More on the Alvin and Horton trailers

At his blog, Mark Mayerson has posted his thoughts on the recently released trailers for Alvin and the Chipmunks and Horton Hears a Who. His blog post is titled "Two Trailers; Two Tragedies" -- can you guess what he thought of them? About the Chipmunks, he says:

What is it about toilet humour and animated films? We've gone from fart jokes to characters defecating on screen in Open Season to characters eating each other's waste material now. When did family films look to John Waters and Pink Flamingoes as a model? When did a porn fetish become children's entertainment? And who, at the MPAA, approved this trailer for all audiences?

My objection is not to the obscenity, it's the complete and total lack of imagination. In a medium where characters can do anything, they choose to do this? With the entire history of film comedy to draw on, this is the best they could do?

He's not much kinder to Horton Hears a Who:

Furthermore, whoever is behind the screenplay doesn't understand how to write for animation. There's way too much dialogue and the animators are stuck looking for gestures to keep the characters alive while the dialogue drones on. I don't envy the animator stuck with that Steve Carell scene. It's a tough challenge, but he or she is making it worse by using gestures to illustrate words and phrases as opposed to thoughts. The character is overly busy and the gestures are mostly empty of emotion.

At his own blog, Michael Sporn gives some of his comments on the trailers. Here's some of what he says about Alvin and the Chipmunks:

My immediate reaction to the ugly cg chipmunks was absolutely negative. There is nothing that could make me go to that film. The designs of the characters are completely off kilter. To think back to those limited animation but beautifully designed Format film originals, I can only sigh when I look at what a bastardization of ugly design people do today. It’s sad, really.

Horton Hears a Who trailer

Jerry Beck has posted a link to the new trailer for Blue Sky's upcoming Dr. Seuss adaptation, Horton Hears a Who. The reaction is less than positive. Esn thinks it's too "hip":

What’s with this urge to make everyone and everything “hip”? Horton is not “hip”, and never was. Neither were Goofy or Charlie Brown, and yet they are both beloved characters (both of them also suffered some attempts by people who didn’t get it to make them “hip”).

Fred Sparrman thinks that Hollywood should leave Dr. Seuss alone:

Out of all the countless adaptations of his books, what actually “works”? Chuck Jones’ Grinch special. Maybe Clampett’s Horton film, been too long since I’ve seen it. But nothing else! Live action Grinch film? Doesn’t work. Seussical the Musical? Doesn’t work. Daisy-Head Mayzie, the manuscript he wrote and set aside which got released posthumously with faux-Seuss knock-off illustrations? Doesn’t work.

Katie laments the presence of celebrity voices:

I agree with the posters above, it’s not Horton anymore. It’s Jim Carrey in an elephant suit. It’s Carrel in a Who suit. His acting does not appeal to me at all. I still stand by my belief that he can only play Ace Ventura, and nothing else. He just gets way to bizarre and takes most of his roles over the top. It breaks my heart when the integrity of the character is sacrificed to adapt to the “voice” actor’s own style.

It's not all gloom and doom, though. Dav-Odd in particular seems to really love the trailer, or at least certain parts of it:

Wow! You know what I like about this? The camera work. And I like how the speck of pollen looks stuck on top of that big flower. Good job, Blue Sky! On the flower, and the camera!

(Though depending on how you read that, it could be seen as really positive or really sarcastic. I think the guy was trying to be positive, though.)