Dirty Forums - Open Season

Dirty Forums (https://www.borndirty.org/forums/index.php)

- treatment. (https://www.borndirty.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)

- - Open Season (https://www.borndirty.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4573)

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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean

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...

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt

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.