Say what you want about Blue Sky, but they shine whenever they do adaptations.
They go so above and beyond to make sure it stays true to the original source material where most studios are content to stick beloved characters in fart-joke oriented cash grabs. The amount of research, attention to detail and nods and easter eggs in Peanuts was absolutely staggering.
Why don't they do more adaptations rather than doing more shitty Ice Age and Rio sequels?
>Say what you want about Blue Sky, but they shine whenever they do adaptations.
>>77627234
That's illumination dumbass.
Also Horton sucked, fag.
>Implying their version of Horton Hears A Who was good
>>77627294
>>77627283
I liked it.
Plus goddamn it was better than any of their other crap before Peanuts came out and took the top spot.
With adaptations half the work is done for you. If you can't turn Peanuts into a decent movie you oughta kill yourself.
>>77627424
Eh, I really wouldn't say that. It's actually quite easy to fuck up Peanuts, because a lot of people just can't help but to add needless gimmicks and stupid shit just to make their film stand out more. Hell, IGN's review is proof of this
>not modern enough
I'm just glad these troglodyte's don't have jobs in film.
>>77627283
horton was good. it did what a lot of adaptations shouldn't (you know what i mean. particularly the gags), yet it did it RIGHT. And it had celebrity voices but they were GOOD celebrities doing a great job as the characters. i wouldnt say that movie is an epic masterpiece but it was nice.
>>77627424
I thought it was funny how before Peanuts, a totally faithful adaptation, a trailer for the new Alvin and the Chipmunks ran, and it was filled with "modern" references, product placement, fart/poop jokes, groin shots etc, all just in the trailer.
It's like what the movie could have become, and Blue Sky did a hell of a job keeping that from happening.
Yes, granted they had the Schulz estate breathing down their necks, but you can't tell me a lot of the movie on its own wasn't already practically a love letter to the original strips and specials.
>>77628063
sad thing about chipmunks is it's the only adaptation in recent memory that actually looks GOOD. like.. it actually looks better than the original designs. everything else looks shite, they take simple elegant old drawings and fuck it up.. or in the case of peanuts, they painstakingly make it just like the drawings, which themselves weren't that great, but have become iconic.. but the original chipmunks had pretty stupid designs and they actually took the time to make a cute mix of humanized and real chipmunk. and making them small makes things a lot less bizarre when added to live action
too bad everything else about them is awful
Okay but what about that anime scene in horton.
>>77628674
>[I]t's the only adaptation in recent memory that VISUALLY looks good.
Fixed that for you. I was about to read your comment out of rage until I realized that you had a decent point.
Just look at The Smurfs or at Garfield. They adhered too much to their respective original designs, while still trying to make them realistic, that they come across looking alien. In Garfield's case, what was worse was how they didn't bother making Odie a CGI character as well, and instead made him an actual, real dog.
>>77628699
I hate the film, but that scene was at least... interesting.
>>77626953
I watched Horton because they made Jojo a qt.
