Open Season

[Sean]

Just thought I'd remind everyone to go out and catch Open Season (http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/openseason/) since it sucked away the last four years of my life. I'd tell you what I think of it, but my objectivity is obviously completely out the window on this one. So I'll just say it rocks and everyone should see it and leave it at that. :D

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Very nice mix Sean, love the dubby vibe going on in it. Not too crazy about the movie though.:o Think I've just had one too many animated films for this summer.

[matt]

this has been getting some pretty bad reviews although even the bad reviews do seem to be impressed by the visuals

my favourite quote from a review says "An excellent case for euthanizing the entire talking-animals genre."

still, i’m looking after my 5 year old nephew all day saturday so I may take him along to see this, although to be honest I’ll probably opt for hoodwinked instead ;)

[Sean]

I've seen a lot of the reviews, and many of the negative ones seem to be negative primarily for reasons that I find to be superficial. I'll mention two of the biggest ones to explain what I mean. First is the one you just mentioned....that it's "another talking animal" movie. This is most easily addressed by simply saying that I've never seen a review complaining about "another talking human drama", or "another cowboy movie", etc. A film's quality has very little to do with things like what this complaint says.

Another complaint I've seen with some frequency is that it's "just another movie with poop humor". I'll say it straight up....we have a couple poop jokes. But viewed in context of the film and the characters, reviewers who complain about it have missed the fact that our poop jokes actually serve important story and character points. Boog is a bear who's grown up in a domestic setting, with all the comforts of home that we know. Suddenly, he ends up in a completely foreign environment when he's relocated to the wilderness. If you were suddenly thrust into that environment, what would some of your biggest concerns be? What to eat, what might eat you, and where to go to the bathroom. Having gone camping in the rainforests of Thailand, I know those were concerns I've had to deal with before, and they're very realistic. So in Open Season, Boog has to go poop and can't manage it because he's so out of his element, while Elliot is so in his element that he doesn't even realize when he's doing it. Informative and fun at the same time. :D

So overall, it seems to me that we're largely suffering from the fact that we're like the 12th animated film to come out this year. Not much that can be done about that. Personally, I'm proud of this film and think it's fun to watch....and I'll admit when a film I work on is a stinker. Hell, I worked on The King and I and Quest For Camelot....we all knew those sucked while we were working on them, but they paid the bills. So as always, I'd say go decide for yourself. I totally understand the subjective tastes that will lead people to like or dislike it, but don't skip it just because it's "another talking animal film with poop jokes" or some such nonsense.

[Dirty0900]

Can i ask what you did on the film Sean?

[Sean]

Can i ask what you did on the film Sean?I was one of four Animation Supervisors. My main focus was Elliot, the deer voiced by Ashton Kutcher. I had been a little hesitant when I heard he and Martin Lawrence were cast to do the two main voices, but they ended up doing great work and it was a very fun film to work on.

[Deckard]

I haven't seen it, but I think what you say about the timing of the film (in light of all the other big talking animal films) probably does play quite a big part in the way it's received, which does seem unfair given the number of years it takes to produce it.

Regardless, anyone who spends the best part of 4 years on a single project gets my respect!

[viddy]

Buddy??

Good movie. I went in just looking for a few laughs and a good time and I got it.

As long as we have one of the animators here I must say that the visuals were awesome. The facial animations, the fur, the water, the trees, the fire etc all looked really lush.

FIGHT! He said the f word.

[Dirty0900]

I was one of four Animation Supervisors. My main focus was Elliot, the deer voiced by Ashton Kutcher. I had been a little hesitant when I heard he and Martin Lawrence were cast to do the two main voices, but they ended up doing great work and it was a very fun film to work on.

Class. Im gonna look out for your name when it hits our shores!

[big screen satellite]

Sean,

I totally agree with you, I think reviewers are now going into movies with their eyes closed and making a movie crap before they even see it...

(although i have yet to see this movie - from the trailers - it does look fun)

Sometimes i wonder what reviewers expect from movies i really do.

Are we never gonna get an ensemble buddy movie again?? of course we are...

I appreciate that a film like 'The Wild' seemed to basically be 'Madagascar', but i don't really think that studios go out to make the same movie as anyone else, after all you started to worked on this 4 years ago, its just the timing that puts the reviewers noses out.

Who would know then, that 5 or six studios would be putting out animations at the same time - if this was out last year, before the 'glut' of animal animations then it would be getting rave reviews, but all the reviewers superlatives have been used and wasted on other similar movies prior to this...

As i said i've not seen this movie yet, but my little girl will love it i know, and surely thats the point - its all about the target audience really - kids, they love animation - my little girl has been watching Garfield on DVD all week, and she loves it, the reviewers hated it...what do they know??

Likewise films like 'Cat in the Hat'... if it makes the target audience happy then who gives a stuff...

I can see that reviewers will assume 'not another 'toon' movie about animals' but they are missing the actual point of the story... and we get enough crappy 'rom-coms' starring Sandra Bullock (although these get slated too...)

I bet when Shrek 3 comes out next year it won't get the same response, even if its just another Shrek movie, it'll contain the same kind of jokes as before and involve the 'same' characters we've already seen...

Sadly i think the reviewers that are forced to see this type of movie by their magazines / newspapers are too apathetic towards it before they even get to the theatre and probably have written their copy well in advance, they are always wanting to compare movies to what they've seen before rather than just sit down, laugh and have a bit of fun, because to them thats too much like hard work....


Anyway, well done Sean, hope the film doesn't really suck now i've stuck up for it ;)

Matt

[matt]

i have to disagree with you - the truly great kids movies work on two levels - one that kids enjoy and one the adults can enjoy cf. toy story, shrek etc

and as someone who had to sit through garfield with their four year old nephew i can tell you that that movie absolutely sucks. besides if you're going to base your quality control decisions on what a 3 year old would enjoy then why even bother with a plot at all and just have a guy slip on a banana skin for 80 mins or whatever

besides, a lot of the reviews i've seen for this film don't focus on the 'oh no another animated talking animal movie' issue but on the rather more important weak storylines and lack of any humour (in their opinion of course as i've not seen the film)

for example:

Another question: At any point, do the people involved realize they've got a lot of pretty animated images, no jokes, less story, and voice performances that never click together? Those problems abound in Open Season...no one makes it out of this laughless mess unscathed.

Open Season is long on manic energy and bathroom humor but short on real storytelling, emotion, or characters. I realize we’re talking about a children’s movie here ...but even kids deserve movies that strive to be inventive and surprising, rather than just lazy, clichéd, prepackaged nonsense. The directors of Open Season had hands in creating classics like The Lion King, Monsters, Inc., and Toy Story, and they do an admirable job of making their movie sparkle and shine with CGI glitter. But despite this pedigree and craftsmanship, Open Season is little more than paint-by-numbers filmmaking, and it fails in the most important charge of any children’s movie: to transport its young and impressionable audience to a world where anything is possible, rather than to one where everything’s been thought of already.

[Sean]

i have to disagree with you - the truly great kids movies work on two levels - one that kids enjoy and one the adults can enjoy cf. toy story, shrek etc

and as someone who had to sit through garfield with their four year old nephew i can tell you that that movie absolutely sucks. besides if you're going to base your quality control decisions on what a 3 year old would enjoy then why even bother with a plot at all and just have a guy slip on a banana skin for 80 mins or whatever

besides, a lot of the reviews i've seen for this film don't focus on the 'oh no another animated talking animal movie' issue but on the rather more important weak storylines and lack of any humour (in their opinion of course as i've not seen the film)

for example:There certainly have been reviews like this as well, but that doesn't mean they're right. For one, I've been in probably eight or so screenings with all different kinds of audiences....executives, the people who worked on the film, general public, pretty much all possible groups. To be perfectly honest, it has always gotten a good amount of laughs in the regular theaters.....3d has been less laughs, but I think that's because all the cool stuff to look at breaks your concentration on following the story a bit. I know I was missing dialogue when I saw it 3d because I was seeing all kinds of stuff I never noticed before.

And honestly, I'm not sure what they mean by it having a weak story....it's not perfect what with all the scrutiny the studio was giving it since it was our first fully animated film, but to me, it's a very simple, clear story line. But whatever....I'm fine with people having their subjective opinions, I just don't appreciate the callous meanness in many reviews. A lot of reviewers obviously have very little class, and seem oblivious to the fact that all the people working on these films put everything they have into them. I'd love to see them try to create something out of thin air, get it approved through major studio beurocracy, and then put it up in front of the whole world to judge....but my guess is that they wouldn't have the balls to.

[matt]

I'm fine with people having their subjective opinions, I just don't appreciate the callous meanness in many reviews. A lot of reviewers obviously have very little class, and seem oblivious to the fact that all the people working on these films put everything they have into them. I'd love to see them try to create something out of thin air, get it approved through major studio beurocracy, and then put it up in front of the whole world to judge....but my guess is that they wouldn't have the balls to.i think we've had these sort of discussions on the board before, peoples enjoyment of art, be it movies, music, paintings etc is by its very nature subjective. one man's meat is often another man's poison as the saying goes and whilst a reviewer has to try and be as objective as possible, it's inevitable that their final opinion on whether they thought it was a good movie or not will be subjective.

plus i strongly disagree with what you seem to be implying that just because a group of people have sweated blood to produce their product then the reviewers should be a bit more sympathetic in their reviews.

i mean, i could stay up for the next 48 hours straight labouring over a painting, foregoing both sustenance and sleep and it would still be a pile of shit at the end of it...

[Sean]

plus i strongly disagree with what you seem to be implying that just because a group of people have sweated blood to produce their product then the reviewers should be a bit more sympathetic in their reviews. Sympathetic, no. They don't need to refrain from giving an honest review out of sympathy. Considerate in how they write their review, yes. There's simply no reason for a callously mean review. People who write reviews that are simply mean are, forgive the language, some of the biggest pussies out there. Say you didn't find it funny or you felt something in the story could have been stronger or clearer....don't say that the filmmakers "clearly didn't try" or that they "think they can throw anything out there to make money". What a load of ignorant crap. Tearing down is ridiculously easy, building something is extremely hard. Let's be honest, being a movie reviewer is one of the easiest jobs imaginable, so maybe a little effort could be put into showing some common courtesy.