours. If you want ridiculous, that's ridiculous.

And I personally think that the live action DBZ movie is going to suck duck butter.

Master Toon

11-28-2007, 10:26 AM

I understand that this is Cartoon Network, but the prejudice against live action on this forum is just ridiculous.

Prejudice against live action, are you serious? Are Kenan & Kel, Are You Afraid of the Dark?, Clarissa Explains It All, Cousin Skeeter, Even Stevens, Lizzie McGuire, Smart Guy, Hannah Montana, That's So Raven, Full House, Family Matters, Smallville, Heroes, and Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide, cartoons? No but I like them, some more than others.

Slightly off-topic, but I'm not looking forward to that live-action Dragon Ball Z movie at all. It's my personal gut feeling that this movie is going to suck flaming rubber tires, for the simple fact that DBZ can't be done in live-action; too many elements, effects and characters from DBZ could only properly exist in animation.

In my opinion I think think they can do it but it would just look better animated but that's just me. :sweat:

I guess I'm in the minority, as I don't think it's so great to see cartoons shows turned into live action movies.

I don't see the "more real" part of them either, unless they mean boring is realistic, lol.

Movie06

11-28-2007, 01:46 PM

Hold it, there is one live action cartoon movie lots of you forgot to mention, Transformers, how did everyone miss that? Ok, yes it's based on a Toyline but it did became a cartoon and that movie is a good example of how to do a live action film based on a cartoon.

Duke

11-28-2007, 02:51 PM

You know...I'm getting the feeling people are starting to completely miss everybody else's points.

- Like it or not, people get curious when cartoons are turned into live-action. If the early footage actually shows promise (like this movie's and Transformers did), that'll just increase the curiousity, meaning more people will tune into the premiere to see how it works out. Basically, if your early footage is done right, your premiere (or opening weekend) will be a success in drawing new fans. Whether they actually stick around to watch it again all depends on the movie, but it's actually easier than you think to get people to watch the premiere of a live-action movie based on a cartoon.

- I don't really see where anybody is saying "It's live-action, so it's automatically better." Most people are saying that the culture is more inclined to watch a live-action feature than an animated feature (Obviously, Pixar and certain other franchises are excluded from this). Getting all hussy at the messengers won't really make a lick of difference, it's just a simple fact.

- I liked the live-action Dick Tracy. :(

- Why do people get excited about live-action movies based on cartoons? Part of it is the curiousity I mentioned earlier (take a poll on everyone who watched the movie and I guarentee at least 30-40% watched just to see how the aliens would look), and another part is moving the franchise to a new venue. When a series moves into a new venue, such as a movie or a sequel series, people who are at least slightly into the franchise will start to highly anticipate the new feature since it should present something new to said franchise. Other examples include: anime sequel series (such as Full Metal Panic Fumoffu and Second Raid), new areas/characters (each new saga of Pokémon), or simply a re-imagining (the various AU Gundam series). People anticipate great things when a franchise does something new, and a live-action movie based off the cartoon franchise is no different.

Movie06

11-28-2007, 03:02 PM

Well said Duke and you and me both, I like the Dick Tracey movie.

Blackstar

11-28-2007, 03:39 PM

Turning a 30 minute cartoon into a 90 minute live action movie is basically a crap shoot. Sure, the Transformers movie was a commercial success, as was Ben 10: RAT, but Dick Tracy, whether you liked it or not, was a commercial failure. It died at the box office. And no, I'm not saying that Dick Tracy was a box office bomb because it was live action; it bombed because it was based on a comic strip that was considered old hat back in my father's time. It would require a lot more than 2 people saying that they liked the movie for Dick Tracy to qualify as a successful experiment.

Alls I'm saying is that a movie based on a cartoon must have a really solid script in order to works as a live action feature that equals box office success. I've seen just as many cartoon to live action movie transitions fail as succeed. For every Transformers, there are a at least 3 Underdogs. And the main problem is that most producers, in order to make the production more accessible to a live action universe, make unnecessary changes that take away the very thing(s) that made the cartoon fun to begin with. Disney's Underdog movie is a perfect example of this. Underdog was never owned, and he didn't get his powers by being subjected to scientific experimentation. The Underdog film seemed it was intended for some other character, and then someone decided at the last minute to stick Underdog in the title role.

Antiyonder

11-28-2007, 03:53 PM

Alls I'm saying is that a movie based on a cartoon must have a really solid script in order to works as a live action feature that equals box office success. I've seen just as many cartoon to live action movie transitions fail as succeed. For every Transformers, there are a at least 3 Underdogs. And the main problem is that most producers, in order to make the production more accessible to a live action universe, make unnecessary changes that take away the very thing(s) that made the cartoon fun to begin with. Disney's Underdog movie is a perfect example of this. Underdog was never owned, and he didn't get his powers by being subjected to scientific experimentation. The Underdog film seemed it was intended for some other character, and then someone decided at the last minute to stick Underdog in the title role.

Now usually I don't believe Disney or anyother company purposely produces their movies a certain way to alienate or annoy their audience, but I tend to find that belief invalid after the trailer for Underdog say the light. To me it seems like it was a personal shove towards cartoon fans.

Now He-Man, Speed Racer and Jonny Quest should actually be able work as live action movies.

Movie06

11-28-2007, 03:54 PM

Blackstar

11-28-2007, 03:58 PM

Well they made those kind of changes just for modern audiences to accept, I mean for example, no one from the audience would understand the purpose of a dog with superpowers with no explanation how he got them, that's the way movies nowadays when it comes to adaptating cartoons into live action.

You basically just reiterated my last point. Any fans of the original cartoon didn't need all of that backstory. They would have watched it just because it was Underdog. Anyone familiar with the show didn't need to know how he got his powers. The movie could have just as easily been animated in CGI and been a complete adaptation of the original cartoon. And did these changes help the movie in any way? Did the film break any box office records? No to both. That's what I'm getting at here.

And, Antiyonder, there was a Masters of the Universe (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093507/) movie, back in 1987. It didn't do well commercially either.

Sketch

11-28-2007, 04:00 PM

A live action movie based on a cartoon/comic can be great but I'm personally dreading the Chipmunks movie among other cartoons going live action but I greatly anticipate Jonny Quest, He-Man and to a lesser extent Speed Racer.

A lot of people do like to see how their favorite cartoons look as a live action blockbuster, especially if they're old cartoons and can rely a great deal on nostalgia (as Transformers did).

The first live action TMNT movie is still my favorite live action movie and obviously that was based on a comic/cartoon, and the Spider-Man films come close on my top list as well. If it can be done well, then it should be done. I'd love to see CN make a live action Megas XLR movie or a live action Samurai Jack and a live action Ben 10 theatrical film could be great as well. They just need the budget and talent for these things to make them good.

Blackstar

11-28-2007, 04:04 PM

A live action Megas XLR movie might be fun to watch, but honestly, if there was to be a Meags feature film, I would prefer it to be animated.

And for the record, the CGI TMNT was my favorite Ninja Turtles movie (to date).

Duke

11-28-2007, 04:07 PM

A live action Megas XLR movie might be fun to watch, but honestly, if there was to be a Meags feature film, I would prefer it to be animated.
I don't believe people here preferring live-action movies to animated movies for the same franchise was the issue here. I'm not exactly sure where you got that assumption from. In fact, whether or not people prefer live-action or animated isn't even on-topic. The discussion is about why people tune in to live-action movies such as Ben 10: Race Against Time and treat them differently from animated movies. Our preferences are irrelevent.

I mean, hell, I prefer every single animated Gundam movie so far (including F91) more than G-Savior, but if a company ever made a serious attempt at live-action Gundam, you can bet your butt I'd schedule my day around watching the movie, whether it be on TV or in theaters or whatever. Hell, if it's any good I'd even get the 2-disc Special Edition (though I'm such a Gundam nut I'd probably get the special edition even if the film is worse than Manos: Hands of Fate).

Movie06

11-28-2007, 04:08 PM

You basically just reiterated my last point. Any fans of the original cartoon didn't need all of that backstory. They would have watched it just because it was Underdog. Anyone familiar with the show didn't need to know how he got his powers. The movie could have just as easily been animated in CGI and been a complete adaptation of the original cartoon. And did these changes help the movie in any way? Did the film break any box office records? No to both. That's what I'm getting at here.

True but nowadays, audiences like backstories. They like to know the origins of certain characters like Darth Vader, Bruce Wayne/Batman, Michael Myers, etc. And you know what? Duke's right, you guys are missing the point about live action films based on cartoons.

Blackstar

11-28-2007, 04:13 PM

I don't believe people here preferring live-action movies to animated movies for the same franchise was the issue here. I'm not exactly sure where you got that assumption from. In fact, whether or not people prefer live-action or animated isn't even on-topic.

I never said that I thought people preferred live action over animation. I never believed that nonsense to be true (and I still don't). What I do believe is that filmmakers are more willing to invest in a live action movie than they would be with an animated one, because here in the U.S., the prevailing attitude is that "Cartoons are strictly for kids". And as such, Hollywood feels that more people would be willing to pay for a live action adaptation of a cartoon than they would be for an animated feature.

True but nowadays, audiences like backstories. They like to know the origins of certain characters like Darth Vader, Bruce Wayne/Batman, Michael Myers, etc.

Did providing a backstory work for the Underdog movie? No, it did not. The movie bombed, backstory and all.

Antiyonder

11-28-2007, 04:17 PM

True but nowadays, audiences like backstories. They like to know the origins of certain characters like Darth Vader, Bruce Wayne/Batman, Michael Myers, etc. And you know what? Duke's right, you guys are missing the point about live action films based on cartoons.

Fair enough, but they could have done without Underdog being someones pet.

Though I'd have to say, despite the ones that failed, the cartoons that do lend themselves to live action adaptation are the ones where the tone of the show is more serious than usual or when the character designs from the cartoons are drawn with a more realistic design (like with the original TMNT cartoon, the human characters looked more realistic than the ones on Flintstones, Jetsons). They work better because not much change is required to make them work in live action.

Of course, the only downside to the Speed Racer movie is that they probably won't be having the characters speak fast;) .

Sketch

11-28-2007, 04:19 PM

What I do believe is that filmmakers are more willing to invest in a live action movie than they would be with an animated one, because here in the U.S., the prevailing attitude is that "Cartoons are strictly for kids". And as such, Hollywood feels that more people would be willing to pay for a live action adaptation of a cartoon than they would be for an animated feature.

Bingo.

And Underdog wasn't even "shoe shine boy" anymore so I'd have to agree that movie failed big time.

Movie06

11-28-2007, 04:20 PM

Did providing a backstory work for the Underdog movie? No, it did not. The movie bombed, backstory and all.

It bombed because of lack of interest, people are getting sick of tired of dog-centered movies and it was up against The Bourne Ultimatum.

Silverstar

11-28-2007, 04:23 PM

True but nowadays, audiences like backstories. They like to know the origins of certain characters like Darth Vader, Bruce Wayne/Batman, Michael Myers, etc.

That rule applies to some characters, but not all of them. It really depends on the genre and the type of show/character in question. A serious character like Superman or Batman or James T. Kirk does require backstory (and thankfully, each already has backstories provided.) But do the looser, 'funny' cartoons require that same sort of psychological/physiological delving? No. Do we really need to know why Underdog has powers? No, he just does. Do we really need an explanation why Popeye eats spinach to get strong as opposed to Lima beans or Brussel sprouts? No. Do we need to know why the Grinch hates Christmas? No, he just does. Do we need to know the full history of Scooby Snacks, their origins and a psychiatric analysis of the Mysteries, Inc. gang's childhoods in order to evaluate why Scooby and Shaggy crave them so badly? No. Every cartoon doesn't fit the complicated explanations and ideologies that are the norm in feature films. This is part of why so many cartoon-to-live-action transplants fail.

Sketch

11-28-2007, 04:25 PM

This is getting OT but in reguards to Underdog, they pretty much threw out anything about the cartoon so nostalgics would have no reason to watch it. Transformers did a great job of redoing the general plot of TF but Underdog was never about a science experiement gone wrong. It would have been more likely for Underdog to have come to Earth as an alien like Superman as in the cartoon (as Robot Chicken poked fun at) no one seemed to notice he was a dog when he was shoe shine boy.

But people will go see poorly adapted movies so that's not why Underdog failed in the box office. That's just why it fails as an adaptation.

Movie06

11-28-2007, 04:26 PM

That works for you guys, but not for mordern audiences, they'll just ask like a million questions like "Why does Underdog have superpowers" or "How the **** does Scooby Doo talk?" You see?

Duke

11-28-2007, 04:30 PM

That works for you guys, but not for mordern audiences, they'll just ask like a million questions like "Why does Underdog have superpowers" or "How the **** does Scooby Doo talk?" You see?
Scooby-Doo is an exception because WB has kept him the limelight constantly, so people still know he's around and that he talks. However, Underdog hasn't been on TV in forever and was all but forgotten until the feature film came along, so you have two whole generations who had likely never ever seen an Underdog cartoon before and would wonder why this dog has superpowers.

It also depends on the setting. If Underdog took place in a city where everybody was a talking animal, there would be less questions. But since it's taking place in today's real-life world, there needs to be some kind of explanation, even if it's only dialog.

Movie06

11-28-2007, 04:38 PM

Silverstar

11-28-2007, 04:39 PM

Scooby-Doo is an exception because WB has kept him the limelight constantly, so people still know he's around and that he talks. However, Underdog hasn't been on TV in forever and was all but forgotten until the feature film came along, so you have two whole generations who had likely never ever seen an Underdog cartoon before and would wonder why this dog has superpowers.

It also depends on the setting. If Underdog took place in a city where everybody was a talking animal, there would be less questions. But since it's taking place in today's real-life world, there needs to be some kind of explanation, even if it's only dialog.

Precisely. If the filmmakers had kept Underdog closer to the cartoon, there wouldn't have been a need to set up a complicated backstory. One of their biggest mistakes was trying to place a strictly-for-laughs spoof into a concrete real world setting.

Getting back to Ben 10: RAT: one reason why it succeeded was because the show had a more realistic setting to begin with, and therefore it effectively made the transition to live-action. Also, the cartoon left a few things open for the movie to capitalize on, such as the fact Ben's parents only ever appeared in one episode of the cartoon, and we never saw how things were for Ben at school. This, coupled with the nonstop promotion of the movie by CN led many to tune in out of mere curiosity. Lots of people wanted to see how well-done the special effects (most notably the aliens) would be rendered. Unfortunately, they had a limited budget of only 4 million dollars, so they could only have 4 aliens as opposed to 10. I would have liked to have seen Forearms, Ghostfreak or Upgrade, but there you go. Maybe in the sequel (if there is one).

Sketch

11-28-2007, 04:39 PM

That works for you guys, but not for mordern audiences, they'll just ask like a million questions like "Why does Underdog have superpowers" or "How the **** does Scooby Doo talk?" You see?

You're grasping at straws here.

A back story is usually a worthwhile thing to have but they could have come up with a far better one for Underdog. Once again, he could have been an alien dog with super powers more like Superman than Spider-Man and that would have made a bit more sense with his origin.

Then again, if it worked then... why wouldn't it now? Nostalgics obviously wouldn't mind no explanation for Underdog's powers but why would a new audience need an explanation? The original audience never did when they were kids and it's not as if back then there weren't back stories (there were plenty infact). To quote an oldie... "it's a cartoon, it doesn't have to make sense".

Movie06

11-28-2007, 04:51 PM

You're grasping at straws here.

A back story is usually a worthwhile thing to have but they could have come up with a far better one for Underdog. Once again, he could have been an alien dog with super powers more like Superman than Spider-Man and that would have made a bit more sense with his origin.

Then again, if it worked then... why wouldn't it now? Nostalgics obviously wouldn't mind no explanation for Underdog's powers but why would a new audience need an explanation? The original audience never did when they were kids and it's not as if back then there weren't back stories (there were plenty infact). To quote an oldie... "it's a cartoon, it doesn't have to make sense".

Because audiences like to know what is going on about everything, even about certain cartoon characters.

Silverstar

11-28-2007, 05:05 PM

^^Now who's missing the point?^^

That point being, that real-world/motion picture logic can't always be applied to cartoons. Sometimes it can, but often it simply can't or shouldn't be. Like I said, it depends on the product. Filmmakers need to realize that the 2 genres and sensibilities simply don't always mesh. The rules of one medium can't always be applied to the other.

Movie06

11-28-2007, 05:07 PM

Blackstar

11-28-2007, 05:09 PM

Tell that to the studios as well, they want money.

Meaning what? All the money in the world can't make a mediocre script good. And if people don't go to see a live action movie based on a cartoon because they feel that it strays too far from the original product, studios can actually lose money. I honestly don't see what point you're trying to make with the above statement.

Movie06

11-28-2007, 05:11 PM

Meaning what? All the money in the world can't make a mediocre script good.

Well, they just need to see if certain cartoons are still marketable. In fact, that is exactly the main reason why live action films based on cartoons are being greenlighted.

Blackstar

11-28-2007, 05:14 PM

Well, they just need to see if certain cartoons are still marketable. In fact, that is exactly the main reason why live action films based on cartoons are being greenlighted.

That doesn't make a lot of sense, and we're beginning to drift from the topic here. How is a cartoon's marketability determined? By popularity and sometimes by the film maker's desire to revive an old character that he has fond memories of. That has little do with money, really.

Movie06

11-28-2007, 05:16 PM

That doesn't make a lot of sense, and we're beginning to drift from the topic here. How is a cartoon's marketability determined? By popularity and sometimes by the film maker's desire to revive an old character that he has fond memories of. That has little do with money, really.

Well, they have to bring in the money somehow.

Blackstar

11-28-2007, 05:18 PM

Movie06

11-28-2007, 05:23 PM

If you're suggesting that most Hollywood film makers have dollar signs in their eyes and are mainly interested in making a profit and are creatively and artistically bankrupt, then I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Well, some filmmakers are hired guns, others are passionate about the original source material, like Michael Bay for example.

Sketch

11-28-2007, 10:48 PM

Because audiences like to know what is going on about everything, even about certain cartoon characters.

Can you prove that?

Because it never bothered the previous audience, or at least never did enough for them to stop supporting it.

Wouldn't those new viewers be confused that the cartoon (available on DVD) and the movie are nothing alike? I would think that should be of greater concern to the studios.

The studios revive old franchises because they were popular as they were. Sometimes they require some modernization but the most important thing when adapating any franchise for film is to keep it true to the source material.

Movie06

11-28-2007, 11:11 PM

Well, how do you know certain audiences wouldn't have problems with characters with no backstory? And I don't mean fans.

Antiyonder

11-28-2007, 11:37 PM

Well, how do you know certain audiences wouldn't have problems with characters with no backstory? And I don't mean fans.

Except that some of us weren't fans of shows like Scooby Doo or Underdog right away, yet we got into the shows with no problem.

Sketch

11-28-2007, 11:45 PM

Well, how do you know certain audiences wouldn't have problems with characters with no backstory? And I don't mean fans.

You didn't answer my question so I don't see why I should answer yours but...

Audiences enjoyed those cartoons as they were so apparently a backstory wasn't neccessary.

Movie06

11-28-2007, 11:54 PM

You didn't answer my question so I don't see why I should answer yours but...

Audiences enjoyed those cartoons as they were so apparently a backstory wasn't neccessary.

But what about people who probably never heard of or even seen Underdog?

Jave

11-29-2007, 12:39 AM

But what about people who probably never heard of or even seen Underdog?When Underdog debuted originally, there was no explanation of how he got his superpowers either. It was just as new back then as the movie was now for most people.

Sketch

11-29-2007, 12:59 AM

I couldn't have said it better myself.

You don't need to have seen Underdog before to enjoy it exaclty as it was. While it's not universarly praised, it did well back in the day and I imagine it'd do fine with today's audiences just as and probably has been doing so with the DVDs.

Are you trying to say audiences "want more" these days Movie06? Because it was my understanding that America is just about as easy to entertain as it ever was. Especially kids.

Master Moron

11-29-2007, 01:57 AM

Okay, I'm going to be the first person to say that Underdog wasn't really that good of a cartoon in the first place, so making a live action version of it is pretty stupid, let alone a live action version 20 years down the line.

Also, we really need to stop comparing comedy cartoons to action cartoons. How can you say a live action Dragonball Z film would suck because the live action Flinstones and Scooby Doo movies sucked? There's no comparison. The Dragonball Z series is mostly action with a bit of drama. That translates fine to film. Sure, it'll be really expensive, but you can pretty much capture the same type of action and drama in a live action movie as you can in a cartoon. But, comedy in cartoons is very different than comedy in live action, hence it doesn't translate as well. I mean, how could you translate a character like Stewie to live action? Scenes that are funny in animated form would be horrifying in live action.

Marinite

11-29-2007, 02:34 AM

Live-action works for shows like Ben 10, it doesn't really work for stuff like Underdog. That's because Underdog is an anthropomorphic dog and lives with humans, but nobody apparently cares he's a dog who acts like a human; like Brian from Family Guy. The movie made him an actual dog, like Krypto the Superdog. While it's still possible to make a LA Underdog movie by making him a CG humanoid dog, or make him look like Barf from Spaceballs or something, making him an actual dog just pretty much kills the whole point of the concept.

Alvin and the Chipmunks is an interesting exception, because the original chipmunks actually were small, singing chipmunks. It wasn't until the cartoons that they turned into human-sized anthropomorphic kids and interacted with humans who didn't care they were freaky furry animals.

The Scooby Doo movies were okay, since he's actually a dog and people treat him like a dog, all he does is talk and dress up sometimes. The problem with the Scooby Doo movies was the writing, not the concept.

Antiyonder

11-29-2007, 03:04 AM

Live-action works for shows like Ben 10, it doesn't really work for stuff like Underdog. That's because Underdog is an anthropomorphic dog and lives with humans, but nobody apparently cares he's a dog who acts like a human; like Brian from Family Guy. The movie made him an actual dog, like Krypto the Superdog. While it's still possible to make a LA Underdog movie by making him a CG humanoid dog, or make him look like Barf from Spaceballs or something, making him an actual dog just pretty much kills the whole point of the concept.

Would a movie based on Krypto The Superdog work then? They could even use the Teenage Clark Kent as a side character (Or as they can't call him, Superboy).

Alvin and the Chipmunks is an interesting exception, because the original chipmunks actually were small, singing chipmunks. It wasn't until the cartoons that they turned into human-sized anthropomorphic kids and interacted with humans who didn't care they were freaky furry animals.

Are you refering to that one episode in which it shows how Dave took them in? Because that's the only situation I can recall. I mean, they were bigger in The Alvin Show.

Marinite

11-29-2007, 03:42 AM

Would a movie based on Krypto The Superdog work then? They could even use the Teenage Clark Kent as a side character (Or as they can't call him, Superboy). Yeah, it could be a good superhero movie for the family, though they'd probably base it off the recent cartoon and use Kevin and the other characters rather than Clark Kent.

Are you refering to that one episode in which it shows how Dave took them in? Because that's the only situation I can recall. I mean, they were bigger in The Alvin Show. I'm referring to the original artwork (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chipmunk_Song.jpg) for the records when they first debuted in 1958. It wasn't until The Alvin Show in 1961 they became anthropomorphic. The upcoming movie seems to blend both aspects.

Blackstar

11-29-2007, 09:01 AM

I'd just like to say that Master Moron and Gryph both made some very good points here. The action oriented cartoons are easier and more effectively translated into live action than comedy cartoons are. Cartoons like Superman or G.I. Joe are more firmly rooted in the "real world", so they could work in a live action format, while strictly-for-laughs cartoons like The Simpsons, Family Guy, Looney Tunes or Animaniacs would fail miserably in a live action format.

Ben 10 works as live action because it takes place in a real world setting (about as close to real life as you can get on a show about a boy with a magic watch that channels alien life forms, that is!). On the other hand, an (alleged) comedy show like Out of Jimmy's Head is strictly Saturday morning and it would be an improvement if it were animated.

Marinite

11-29-2007, 01:05 PM

On the other hand, an (alleged) comedy show like Out of Jimmy's Head is strictly Saturday morning and it would be an improvement if it were animated. I disagree, the entire point of the show is cartoons in a live-action setting. That's like saying Roger Rabbit would be better fully animated; it would lose the entire point.

Jave

11-29-2007, 02:12 PM

I disagree, the entire point of the show is cartoons in a live-action setting. That's like saying Roger Rabbit would be better fully animated; it would lose the entire point.I don't like agreeing with Gryph, but he's right. Making OOJH fully animated kills the concept of the series. It just needs some better writing, and giving the animated characters a larger role

Silverstar

11-29-2007, 04:52 PM

If I may interject, I think that what Blackstar was trying to say is that one of the fundamental flaws of OOJH is that there's no real distinction in terms of style and presentation between the live-action and animated characters. In other words, the live-action characters, gags and plots are just as surreal, wacky and nutty as the cartoon characters; you have characters like Yancy (a green-skinned alien who lives with with family, walks around freely, goes to school and has human friends, all the while no one seems to care that she's a green alien and no one ever tries to dissect her or put her in a cage), Jimmy's mom Louisa (an astronaut whose job is fighting space pirates and thwarting alien invasions), Jimmy's dad Ken, who is like if Disney's Goofy were a real person; and Sonny Appleday (a Wile E. Coyote-esque mad scientist who talks to a bag of money); those characters would be better suited as cartoon characters, yet they're part of the 'real-world' setting. The human characters are basically live-action cartoons. Disney knew that in order for Roger Rabbit to work, only the cartoon characters should be zany and over-the-top.

Making OOJH fully animated kills the concept of the series. It just needs some better writing, and giving the animated characters a larger role.

Bonkers was fully animated and it seemed to do all right; they just rendered the human characters in more subdued, darker, more realistic color tones. Of course, they also tried to keep the human characters' behavior more subdued, and there weren't any unrealistic cartoony human characters like Sonny and Yancy (though admittedly, the Chief in the Lucky Piquel episodes was kind of a stretch).

But I definitely agree that OOJH needs better writing; It sports some of the most piss-poor writing I've seen on a show in recent years. (Ironically, the least interesting and worst executed characters on the show IMO are the main kids Jimmy, Robin and Craig. The family members are totally unrealistic and would be better suited as cartoons, but they at least have their moments.) And the Appleday toons definitely need a bigger role on the show. One of THE biggest mistakes that the OOJH writers made was limiting the toons' interaction to only Jimmy; the fact that no one else on the show can see, hear or interact with the cartoons puts a HUGE limit on what they can do with them. As a result, they come off as an afterthought on what's supposed to be their show. The toons literally pop in, deliver a joke or two, occasionally dispense some advice and then literally pop off the screen until they're needed again. The thing is, to me anyway, the toons and Jimmy's family and friends really don't belong on the same show. IMO there should be 2 shows: one a vehicle for Golly and the cartoon gang, and another separate show starring Jimmy and his weird family. The 2 sets of characters are fine on their own for the most part, but they don't deserve each other.

Jave

11-29-2007, 05:12 PM

At the risk of sending this thread off topic, I have to comment on this:
IMO there should be 2 shows: one a vehicle for Golly and the cartoon gang, and another separate show starring Jimmy and his weird family. JMPO, though.Why are you so insecure of your suggestions? You start a sentence with "IMO" then add a "JMPO" at the end, it makes it looks that you're afraid of any repercussions your posts may cause.

Silverstar

11-29-2007, 05:14 PM

Just trying extra-hard to avoid a possible flame war, is all.:sweat: Arguments erupt when people state their opinions as facts, so I go out of my way to let people know that's not what I'm doing.

Jave

11-29-2007, 08:21 PM

Just trying extra-hard to avoid a possible flame war, is all.:sweat: Arguments erupt when people state their opinions as facts, so I go out of my way to let people know that's not what I'm doing.Honestly, you shouldn't. It's fine to start a post with an "I think", but reminding the others in every other sentence is unnecessary. It makes your opinion less credible, and everyone here knows how (or at least should know how) to separate opinions from facts.

Not to mention is an awful way to actually write anything. Have you ever seen a newspaper review starting and ending a sentence with an "IMO"?

Master Moron

11-30-2007, 01:23 AM

I'm referring to the original artwork (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chipmunk_Song.jpg) for the records when they first debuted in 1958. It wasn't until The Alvin Show in 1961 they became anthropomorphic. The upcoming movie seems to blend both aspects.

I'm not sure what you mean. In that picture they seem to be as tall as a Christmas tree.

Xerroo

11-30-2007, 03:49 PM

Live action can work if done right.

Take Transformers. It was done right. Everything was perfect and not one thing out of place. Shows like Kenan and Kel, All That (Old school) was done right. Why? They weren't afraid to cross the line of censorship. It was a show where even an adult could watch and get a laugh in.

The shows we have now though....not so much. Now with Soccer Moms running wild must live action has been dumbed down to mediocre humor and same jokes used over and over.

Marinite

11-30-2007, 04:49 PM

Ekaj-Prime

11-30-2007, 08:46 PM

Now I just want to make one thing clear, this is not another CN sucks thread and if what I have to say did not need a thread and a mod wants to lock, by all means I will not have a problem with it.

Anyway, if the Ben 10 live action movie did so good, why hasn't the cartoon version? Does this mean viewers who never seen Ben 10 watched the movie? Personally I can't watch a movie based off a series I've never seen. Like Firefly's Serenity for example. And what if these viewers just watched for 5 minutes, does that necessarily mean the movie did good?

I actually wish the movie was in CGI. The recent TMNT movie looked good with computer animation, and it was a successful jump from cartoon to movie (Don't get me wrong, the first TMNT was a classic) and I'm sure the Aliens in Ben 10 would've looked cooler, and I probably would've been able to stomach the movie's effects a lot more. I pretty much lost interest in the movie half way through. It was good to actually see Ben's parents, and see him at school, but the movie just didn't hype or interest me as much as Secret of the Ominitrix.