Bomb of the year?
Cool look for the Dragon
Someone clearly forgot that they were designing a dragon, instead of Clifford, the big r-green dog
>>81869851
It is fuckable. I'll give it that.
>>81869808
I'm ok with this.jpg
>>81869808
Dragon's don't have fur.
Man, how long is it going for them to make one of these kid finds monster movies with a little girl and Mothra? Every year I wait and hope, every year God shits on me from his big fucking heavenly throne.
>>81869981
Dragons aren't real.
Clearly, we can't have something that actually looks reptilian as a protagonist.
>>81869981
Yeah. I never seen a dragon with fur. Neither one with scales...
And i don't like shape of its mouth. It looks like bear or something.
it looks like that one game that's never gonna come out
>>81870003
Batman V Superman, the $800,000,000 flop.
>>81870022
You aren't real.
Already calling it. Original will still be better.
>>81870257
But the original was shit
Every little piece, every little piece
>>81870498
Still haven't seen the true original Roadshow edit
>>81869808
2003 called, they want their cgi back
GONNA SNAG IM, GAG IM
DRAG IM THROUGH TOWN
PUT HIS HEAD IN THE RIVER
LET THE PUP DROWN
TRAP IM, STRAP IM, WRAP IM IN A SACK YEEEEEEEEH
TIE IM SCREAMIN TO A RAILROAD TRACK
>>81869808
Suicide Squad hasn't even happened yet.
That movie has been marketed as one one the darkest movies of all time and a non stop quip fest.
Also, BvS didn't help the overall view of the DCEU, so thing's aren't looking good.
>>81870098
The huge investment they put into the movie makes it a flop. 250mil plus advertising and only 800mil so far, barely better than MOS
>>81871685
It isn't a flop. As bad as the movie was, and as much as they wanted it to make over a billion, it simply wasn't a flop by any films standards.
>>81869808
It's Disney. No matter how amazing year they have, they always have one bomb every 1 to 2 years.
2015 had Petes Dragon
2013 had The Lone Ranger.
Not if they have a sweet tie in song starring Kendrick Lamar and Iggy Azalea.
>Not a musical
>Live action
>Bear dragon
DROPPED
R
O
P
P
E
D
>>81870069
It's coming out. Finally.
https://www.playstation.com/en-ca/games/the-last-guardian-ps4/
>>81871685
>The huge investment they put into the movie makes it a flop.
Now granted, It could have made more and would have if it had been better, but it's not a fucking flop.
>>81869808
I'm sorry, but it looks absolutely awful. Even if it by some miracle, is a good movie...I'm probably going to give it a pass.
>>81869808
>dragon
>fur
Like, there are ways to make fur work, with a more eastern style it could look okay but
>A FUCKING DOG NOSE
>A FUCKING DOG FACE
Considering HTTYD exists and shows kids like 'scary' scaled flying lizards I dont see how people still dont understand that making something 'kid safe' is going to end with you shooting yourself in the foot.
I loved dragons as a kid and was constantly disappointed that every 'good' dragon basically looked and was either a glorified dog or a fat goofy comic relief character.
>>81872572
>Like, there are ways to make fur work
Disney's new rendering system and the programs their software engineers conjured up specifically to make fur look fucking amazing. Say what you want about Zootopia, "YIFF IN HELL" and all that, but holy shit the fuzz is on fucking point.
>>81871685
You realize these movies make all their money on merchandising right? Like even if the Force Awakens didn't make its insane box office numbers, Disney would reap the profits from toy sales alone for decades. Same with Transformers. Batman and Superman toys are the same way.
>>81872572
Why do people assume everything they don't like about X must be "because toned down for kids"
It's the same shit with Ultron for example, everyone keeps repeating "Marvel was afraid of the kids' reaction!"
Sometimes the explanation might just be that people working on it wanted to try something different, see >>81870032 or pic related
>>81869808
He doesn't look like an "Elliot" to me.
>>81873215
Say what you want about Eragon, but the dragon designs were pretty gud. Saphira was cute.
>>81873215
i love the look of those wings
>>81869808
is that fucking Sully from Monster's Inc?
>>81869808
The existence of this movie fills me with genuinely murderous rage.
>>81873901
YOU'RE GREEN WITH IT!
>>81869981
This one does.
>>81873215
>not a musical
Nope.
>>81869981
And when we were kids dinosaurs didn't have feathers.
Who says dragon's can't be furry?
>>81869874
>Pete's Luck Dragon
>b-but mah scaly monsters
Fuck. There's literally hundreds of media depicting dragons as reptiles, there's nothing wrong with something different now and again
>>81874242
Just because it's different doesn't mean it's good. There's a thing called good execution, and this design is simply bad and unappealing regardless.
>>81874242
>There's literally hundreds of media depicting dragons as reptiles
because that's how they are supposed to look. Just call it something else
>>81874940
>taking my argument and just flipping it around
Your entire post is subjective as fuck. Who says it's bad and unappealing? You? Did you take a census for every person who's seen the image or cares?
It looks fine. Not great either I'll grant you that, but decent enough for a mid tier remake.
>>81869808
I'm not a big fan of green fur and the proportions. Nothing against mamalian dragons, >>81870032
for example, looks great but this is just kind of...ugly and awkward to look at.
>>81869808
>no head of a camel
>no neck of a crocodile
>no ears of a cow
It's even worse than I'd imagined.
>>81875166
>Did you take a census for every person who's seen the image or cares?
http://strawpoll.me/7384309
Here you go.
>>81875110
>that's how they are supposed to look
>implying
Dragons are magical creatures, you can make them into whatever you want them to be
>For years, old wood carver Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford) has delighted local children with his tales of the fierce dragon that resides deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. To his daughter, Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard), who works as a forest ranger, these stories are little more than tall tales…until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley). Pete is a mysterious 10-year-old with no family and no home who claims to live in the woods with a giant, green dragon named Elliott. And from Pete’s descriptions, Elliott seems remarkably similar to the dragon from Mr. Meacham’s stories. With the help of Natalie (Oona Laurence), an 11-year-old girl whose father Jack (Wes Bentley) owns the local lumber mill, Grace sets out to determine where Pete came from, where he belongs, and the truth about this dragon.
It's awful as fuck. It's literally the same kind of bullshit design as Toothless. A dragon, that's methodically created to appeal to people who never liked dragons to begin with.
>>81869808
So is this going to be Iron Giant with a dragon?
>Boy finds dragon, befriends it
>Police or someone is looking for dragon
>climax involves town knowing about dragon and he saves it or something
>Bye bye dragon..... Or is he really bye bye?
I might be wrong but that's what I understood from the trailer.
bigger image
>>81876058
>lol we watched a bunch of youtube videos
what the fuck?
>>81869981
YOU DONT KNOW ME
YOU DON'T GET TO JUDGE ME
JUST BECAUSE I HAVE FUR DOES BUT MAKE ME LESS OF A DRAGON
I AM A PROOF DRAIN AND I HAVE FUR
SHAME ON YOU
YOU ARE A BIGOT
I BET SASQUATCH POISONED YOUR MIND WITH SUCH HATE
>>81876058
>>81876358
>mfw this shit tier creative process
>>81874242
I'm going to call birds cats from now on. You're an idiot
>>81876460
*PROUD DRAGON
Fuck, auto correct and the HATEFUL IGNORANT SASQUATCH who programmed it
>>81873215
Eragon had an okay dragon design that was cohesive
but OP and fucking falkor look like shit, maybe thats and unpopular opinion but they look like dogs. Theres tons of monstrous dog-like creatures in folklore (even flying ones) that you could base the designs on other than saying its just a "dragon" or 'beast"
>>81873129
Zootopia looked great, but the fur in OP looks like a walking rug.
>>81876470
>MUH REALISM
>>81876556
no level of byronposting will ease my pain at this
>>81874940
Eastern dragons have manes, beards, whiskers, and hair on their 'elbows.' Many are depicted with streaks of hair running down their backs.
>>81869981
Yes they do.
>>81876610
Eastern dragons still tend to look better than this abomination.
>>81876556
>we always thought it ought to obey the rules of evolutionary biology
W H Y
I'm not opposed to unusual dragon designs, but that thing is unappealing to me
>>81876610
Eastern dragons are cool looking, not this thing
>>81870022
Are you telling me they are out of dragons?
>>81876610
>>81876651
>>81876778
I like variations on eastern dragons. Like this thing. It just werks.
Even with only two legs, EVEN in a shit movie, Smaug is the greatest dragon ever put on film. That's not going to change any time soon, it seems.
>>81869808
>Pete's Dragon
>Dragon
>D R A G O N
This isn't a dragon. Full stop. Making a giant creature with bat wings doesn't make it a dragon.
>le "intimidating acts like a domestic animal" meme
Gross.
>dog/bear face
>canine legs
>big dog eyes
>giant dog nose
>FUCKING
>FUR
WHY???
I could accept the rest of the stupid dog shit and cute-ifying (even though the original Elliot wasn't intimidating at all) the design, fine. It'd make me mad, but whatever. Giving it fur, though? It's not a dragon anymore. When I first saw this I thought that you just used the wrong picture.
I understand that they're trying to make it look "cute" for kids, but kids aren't generally scared of dragons. Maybe if it was some other obscure mythical creature, fine, but kids know what dragons are. This is just some big dog with wings. Might as well make it red and call the movie Clifford the Big Red Dog.
>>81876862
It's very true.
>>81876806
>Legend of fish swimming up waterfalls to become dragons
>They keep their dumbass fish heads
I'm not sure I like it.
>Hollywood will never, EVER make a legit fantasy dragon again after Dragonheart because they are way too married to realism and childproofing
>>81876862
considering what a shitfest "Peedur Jicksons the Horbot" was, I'm glad they at least got Smaug mostly right
thank you based eggsbenedict cucumber
>>81876862
>>81876806
>base design off of a fish
Okay thats coo-
>no elements to make it look anything more than a giant orange noodle
Fish arent just plain, why not give it "wings" that look like lionfish frills, or give it seadragon tendrils. Mix and match different fish to make it look more mythical than a long goldfish?
People say that dragons are boring but fuck me most of the variations arent much better and look twenty times more stupid because of it.
>>81876865
>>le
you need to go back
>>81876058
>Making him more canine like makes him less scary.
Rankin/Bass disagrees.
>>81875345
I like the look of the dragon. It looks like a dragon which might actually exist in a forest or jungle if they were real. The rest of the movie looks awful though.
>>81869981
>What is Falkor
I WANNA FUCK THAT DRAGON
>>81869808
So Sully from Monsters Inc is a dragon now?
>>81879824
Furfag BTFO
>>81876058
>have it feel like a blur between a very grounded realistic world and a world yadda yadda
But... the dragon in the original didn't look like it belonged in that world, that was the joke of the fucking movie.
Also
>funny animal videos
So they got high and called it work?
>>81875355
dragons are reptilian though, just make something else
>>81877008
Looks like Nicol Bolas.
>>81869874
kek
>>81869981
>>8>>81870022
DELET THIS
>Dragon with fur
>instead of feathers
Oh come on.
>>81873901
This isn't scary! Fur and dog nose, what were those hacks thinking?
It's called MONSTERS Inc., not Kidsaresuchpussieslmao Inc.!
>>81873488
Saphira and Durza were the only good things about the movie. Maybe Brom too, i guess
>>81869808
More like Pete and the Big Green Cat
>>81873215
If the animators wanted to animate a robot that doesnt look like Ultron maybe they shouldnt have worked on a movie that features fucking Ultron?
>>81869808
looks like a giant green female lion
>>81884202
>doesn't look like Ultron
My 6yo brother yesterday casually noticed me reading West Coast Avengers and he immediately recognized Ultron after only watching the movie
>>81873215
"different" is coward talk to sell shit.
>>81876058
Disney are cancer killing in the industry. I fucking despise them.
>>81873977
ONE MORE TIME
>>81876358
>>81869808
I for one, love this design.
Using CGI for the dragon kinda misses the whole point.
>>81885690
Do you honestly expect them to use 2D animation in live action film in 2016? Do you really want to remind people of the abomination Space Jam
>>81873901
Live action Monsters Inc remake when?
>>81869851
I'd prefer it if it had more of a mossy, forest texture, to match it's surroundings. Makes it more mystical to me.
>>81877144
Because it's a carp, not a missmatch of different fish. Throwing in a shark head and lionfish spines and whatever would just ruin what the design is going for.
>>81880432
>dragons are reptilian
Odd, I don't remember my zoology book classifying them that way.
>waaaah dragons don't have fur!
Oh please. These are the same autists that have a tantrum whenever someone calls their imaginary lizards dragons instead of wyverns.
>>81876358
> the dragon is voiced by the Crypt Keeper
Reading this >>81876556 made me glad that they didn't turn Elliot into a fucking wyvern.
>>81869808
I fucking hate the original, so I might see this just to support how unlike the first one it is
>>81874242
This.
It's a fucking dragon. It's a made up animal. It can look like a lot of things.
>>81869981
welp, it's fiction, like that one game with a dragon without scales
>>81876358
I think I'd like it more if they kept the overbite and pink hair, maybe the cartoony eyes too.
I dunno, Pete just looks weird being realistic.
>>81889845
>I fucking hate the original
>>81885777
But Roger rabbit was good m8. We just need studios that don't suck dick.
>a dog with bat wings is a '''''dragon''''''
MUH REALISM
>>81870032
I wanna ride him, if you get my drift.
>>81869808
looks like shit, but so did Frozen and zootopia. Disney just need to shit a small 50 million more in getting celebs selling it for them and that's still going to be a 850 million dollar making movie.
No musical numbers, no Mickey Rooney, no watch.
>>81890457
He probably meant that he likes good movies, and he hates the original because it's bad.
I hate all these live action versions of their old traditional animated stuff. It's like they're saying it wasn't legitimate enough, or something. "LOL, no one's going to watch that old cartoon! We have CGI now, we can do it for real!"
It's like Disney's being reverent to its heritage and shitting on it at the same time. It just seems like a really questionable strategy to me.
>bomb of the year
What about Norm of the North? Did everyone forget or something?
>>81891333
Fucking hell, there's a third one?!
>>81876058
>not a dog but a cat this time
fucking wow
Maleficent was bad, Cinderella was okay, The Jungle Book seems okay, the next one had to be bad.
>>81876806
>body and appendages aren't carp-like at all in shape, only color and scales
>slap a 100% carp head on it with its jaw permanently extended
The head soils it somewhat for me. The bumbling carp head and harmless toothless carp mouth are at odds with the rest of the body.
>>81874242
>There's literally hundreds of media depicting dragons as reptiles
Braveheart and uh...Braveheart?
Bomb of the year will be Alice 2.
>>81876556
>MUH NO 4 LIMBS AND WINGS BECAUSE REALISM
>MUH DRAGON THAT IN THE PREVIOUS ADAPTATION WAS A LITERAL FUCKING CARTOON HAS TO LOOK REAL
I hope it fails. I hope this, Alice, GITS< all of these shitty cash ins where the people working dont even give two shits about the thing they are remaking fail so hard the entire industry tanks.
>>81869808
Who knows? Disney actually made a cartoon-to-live-action adaption work with the Jungle Book, so maybe they can pull it off. So far they're having an amazing year.
Kind of strange they're remaking such an obscure flick, but I guess maybe that's the best course of action. Less easy to screw up and if you do, fewer people care.
