 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / General Topics / June 2004Garfield
I was just watching Joel Segal's segment on movies on Good Morning America Did I hear right that a shock collar was used to make a puppy do back flips. If that's true this move should be boycotted. butey >I was just watching Joel Segal's segment on movies on Good Morning America >Did I hear right that a shock collar was used to make a puppy do back flips. > >If that's true this move should be boycotted. > >butey No, I had *not* heard that. I wonder if there's any information on the web that would verify that information. I would be very shocked to learn that it's true; I always assumed that the use of live animals in movies/TV was tightly regulated. Sherry > >I was just watching Joel Segal's segment on movies on Good Morning America > >Did I hear right that a shock collar was used to make a puppy do back flips. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > regulated. > Sherry I heard it on Good Morning America too. There was a story about how cartoons are not real life, and when cartoon charactors are part of a film with real people its really not funny watching a cat fall 20 stories, etc. And he said "they got the puppy to do back flips using a shock collar", no mistake I heard it. I am wondering why this is allowed. I just checked the GMA web site and didn't find anything yet, maybe they still need to update with todays Joel Segment. >> >I was just watching Joel Segal's segment on movies on Good Morning >America [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >I just checked the GMA web site and didn't find anything yet, maybe they >still need to update with todays Joel Segment. I would tend to doubt the story. First the image of Garfield is probably a computet genarted image.or animation. The same probably goes for any other animals in the movie. Also you will note at the end of many films it will say no animals were harmed in the making of this film. Also in the ad it states "The live-action / CGI picture" I would doubt any studio today would release a film that harms any animals in the making of the film. Besides if any amimal was harmed in making this movie PETA would be all over it like white on rice. > I would tend to doubt the story. First the image of Garfield is > probably a computet genarted image.or animation. The same > probably goes for any other animals in the movie. The only CGI in the movie is Garfield. Everything else is live action. I tend to doubt the story as well though. Animals used in Hollywood are thoroughly trained to do the trick required of them. Otherwise, they're not hired. Mar -------------------------------------------------- If the poodle got loose, I figured I could take it. I was armed. - Laurell K. Hamilton from the Anita Blake series >The only CGI in the movie is Garfield. Everything else is live action. Odi is more than likely CGI too. I doubt a single live animal was used anywhere in the film. Every animal was probably CGI (cheaper that way, the animal does exactly what the director wants and needs no trainer). I would point out when Scoobie Doo was out recently SD was CGI. >I was just watching Joel Segal's segment on movies on Good Morning America >Did I hear right that a shock collar was used to make a puppy do back flips. > >If that's true this move should be boycotted. > >butey I was just watching the trailer.....it's all GGI folks. I doubt one single animal appears in the entire film. -------------------------------------------------- 152 days until regime change in the United States. > I was just watching the trailer.....it's all GGI folks. I doubt one > single animal appears in the entire film. > -------------------------------------------------- Actually, only one single animal in the film is CGI. "Additionally, presumably to keep the cost down, Garfield is the only animal that is animated. The rest of the feline, canine, and rodent cast is comprised of real animals whose lips are manipulated to allow them to speak." http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/g/garfield.html Mar -------------------------------------------------- If the poodle got loose, I figured I could take it. I was armed. - Laurell K. Hamilton from the Anita Blake series >"Additionally, presumably to keep the cost down, Garfield is the only animal >that is animated. The rest of the feline, canine, and rodent cast is >comprised of real animals whose lips are manipulated to allow them to >speak." >http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/g/garfield.html I would take this review with a huge grain of salt. It's probably cheaper to do a full CGI than manipulate the mouth. Also the CGI looks cheesy in this film because the Director was probably aiming at a December release and the TPTB rushed it out the door for a Summer release. Bear in mind all we've seen is the ads for it and those are CGI renderings. We will have to wait for the film itself. > I would take this review with a huge grain of salt. It's probably > cheaper to do a full CGI than manipulate the mouth. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Bear in mind all we've seen is the ads for it and those are CGI > renderings. We will have to wait for the film itself. Or maybe just do some research. Here are four reviews from four different people - people who have seen the film. It doesn't matter whether they liked it or not. The debate here is over the CGI characters. (And I don't know what ads you've seen but all the ads they show here are live action with Garfield as the only CGI.) "Garfield is animated, the other animals and the humans are real, and the movie does a convincing job of combining the two levels." http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-garfield11f.html "They make Garfield a computer-animated creature and place him in a live-action world. The problem is, there are other cats, dogs, rats and mice in the flick and these creatures talk courtesy of the kind of effects used in Babe, Stuart Little and Cats & Dogs. Computers enhance their mouth, eye and facial movements. This makes it really strange when the entirely computer-generated Garfield is interacting with real felines, canines and rodents." http://www.canoe.ca/JamMoviesReviewsG/garfield-sun.html "Garfield -- the only CGI character in the movie --" http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/11/DDG4U73NJH1.DTL "..while his sidekick/nemesis Odie is completely live-action without any embellishment at all." http://flipsidemovies.com/garfield.html Mar -------------------------------------------------- If the poodle got loose, I figured I could take it. I was armed. - Laurell K. Hamilton from the Anita Blake series >Here are four reviews from four different people - people who have seen the >film. It doesn't matter whether they liked it or not. The debate here is >over the CGI characters. (And I don't know what ads you've seen but all the >ads they show here are live action with Garfield as the only CGI.) And often those reviews are by people who have no clue what CGI is or who have seen an advance screening with a version that is not released. Some studios make several versions of a movie and screen them for test audiences. The version that tests best is released. I take all movie reviews with a giant grain of salt. I've also noticed some reviewers wouldn't know a CGI image if it was on the screen yelling in their face. >Here are four reviews from four different people - people who have seen the >film. It doesn't matter whether they liked it or not. The debate here is >over the CGI characters. (And I don't know what ads you've seen but all the >ads they show here are live action with Garfield as the only CGI.) Bear in mind some of the ads that run are many months old. Made long before the special effects are added. Besides I don't really care whether they are GGI or not. But the trend in Holllywood is more towards CGI and less towards live animals. Remember the point of this thread started as a discussion of whether animals were abused in making Garfield. Suffice to say animals were not abused, if so the film would have been boycotted by PETA. I didn't hear of any boycott. Have you? >http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/g/garfield.html Owww, that's a bad review. I must admit when I watched the trailer I kind of felt the same way. It seems weird to have garfield be poor quality cgi when everyone else is real. It's not like there are not real cats out there who could have played the part. I guess it was just easier and cheaper to have the main character be cgi. It definitely looks cheap. Now, the cgi in Shrek is great. >>http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/g/garfield.html > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >main character be cgi. It definitely looks cheap. Now, the cgi in Shrek is >great. I would take a review like this with a huge grain of salt. This is one reviewer who probably should have started his review "I hate the Garfield comic but i'm going to review this movie anyways." Your best bet is to ignore movie reviews. I always have to ask did they see the same movie I did? I'm waiting for the Get Fuzzy movie. To address the original topic of the thread... "Parents should know that the movie has some comic violence, including a shock collar used on both a dog and a human. No one of either species is seriously harmed." http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=parentsguide&id=1808468771 Mar -------------------------------------------------- If the poodle got loose, I figured I could take it. I was armed. - Laurell K. Hamilton from the Anita Blake series > I was just watching Joel Segal's segment on movies on Good Morning America > Did I hear right that a shock collar was used to make a puppy do back flips. > > If that's true this move should be boycotted. > > butey |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.