Write on the Wall

Post Comment
Toonboy's avatar
KF Animation Editor
Posts: 564
Reviews: 319

Yep.  This new way of making profiles is so streamlined.

lupercal's avatar
KF Animation Editor
Posts: 304
Reviews: 517

Pol

Tooboy wrote:

 

'Oops.  Typo.  I meant the opposite of liberal.  Spent too much time on other forums talking about how I don't trust the Democrats.  XD'

 

You just spent too much time doing the same thing here.

Loop

lupercal's avatar
KF Animation Editor
Posts: 304
Reviews: 517

Contructive criticism: top 5's

Is there a strong reason that the 'top 5's' page now only shows feature films? I was always interested in seeing the current top 5 short films, TV series, etc.

 

Loop

 

(NB: I know you can get to this information, but you would really have to be looking for it, rather than having it presented to you.)

athena's avatar
KF Animation Editor
Posts: 388
Reviews: 218

Top 5's

On the top 5 page there's a menu down the side that allows you to select which Top 5 list you'd like to see, (eg. Short Films, TV Series, etc.). The default on load is Feature Films.

I changed the layout simply because having them all load at the same time always made that page a touch slower than I would've liked.

lupercal's avatar
KF Animation Editor
Posts: 304
Reviews: 517

Slow

Wow. I'm still on dialup, and it didn't seem slow to me. But whatever.

 

The menu down the (left) side doesn't make it clear that you're selecting top 5's in the various categories, and in fact you're not. It's just sort of tacked on, the way it used to be when you entered a specific category. Sorry, but as I slowly sort out the new site, this is a second thing I don't like. Is it possible to revert to the in-your-face presentation of all top 5 categories? Trust me, I kvetch endlessly about slow sites(don't get me started about my domain registrar), but I never found the top 5's slow. And there can't be many people on the planet with a slower connection than mine.

Ok, there is one other thing I don't like. The expand/compact thing on the reviews. I think reviews should be presented in full, as written, by default. People (myself included) tend not to bother expanding a review, and if so, what's the incentive for writing a good one?

I know; I just seem to be slagging everything off, don't I?, and you're probably pissed. You walrus hurt the one you love; or to put it another way, would it be be better if you only got  positive feedback?

 

Loop

athena's avatar
KF Animation Editor
Posts: 388
Reviews: 218

yikes...

In the category of "what the holy heck?!", I bring you this link to What's up: Balloon to the rescue... a 3D animated movie (DTV, I'm guessing) about an elderly man who attaches his house to a hot air balloon. May or may not contain a talking dog...

 

starlac's avatar
KF Managing Editor
Posts: 206
Reviews: 226

You should worry, I've got a DTV called "The Little Panda Fighter", which I've been too afraid to watch of yet; going on the sypnosis on the back it's confused about what it's own plot even is. I'm also planning to get another DTV called "The Reef" (actually that's one aparently not that bad). There's a whole mess of these Pixar/Dreamworks rip-off DTVs, there's another called Ratatoing, as well as others.

Wish me luck when I get brave enough to watch the first.

N.B. The store was closing down, so I got a hefty discount, there's no way I would have brought it otherwise, even with my tendency to occasionally collect inane animated garbage on the cheap.

athena's avatar
KF Animation Editor
Posts: 388
Reviews: 218

oh god... I shouldn't have watched that trailer so close to bedtime... now I'm just going to have nightmares.

*shudder*

Magnus's avatar
Reviewing Ninja
Posts: 16
Reviews: 73

Hahaha...

Those look pretty awful. They remind me of THIS.

... An old rip-off of the Jungle Book I saw once while walking through a hobby store. If you look closely at the cover image, the one piece of art you'd think they could get right, you'll notice that Baloo's right arm is cradling a severed hand. I can only imagine what the cartoon itself is like. *shudders*

The worst part is, on Amazon there are actually some people giving this thing four-star reviews, praising its "adherence to the story content," and announcing their commitment to continue buying these rip-offs for their children. Apparently among a (thankfully) small minority of people, visual quality -- and ORIGINALITY -- are unimportant in the animated art form. Of course, it's well known that the vast majority of whatever money these films make comes from unwitting parents who mistakenly buy these titles for their kids.

starlac's avatar
KF Managing Editor
Posts: 206
Reviews: 226

I’ve yet to get that version of The Jungle Book, although I’ve seen it in the bargain bins of supermarkets for years.

This is where the phrasing "Rip-off" becomes a little protracted, as the underlying "story content" of the Jungle Book is the 115-year-old novel, rather than the 42-year-old Disney movie.

The Disney version could hardly be said to follow the original story; rather it tells its own warped version of it, filling it with songs and changing characters to fit. Much like many of Disney’s adaptations, the company tend to use the source material to fit itself.

Actually the above paragraph could be applied to most of Disney’s Classics.

So, if it used the Disney model for the characters, etc, I would say that it was a rip-off of the Disney version. If it actually tries to stick more closely to being a proper adaptation of the original book, then maybe the case that it is more faithful to Kipling’s original narrative could hold true.

Then again, knowing the reputation of Jetlag Productions…

Magnus's avatar
Reviewing Ninja
Posts: 16
Reviews: 73

While of course I agree that Disney has never had a reputation for adherence to the original stories that their movies are often based on, I highly doubt that Jetlag's true intentions were somehow more pure or respectful, especially considering:

1) Virtually every single one of the Disney "classics" has an accompanying film of similar theme and title from Jetlag (the majority of these were all produced in the same year, 1995)

2) The character designs are almost always similar to those of Disney, to say nothing of the characters themselves (If Jetlag's "Jungle Book" were really based on the novel, why do they only have the same characters Disney used? Where's Rikki-Tikki-Tavi? Where are Mowgli's adoptive parents?)

3) The vast majority of reviews for their movies on IMDB come from people who thought they were buying the Disney version. This is a clear indication that they are making money off of their blatant resemblance to Disney films. The only argument then becomes whether or not this resemblance is intentional (i.e. rip-off) or "coincidental."

Considering they produced a film called "Leo the Lion: King of the Jungle" in 1994 (the same year Disney's Lion King was released), and Disney's Lion King was definitely NOT an adaptation of a novel and therefore neither was Jetlag's, I think it's safe to say that they are drinking from the rip-off fountain. And many would say Disney's Lion King is, itself, a rip-off of Simba the White Lion. That would make Jetlag's creation a DOUBLE RIP-OFF! Yell

In all fairness I will admit that every animation should be judged for its own value, and I haven't seen any of Jetlag's productions, so who knows? Maybe there's something interesting and original to be found, somewhere in there. But in the meantime I'd prefer to watch something that HASN'T been done before.

starlac's avatar
KF Managing Editor
Posts: 206
Reviews: 226

In all fairness I will admit that every animation should be judged for its own value, and I haven't seen any of Jetlag's productions, so who knows? Maybe there's something interesting and original to be found, somewhere in there. But in the meantime I'd prefer to watch something that HASN'T been done before.

I've picked up a few of their DVDs up today (Snow White & Alice in Wonderland), I'll give them the once over and get profiles and reviews up for them as I can. If they are blatant rips, which despite my little earlier post I'm sure they likely are (thus why I've put off buying them for so long), you can be sure that I'll lay into them for it.

Magnus's avatar
Reviewing Ninja
Posts: 16
Reviews: 73

You guys want to watch some quality RATATOING? It's on Youtube.

Here's Part 1

And Part 2

I don't know how much of this you can handle. It's pretty painful. But if you're up for the challenge, here's the rest...

And Part 3

Here's Part 4

And last and least, Part 5

I actually made myself watch the whole thing. Blehh.

The one thing I have to remind myself, though, is that cartoons like this were made under circumstances far less fortunate than what exists in the USA. Companies like Pixar and Disney are hard to compete with inside the nation, much less outside it. If I were a kid growing up in Brazil who loved animation and wanted to become an animator, what would I do? Without access to high-end animation technology or the financial means to support a large development team, how could I make a living doing what I love? Maybe movies like this are the only answer.

Additionally, the average Brazilian family might not be able to afford a Dreamworks or Pixar film. For some, this could be the "next best thing," as it were.

lupercal's avatar
KF Animation Editor
Posts: 304
Reviews: 517

Shock

Once again I am shocked, surprised and flabbergasted by J-Kitty being shocked surprised and flabbergasted.

 

Loop

starlac's avatar
KF Managing Editor
Posts: 206
Reviews: 226

I find it to be in effect an indirect insult to everyone else on keyframe when she writes that cliché phrasing myself especially when she adds her to the end of her "trademark" phrase ...by the negativity I heard on Keyframe.com. - and when I'm the only other person who's written a review, I read it as a slur against me personality (something my autism likely doesn't help with).

For the record I thought Thundercats was typical 80's garbage.

Magnus Said:You guys want to watch some quality RATATOING? It's on Youtube.

Yeah, I'll get round to it, certainly be better than buying the thing.

Post Comment