Everyone's Hero

[Wussycat]

What do you think this film is going to be like? Personally, I think it's going to suck, because:

1) It's about baseball.

2) It's got Whoopi Goldberg in it.

3) The plot is lame.

4) The villain is lame. Maybe even lamer than Edgar from The Aristocats.

But it's likely to make a lot of money just because Christopher Reeve was directing it before he died.

Edit: Oh, yeah... Another problem with it is the trailer spoils the whole story.

 

[Michael24]

Christopher Reeve directed? I had no idea.

Personally, I think it looks lame. There's been so many CGI movies this year that I've grown even more sick of them than I had been previously. Please, somebody bring back cel animation. It's sorely missed.

 

[Shadow Blaziken]

Five bucks the movie's gonna bomb in Boston.

 

[Dee]

Five bucks the movie's gonna bomb in Boston.

I was thinking the same thing when I saw their giant booth at Siggraph in Boston.

As for the animation, I think I will enjoy seeing this.

 

[tb4000]

Basically if you don't go see this, you're disrespecting Christopher Reeve. That's how it's going to be marketed.

 

[DisneyFan]

I'm at least gonna give it a watch just for the sole purpose of it being about my favorite baseball team. But I'll admit even though it's about the Yankees I'm still really worried about how bad it will be. Whoppi Goldberg I can handle but come on Raven Symone?

 

[Undrave]

Heh... at least it's not about talking animals...

then again there's a talking baseball and a talking bat -.-

And as was mentionned the trailer almost spoils the whole thing!

 

[mammy2shoesfan]

I'm at least gonna give it a watch just for the sole purpose of it being about my favorite baseball team. But I'll admit even though it's about the Yankees I'm still really worried about how bad it will be. Whoppi Goldberg I can handle but come on Raven Symone?

Whats so bad about Whoppi and Raven. Whoppi is a good actress so there shouldn't be anyproblems there and Raven has a ok sounding voice which would fit the character that she is playing. It just looks like a bad moviethat I won't waste my time seeing. So is regular animation officially dead becaue every thing being made know is 3D and the most of it really doesn't even look that good like this movie.

 

[Discloner]

Basically if you don't go see this, you're disrespecting Christopher Reeve. That's how it's going to be marketed.

I knew he'd been behind this film for quite some time, since I'd been following the blips of news regarding Mainframe helping to animate the then described 'Christopher Reeves baseball film' (I believe IDT is putting the film out and at the time IDT owned Mainframe as well many other CGI studios which I assume were working together to get the film completed). It disappeared from the radar for a while but now it's out in full force as it's obviously being released.

However, I haven't seen much, if any, mention of Reeves in the film's promotional push other then an article I read somewhere about how the film came into being (his son wouldn't come to dinner because he was so engaged in the book; Christopher thought it'd make a good kids flick). And I've really been surprised by that...since really this film doesn't have much power to push it in terms of big names. So I don't think they're hinging on name recognition, or Christopher Reeve's legacy to sell the film, after all they could work it double considering Dana Reeves voices a character in the film as well. I think the people who made the film are relying on its story and message to push it...which to me, places far more confidence in it's strength as a good movie then big names and gimmicky sells ever would...

1) It's about baseball.

I'm not particularly fond of the sport, but a great number of America (and numerous other countries), and the film's likely demographic 5-10 year old boys are. But you don't necessarily have to be a fan of something to enjoy a film that uses it's elements...after all, if that were the case I wouldn't have enjoyed Cars nor Talladega Nights; since I'm not particularly fond of racing.

2) It's got Whoopi Goldberg in it.

Whoopi can be funny, and if they chose her for the role they likely thought she was a fit for it. Considering the people behind the film seem as though their goal was to make a good film, I expect that their decision to cast Whoopi was the one they thought would fit the best for the character.

In the mean time, rent Jumping Jack Flash. Good Whoopi film, In my own opinion.

3) The plot is lame.

I don't agree. Plots, or at least their most basic structure, are usually simple, more-so with children movies. What's important is how the story fleshes out, not so much what it looks like when you strip it down to a couple sentences.

That being said, I think the plot of : A Famous bat is stolen causing a janitor to get fired. His son sets out to find the bat and save his family from poverty; isn't bad at all...in fact, it lends itself to lots of messages and story devices, which is what a good plot does.

4) The villain is lame. Maybe even lamer than Edgar from The Aristocats.

Does this film even have a real villain? I've seen the trailer a bunch of times, read articles, and what have you...and I've yet to really find a 'villian'. There are apparently people working against the main character with their own adgendas, but from what I've seen I can't determine a clear villainagendas.

Even if there is a villainvillain; I'd like to know how you deduced how grand (or not) he is based off promotional material that doesn't even define him.

Andddddd Lastly, before I get off my soap box ...

Personally, I think it looks lame. There's been so many CGI movies this year that I've grown even more sick of them than I had been previously. Please, somebody bring back cel animation. It's sorely missed.

I entirely understand the yearning for 2D animation (Cel Animation...hasn't it been gone for a while? Like...ever since they started using Computers?), and fully support the crowd displeased with the corporate mentality that 2D animation is a dead art form and CGI is the wave of the future. Both can live together, and the world will not implode when they do.

However, I find myself increasingly annoyed with the mentality that "It CGI so it must be bad", which was spawned by it's 'take over' of 2D animation. People stand back and preach to corporate figure-heads that it's the story that counts, but then they blast a film before it even comes out based on its medium alone- and to me, it just goes against the cause really. If this film was done in 2D would your opinion on its story change? What makes 2D animation any less groan worthy then CGI animation? If CG films were replaced by 2D films...would you be thinking "Jeez, not another 2D film"? Why this mentality with CGI films?

I firmly stand by the fact that a film's story should ALWAYS be the deciding factor of it's greatness, not the medium it is in.

...but hey, that's just me.

I may or may not see the film in theaters. It seems like it could be decent enough and I'll always give something a shot (after all I even saw SoaP). I'll definetly see it at some point though.

 

[tucsoncoyote]

The Craze of CGI Is off the Chain...

Christopher Reeve directed? I had no idea.

Personally, I think it looks lame. There's been so many CGI movies this year that I've grown even more sick of them than I had been previously. Please, somebody bring back cel animation. It's sorely missed.

I tend to Agree Here Michael24, and in fact there are now So FEW 2D animated movies out there, and I frankly blame the fact that a lot of younger animation Experts (Those under 30), want CGI and only CGI. they have never really Fully experienced a good 2D (or a Good 2D/3D) Movie in over 10 years.

But then I think that even though some folks think this movie is Lame, I have to say this, The folks who are commenting that it is lame, are the same folks who wanted CGI in the First Place.

My Own Opinion on this would be that if a Company wants to do 2D for a particular Movie, they should do it. It really shouldn't be what Appeals to the fans of movies, it should be done by the reasoning of What Media works best for the story.

and yes this isn't about Animals done in CGI, in fact the inanimate Objects aare indeed a Baseball (Voiced by Rob Reiner), and a Baseball Bat (Babe's Bat, Voiced by Whoopi Goldberg) but see this is a reason why 2D needs to return. cause if Movies from here on in going to be 3D, this so called "Craze" will end rather abruptly when folsk get "Bored" of the style.. Then and Only then will folks come back to 2D.. They'll realize what 2D Cel Animation is all about.

But until folks Get bored with 3D, 2D won't come back.. But it would be nice for it to come back. After all 2D is just as Good as 3D, and in fact there are some perks that 2D has that 3D doesn't (Look at Brother Bear and you'll see what I'm getting at.)

But Until People get bored? it's not Going to Happen.

 

[Michael24]

If this film was done in 2D would your opinion on its story change? What makes 2D animation any less groan worthy then CGI animation? If CG films were replaced by 2D films...would you be thinking "Jeez, not another 2D film"? Why this mentality with CGI films?

If it was 2D, I'd still think it looked lame. I mean, I can handle a talking lion or a talking dinosaur, but a talking baseball and bat? I realize all these recent CGI movies are just kid flicks, but I just have a problem with CGI in general. I mean, it was okay years ago when it was still relatively new, like TOY STORY for example. That's a great movie. But now they're just everywear. And I just look at the ads for BARNYARD ANIMALS, OVER THE HEDGE, THE WILD, etc. and go, "Geez, enough already. Does everything have to be CGI talking animals on the lose?" (Granted, there was THE INCREDIBLES for a change of pace, but I didn't like that movie either, but because of the story.)

Granted, 2D films can also be better. It's just a style I prefer. Maybe because of my age and the fact I grew up on 2D animated films and such, but that's what I like.

And for the record, Whoopi Goldberg is usually a deciding factor in keeping me away from a film, especially when she's a lead. Raven Symone I like. Whoopie, not so much.

 

[entransify]

I personally think this will be one of the best animated films of the year... and I'm not even a Yankee fan.

 

[HG Revolution]

Ithey have never really Fully experienced a good 2D (or a Good 2D/3D) Movie in over 10 years.

What about Spirited Away? Lilo and Stitch? Howl's Moving Castle? Waking Life? The Triplets of Belleville? Prince of Egypt? Spongebob? There's been plenty of good 2D animation the past 10 years.

 

[Discloner]

I mean, it was okay years ago when it was still relatively new, like TOY STORY for example. That's a great movie. But now they're just everywear. And I just look at the ads for BARNYARD ANIMALS, OVER THE HEDGE, THE WILD, etc. and go, "Geez, enough already. Does everything have to be CGI talking animals on the lose?" (Granted, there was THE INCREDIBLES for a change of pace, but I didn't like that movie either, but because of the story.)

So basically, when something is new...its ok? I can understand you not liking CGI animation for aesthetic reasons, but basically to the latter part of this quote you mention not liking CGI films because they're mostly talking animals...

...and yet, most of the 2D films which have been produced were the same. Just off the top of my head, 90% of Disney's films involved stories based around talking animals and/or inanimate objects; the few movies 20th Century Fox managed to produce also had the same (PageMaster had talking books; Anastasia had a talking Bat, etc). So the characters in those films are really no different then say, characters in this film.

The people making films will always equate the subject matter with what medium to make a film in; if it didn't involve something that really can't happen in reality (ie - Talking animals/objects) why not make it a live-action movie? A lot of people have issues with this when you run across movies like Monster House and the Polar Express (brushing aside the Performance Capture aspect), these are films that could easily be live-action, and yet the creators opted on CGI for a reason. I'm not saying this is the right mentality (making a film with human subjects live action over animation), just explaining why, at least from my observations, most animated film of any medium contains characters like this. Its not a CG-exclusive concept.

Yes, the market is being flooded with CG animated films that are all flash and no substance, but again...this too is not a CG-exclusive concept. Does anyone remember Home on the Range? 2D is not without it's scratches either. I think people forget that.

All in all I'm not trying to start an argument; as much as I'm just trying to debate this 'CGI is all awful!' mentality, or at least get to the core of why people have it.

My Own Opinion on this would be that if a Company wants to do 2D for a particular Movie, they should do it. It really shouldn't be what Appeals to the fans of movies, it should be done by the reasoning of What Media works best for the story.

Which is the direction Disney is heading now. However, really...I've never heard ANY film maker complain about being forced into a medium unwillingly. I don't hear Andrew Adamson complaining about how he wanted Shrek to be a 2D feature; nor do I hear Mark Dindal complain about how he was forced to make Chicken Little a CGI film. If anything, I've read numerous animators surprised as to what CGI allows them to do and think it's a viable tool for making a film.

and yes this isn't about Animals done in CGI, in fact the inanimate Objects aare indeed a Baseball (Voiced by Rob Reiner), and a Baseball Bat (Babe's Bat, Voiced by Whoopi Goldberg) but see this is a reason why 2D needs to return. cause if Movies from here on in going to be 3D, this so called "Craze" will end rather abruptly when folsk get "Bored" of the style.. Then and Only then will folks come back to 2D.. They'll realize what 2D Cel Animation is all about.

I don't understand your point here. You start off this quote talking about CGI animals/inanimate objects but then segway that statement into why 2D needs to return...without really mentioning why it matters what the characters are.

Yes, there's a CG craze right now. Yes that bubble will one day/has already popped and the medium won't be seen as the end-all to animation's existance in a theatrical medium. But just because it's what's popular right now...doesn't mean there aren't films being released using it that are good. Its the generalization I'm trying to argue against.

 

[TheMecca]

Please, somebody bring back cel animation. It's sorely missed.

Nobody good does it anymore.
The new way is digital coloring, and even that has hand-drawn animation.
But yes, WTF with the 3D Animated movies pulled out of asses- including this one.

 

[Kagetsu]

3D can be a wonderful movie medium.

It's the talking bat and ball, and what appears to be an unappealing "kid rescue" story that bugs me. I felt the same of The Iron Giant but loved it when I finally saw it. I may see this one eventually,,, but not in theaters.

 

[Michael24]

So basically, when something is new...its ok? I can understand you not liking CGI animation for aesthetic reasons, but basically to the latter part of this quote you mention not liking CGI films because they're mostly talking animals...

...and yet, most of the 2D films which have been produced were the same. Just off the top of my head, 90% of Disney's films involved stories based around talking animals and/or inanimate objects; the few movies 20th Century Fox managed to produce also had the same (PageMaster had talking books; Anastasia had a talking Bat, etc). So the characters in those films are really no different then say, characters in this film.

It just seems so overwhelming that I've actually grown sick of the concept of all-CGI movies, especially all these ones with just talking animals and stuff. It's like there's no variety. I mean, I see the ads for the ones I mentioned (OVER THE HEDGE, THE WILD, MADAGASCAR, BARNYARD ANIMALS) and they all look the same, completely interchangable. I liked a few of the Pixar ones (TOY STORY, A BUG'S LIFE, MONSTER'S INC.), but that's really about it. I think just about every other CGI movie I've disliked.

I don't know. I'm tired just tired of them and think EVERYBODY'S HERO looks quite lame, but I'm sure I'm not the target demographic.

 

[Lonestarr]

All I have to say is this: how this film managed to hit theaters instead of going directly to video, I'll never understand.

 

[entransify]

All I have to say is this: how this film managed to hit theaters instead of going directly to video, I'll never understand.

Maybe because it looks like a wonderful, nicely animated film.

 

[Discloner]

It just seems so overwhelming that I've actually grown sick of the concept of all-CGI movies, especially all these ones with just talking animals and stuff. It's like there's no variety. I mean, I see the ads for the ones I mentioned (OVER THE HEDGE, THE WILD, MADAGASCAR, BARNYARD ANIMALS) and they all look the same, completely interchangable. I liked a few of the Pixar ones (TOY STORY, A BUG'S LIFE, MONSTER'S INC.), but that's really about it. I think just about every other CGI movie I've disliked.

Alright, now that I can understand (and totally sympathize with). That being said, you should definetly check out some that deviate from the norm - Monster House, Polar Express, Kaena (and these are just some more 'recent' ones). You could even check out Renaissance , and/or Arther and the Minimoys (don't worry, there's an english version of the trailer hidden in the english site) which are upcoming CGI films that I think look unique.

CG films can be as touching and wonderful as a regular 2D film; I think people just generalize against it.