![]() ![]() However, the actual content of the movie - stuff made for the kids who may or may not have read the books - wasn't all that appealing. There are plenty of laughs to be had, for sure, but on the other hand, that was mostly due to the inside jokes for the parents who'd brought their kids to the movie (which were, to be fair, pretty great) and the inside jokes for the people who had read the books. Professor Poopypants (the best Captain Underpants villain) was the highlight of the film, but they made changes to his character that cheapened him, and prevented him from being the sympathetic villain he was in the book. I found George and Harold to be rather unlikable and Captain Underpants himself to be rather boring. I grew up on the books and still love them to this day, so while I didn't expect a lot from the movie, it was difficult not to be disappointed, and to be entirely honest, I was. A solid 7.5/10 for me (and my kid loved it). That said, they clearly were aiming this movie towards kids, but with plenty of fan service and adult humor as well. Admittedly though, if you're not familiar with the books and/or have no children, this one may not be super interesting to you, and I think that's its only drawback. And if you have no kids, but read the books back in the day, you'll still enjoy it. If you've got kids, take em, you'll both enjoy it. The series was "Captain Underpants", but the stories were alwaysabout George and Harold, and I think the movie absolutely succeeds in this. Lots of references to the books as well, which was awesome.Īlso, I really loved how the story, at it's core, was about best friends and the need to express oneself through laughter and creativity, which is exactly how it should be. I liked this one a lot! The animation was fresh, creative, and fun, the story was full of goofy and juvenile humor (as expected), and the fourth wall breaking was straight out of the books. International distributors thought our producers were lying. I worked on "Snowtime!" a year earlier and we made a full length animated film for about 12 millions total. This should explain the ridiculous quality/cost result. Disney movies have a level of details and polishing that is beyond the general population's ability to even notice, but for us is basically a masterclass. It also allows for some corners to be cut in terms of details and polishing. ![]() ![]() It all stands on the quality of the animation itself. Finally, the very flat/cartoony visual look is very low cost because it doesn't require much simulation, cloth, rendering time etc. Having the chance to have such an important role in a film of this magnitude and international appeal is a dream for many of us and we gave it all we had (I took two months off after completing the animation, our animation director suggested at least one). We are used to creating with ridiculously low budgets in order to support our own culture, and rarely do (did) we get the chance to push the quality to this level. ![]() On top of that, Quebec is a cultural powerhouse and artists are hungry for projects like these. On top of that, Americans save on the exchange rate, and Quebec in particular has a distinct economy which is more like a small country and less like Vancouver and Toronto: The wages are considerably lower but so is the cost of living. The animation was done in Montreal, a city that heavily subsidizes the gaming and film industries. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |