Comment #3 by Stephen Levinson
On August 1st, 2006 at 12:00 am
i agree with mike.. also whats up with that cow movie?? a cow thats a male but has utters? that doesnt even make sense… look out for that on dvd a week after it comes out
Comment #4 by Bo Vine
On August 1st, 2006 at 12:00 am
Damn right it doesn’t even make sense… they’re called udders.
Comment #6 by Art Curry
On August 2nd, 2006 at 12:00 am
Barnyard is from Steve Odekerk (Bruce Almighty, Jimmy Neutron, Ace Ventura 2, Kung Pow, the “Thumb” movies) He has a different sense of humour I think. He is well aware of the udder being specific to cows and not bulls. But that’s what he wanted. I know some people who worked on the film and I am hoping it is a good film and does well at the box office. It’s too bad about Ant Bully but I’ll be supporting it just the same. A lot of hard work by many talented artists went into these films. Box office numbers aren’t the measure of a good film anyway.
Art
Comment #5 by Joe Gorilla
On August 2nd, 2006 at 12:00 am
Yes, it’s true, box office numbers aren’t the mark of a good movie. Because HOODWINKED actually did pretty good at the box office and that is by far the champion title holder of worst CGI movie of 2006. And ANT BULLY didn’t look as horrible, but the question is really “WHY?” It looks like they used the same model from ANTZ. At least make them look different.
Comment #7 by Mike Milo
On August 2nd, 2006 at 12:00 am
I agree that a lot of great artists worked on Ant Bully but I for one am tired of supporting movies for only that reason. Making bad animated features is bad for our business. Bad features equals people not investing in animation be it feature or TV. Why ants? Why not beetles, why not worms? Why not any other of the 50k+ species that exist as insects? Why not? Because they have no original ideas, and my fear is some pencil pusher is going to look at the terrible numbers these bad films do and blame animation instead of their lame-ass ideas and soon all those great artists we know will be unemployed! Good films can be made (as Pixar has proven)so why not make them instead of following in the footsteps of other peoples ideas? Hoodwinked was at least an original idea and although the 3D animation was sub-par, it was a funny film and represented someone believing in new ideas.
»
On August 1st, 2006 at 12:00 am
that’s what they get for trying to market a movie that’s already been made a few times!
On August 1st, 2006 at 12:00 am
Well look at it!
On August 1st, 2006 at 12:00 am
i agree with mike.. also whats up with that cow movie?? a cow thats a male but has utters? that doesnt even make sense… look out for that on dvd a week after it comes out
On August 1st, 2006 at 12:00 am
Damn right it doesn’t even make sense… they’re called udders.
On August 2nd, 2006 at 12:00 am
Barnyard is from Steve Odekerk (Bruce Almighty, Jimmy Neutron, Ace Ventura 2, Kung Pow, the “Thumb” movies)
He has a different sense of humour I think. He is well aware of the udder being specific to cows and not bulls. But that’s what he wanted.
I know some people who worked on the film and I am hoping it is a good film and does well at the box office.
It’s too bad about Ant Bully but I’ll be supporting it just the same.
A lot of hard work by many talented artists went into these films. Box office numbers aren’t the measure of a good film anyway.
Art
On August 2nd, 2006 at 12:00 am
Yes, it’s true, box office numbers aren’t the mark of a good movie. Because HOODWINKED actually did pretty good at the box office and that is by far the champion title holder of worst CGI movie of 2006. And ANT BULLY didn’t look as horrible, but the question is really “WHY?” It looks like they used the same model from ANTZ. At least make them look different.
On August 2nd, 2006 at 12:00 am
I agree that a lot of great artists worked on Ant Bully but I for one am tired of supporting movies for only that reason. Making bad animated features is bad for our business. Bad features equals people not investing in animation be it feature or TV. Why ants? Why not beetles, why not worms? Why not any other of the 50k+ species that exist as insects? Why not? Because they have no original ideas, and my fear is some pencil pusher is going to look at the terrible numbers these bad films do and blame animation instead of their lame-ass ideas and soon all those great artists we know will be unemployed! Good films can be made (as Pixar has proven)so why not make them instead of following in the footsteps of other peoples ideas? Hoodwinked was at least an original idea and although the 3D animation was sub-par, it was a funny film and represented someone believing in new ideas.