haha i'm so confused. why do they like old school rappers?

If you guys thought that poster is bad, this one takes the cake for worst poster ever. Feel free to prove me wrong if you want.

http://posterwire.com/wp-content/ima...shaggy_dog.jpg

I at first thought this thread was about the actual animated

movie, not another live-action movie of an old cartoon series. Why do they insist of CGI'ing old cartoon favourites when a normal animated movie would have sufficed instead?

What is wrong with animated movies!!!!

CG is still considered animation, mate.

Well, dur. I meant an 100% animated movie (hence 'normal), not a live action movie with CGI animals in it >_>

Do you mean traditional animation? =/

Well, that would be preferable, but not mandatory. At least the characters would look the same. However, has anyone actually made a completely CGI movie based on old cartoons, as opposed to live-action and CGI? I can't think of any. Why don't they make one?

Why yes, they just did. TMNT.

I have to say that several of the posters in this thread along with the people who made that poster are grossly out of touch with contemporary urban wear.

Simon and Theodore's look are circa 1989 and hoodies came into popularity in the early 90's.

As for any of them being current or past "gangster images." False (Except for maybe Alvin, but hooded sweatshirts are so ubiquitous that his look certainly can't be pigeon-holed as "gangster" ) Rapist or Unibomber? yes

Hotobu--I hate to break it to you, but hoodies are still in existence--at least where I live.

Also....who knows what year this movie is set in? The cartoon ended in the early '90's, and the movie could be picking up there.

But, dear God---don't let there be Chipettes....

I know. I mentioned that ("they are so ubiquitous "). My point is that they've been part of pop culture for so long saying they're gangster is silly.

As for Chippets I expect mid-drifts that expose belly fur, and lip gloss. Lots and lots of lip gloss.

(also look for plenty of cell phone product placement all around).

420 HD trailer

1080 HD trailer

Somehow, I'm a bit relieved. I wonder what was up with the thug 'n' bug poster, but eh. At least they sound the same and have somewhat of the same look from before.

I'm calling that the worst trailer of 2007, if not the past 10 years. I was utterly appalled when I saw that before The Simpsons Movie. It just reeks of shit. It even has shit humor in it. What a waste.

There was a trailer for the Bratz movie this year too, don't forget. At least Alvin's trailer doesn't end with a big pink OMG!

QFT. I think Bratz had to be the absolute worst preview I've seen in some time. At least Horton Hears a Who isn't bad (and it's animated to boot)

I haven't seen that trailer, thankfully... I wonder if I should view it for scientific comparative purposes.

Hmm, I think Bratz could be the reason to like every other movie in existance, no matter how awful it may be. You can now say, "Hey, at least I don't like Bratz." Or perhaps you buy a ticket to see this new Alvin movie and your friends make fun of you for it, just say, "Hey, at least I didn't see Bratz."

For that to work you'd have to trick a friend to go and then he could be the best kind of scape-goat for everything.

Honestly, I cringed a lot more at the Chipmunks trialer than I did with the Bratz trailer. I guess I'm retarded though, as I always thought that they were called the Chipmunks because, well, they were kids that looked like chipmunks. I never thought they were actual fucking chipmunks. Weren't they the size of normal humans in the old cartoon show?

Also, WTF:

While I haven't seen the Bratz trailer I think I can picture what it will be like. When you think about the target audience for The Bratz of course everyone here will want to shit on it. The more we don't like it the more on target it probably is. The Chipmunks on the other hand didn't really show much. What it definitely has going for it is the voices. What it got wrong was the size. I don't know about their original incarnation, but I know in the 80's they were in the 4.5 ft range. They surely weren't actual chipmunks. With that in mind I don't see how the plot can possibly mimic anything anyone here is used to. Outside of them being big stars their interactions with other people has to be different.

All of that said, it could quite possibly be an enjoyable movie. That is if you don't try to make it the Alvin and the Chipmunks you're used to, but just a movie with pop-star Chipmunks. (Pixar's track record aside) if you can get behind a movie with rats cooking food for humans is this idea really so bad?

I can't help but think that the Bratz slogan of "out of the box" refers to the absolute miscarriage that movie is going to be.

That was a pretty horrible, over-long, and retarded trailer, but Alvin and the Chipmunks still holds the shitcandle for trailers in my book.

It would look even worse if they did a live action movie with 4.5ft chipmunks; you're getting into Alf territory there. What does it really matter if the chipmunks are life size? As long as the writing is decent (which admittedly it most likely won't be), then the movie will be passable.

Wow, what a tasteless, horrible joke.

Was Jason Lee really the right choice for Uncle Dave though?

(At least the voices of the chipmunks sound reasonably accurate)

http://colonelskills.belkanairforce....ages/ace/1.gif

Fact: They aren't the same size as they were in the 80s. I said nothing of whether it was a good or bad thing.

Beyond that aren't we basically saying the same thing about the possible quality of the movie?

I hate to throw out the old "It's a kids movie" card, but I'm afraid i'm going to have to.

In terms of whether this movie will be great or not, I'm going to have to say from recent films such as Garfield and such, if it throws in a SHIT TON of pop culture referances, then it'll probably be shit.

I mean hell, Garfield would have been alright, if you know, the Black Eyed Peas woudln't have funded the entire movie it seemed. Every song was one of theirs, it was quite irritating.

In my world, "wrong" means they screwed something up, i.e., a bad thing. I'm not saying the movie will be a winner, but I doubt the quality hinges on the size of the characters.