Creative Commons license icon

Animation: 'Alpha and Omega 2: A Howl-iday Adventure'

Your rating: None Average: 4.1 (7 votes)

Alpha and Omega 2: A Howl-iday Adventure Oh, goody! Alpha and Omega 2: A Howl-iday Adventure. For all of you who couldn’t wait for a sequel. Available direct-to-DVD and Blu-ray as a Walmart kiddy exclusive.

Well, no; it’s also available as a digital download on iTunes and Google Play [tip: Blindwolf8], and as a video-on-demand. Sort of the equivalent of vanity-pressed novels.

Is there a tag for “bad CGI”?

How much do you think they spent on these trailers? $1.00? 50¢? 25¢?

I am not sure which is worse; the title pun, the music, or the animation.

See more (if you dare): The Making of Alpha and Omega 2 [Higgs Raccoon]

Comments

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Whatever they spent, they hope to make it back; they're asking over $20 for this, or $14.99 as a digital download. Insane!

Worse is to come, according to Wikipedia, whose editors found a financial disclosure detailing two more sequels:

In the DVD and Blu-ray release of Alpha and Omega 2: A Howl-iday Adventure, it has been announced that there will be a third and fourth film in the franchise. The third film will be based on a type of game tournament that the characters participate in, and the fourth film will be a Halloween themed adventure. According to a recent document found online, which is believed to be from Lionsgate, the third sequel is to be released between Late 2013 and Early 2014, and then followed by the fourth film in Mid 2014 or so. Alpha and Omega 3 and Alpha and Omega 4 are being directed by Richard Rich again.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Aargghhh!

Is "Alpha and Omega" the new "Land Before Time"?

At least, this is keeping Richard Rich busy and out of theatrical animation.

Fred Patten

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Someone clearly took "If We Hold On Together" a little literally there, yep yep yep . . .

Your rating: None

There's an eight-minute Making of Alpha and Omega 2 video online.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

Possibly more interesting than the movie for furries! It has real wolves in, for a start . . .

Your rating: None

There is this giant walking mouse, that even talks, and millions love him, but looks nothing like a mouse on this world. Same with a tall dog that seems pretty, funny.

I don't want to break the wheel for you but getting rid of biased arguments, I think the wolves looks great as a anthro style or some design, it seems odd to bring out "real wolves" when nearly every single "cartoon" (Sometimes non-cartoon) creation had done this before.

Also I think the graphics were basically different because they were trying to use a "fur" effect, though I thought they did that in the first?

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Wow, and I thought the original animation for Alpha and Omega was bad. Yikes that's some bad rendering! DVD sequel, yes, but still...

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (4 votes)

I agree with Fred: if this world must have Richard Richard animation in it, better it be inside bargain-basement DVD bins than on cinema screens.

Your rating: None

This is on Google Play as well.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Thanks; I've added this to the article. Certainly cheaper than iTunes, at least if just to rent (though would you really want to see it more than once?).

Your rating: None

Oh man, the kids absolutely went grape-nuts over Alpha Omega the first time out, but I think this fandom was largely unknown by adults and Furries. Go to Ytube and look up Alpha/Omega fan made, and you'll see many tribute videos with hundreds of comments from other young fans.

Boomer

Your rating: None Average: 3 (6 votes)

Look what they're doing on the cover... Get the hose!

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

For me, the mother wolf was the only redeemable feature of Alpha and Omega. (The goose and duck also weren't bad.)

Also, am I the only one who picked up an odd evangelical Christian subtext from the movie?

Wow, that animation is BAD. It's actually worse than Space Chimps.

What really pours salt into the wound is that the storyboard art looks really interesting! It's so aggravating that low-budget studios consistently opt for horrible CG over probably-would've-been-passable traditional animation, just because CG is "the in thing." Happily N'ever After had some AMAZING concept art, for example, but the actual movie is ugly on wheels.

re: the Making Of, poor Richard Rich obviously really believes in this shitty, shitty direct-to-video movie. He really has no idea what separates a good animated film from a cheesy one.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

I think the first movie had a lot of passion put into it from everyone, except that, well, the story just didn't work out and no one apparently knew how to design for 3D. I'm actually surprised it was that bad, since the writers and directors all had semi-okay movies under their belt (except for one guy; maybe it's his fault). I wasn't expecting it to be a good movie, but certainly not that bad.

For the second one though, I think everyone just said "Fuck it" except for Rich.

Your rating: None Average: 2.6 (7 votes)

The hatred and reviews (Especially the review on here on the old movie) was honestly biased, it only counts as a personal opinion and that's it. I would like to comment on it but it's too old to do so (Unless it doesn't show on front page, lol)

Honestly Fred, I thought you were OK and non-biased open, but in this I see in your last part and in comments, I was kind of wrong.

There are many people who actually enjoyed the movie and even the second, it's great as it's own design, as a Anthropomorphic kind of movie as well, I have to admit they could of done some better stuff (Heard mouths did not match scripts for example), with real errors. This movie (sequel) had a odd graphic thing, but I couldn't tell if it was a style or not. The movie is not Pixar like, but being "open" (THE MOST FUCKING RAREST THING IN THE WORLD! -Ahem, sorry about that-), the graphics look neat and experiencing as it's own thing. But I do like it better in the first I think.

"Edit: Some of the complaints were that these were nothing like real wolves, well of course it's "not" but that's honestly what the design was, it's a anthro movie. >.>"

So as a honest guy sometimes, this movie may not be perfect (Due to it being short, perhaps errors too), but it's not bad either. I think the 3D was fine on it's own, and the styles is basically like any other style.
I think all the hatred against these movies are really pathetic. I feel like I lost 89% more faith lost into this fandom due to the major judgement that happens to be WORSE than outside.
This comment is kind of a reaction to reactions on here, just letting you know.

Edit: Of course I'm going to get down ratings, even though, I didn't even blindly defend it, I did added honest parts. Either way, I don't think the movie deserves hatred, even if blind. I'm currently shocked.

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

I'm gonna agree with you on some of the harsh judgement, it's kind of a spectator sport on a forum like this and people are in some ways programmed to be judgmental due to this environment.

It may be something to think about, but it's always nature to want more and want the best out of something, and top a previous performance, break new ground.

Still, a big part of it is adjusting expectations. Anthro animal movies are a narrow field, but think of think of something nearly universal like rock music, it didn't end because of the Beatles, people could still get enjoyment out of less famous bands and lower production standards.

Now this is all without seeing A&O 2, and it might be a good movie, or maybe it will destroy me and I'll have to eat my words.. :)

Boomer

Your rating: None

Yeah, true often. I do wish however that if this website is meant to be useful for everyone, people need to be very careful about there judgments and get rid of any judgements based on not liking "Art Style even if similar to Disney", "Personality" "Graphics (Please God)" "Edit: and "new crazy ideas (Life if the wolves decided to dance with humans)"" and look for actual errors, that has nothing to do with "personal design", "2001 like graphics", etc. Otherwise, "criticism" is completely useless as anything in a personal design or graphic, can actually be good and Alpha and Omega has neat quality as it's own thing, and pretty good for many different kinds of people.
Sorry if I got too deep here. xD
I get so mad as a guy who expects no major judgement over stuff that people actually likes.

A&O 2, I have not seen yet, though I didn't care about spoils, the movie may be short to some. However, I heard on wiki that the script was improved.

Though, I need to watch it so I can maybe try making a non-biased review and maybe even post it on here. It would be based on finding actual errors, etc and help improve it's own movie without judging the style it's self, which I find to be a very important thing to do.

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (5 votes)

I'm not really sure what to make of your comment. A review is primarily a personal opinion. Talking of "bias" makes very little sense, because bringing your past experiences to bear in the evaluation of a current work is part of the point. It may be possible to critique certain technical aspects of a work in a more objective sense, but the weight laid upon any one of these aspects is in the judgement of the reviewer.

It is possible for a reviewer to come to an entirely different opinion than you about a movie, or any other work of art. That does not make them, or you, "wrong" for holding or expressing that opinion.

You're probably getting downvotes not because of your opinion of the movie, but because you're expressing a flawed understanding of what a review is supposed to be, and have consequentially attacked both the submitter and the site itself.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

Well I heard that reviews are personal opinions before, and I suggested that if criticism is important, and if it's all personal opinion where everyone sees stuff different, than there may be no point honestly.

"Edit -in quotes-:
"Talking of "bias" makes very little sense, because bringing your past experiences to bear in the evaluation of a current work is part of the point."
Yes, I think getting some past experience is the point, but not all experience are biased, and more focused on errors which is never is a style for everyone. Maybe I'm not using the right word when I said "biased". Also, I wasn't attacking the writer, I was suggesting that whenever someone posts info about a random movie, we should let any "biased" or "opinion" thought to the side when it comes to a article to share, perhaps? - Edit finished"

I never said the personal opinion never counted for them selves, I only judge that a critic review available to all, should often keep biased hatred or maybe even deep ignoring interest to them selves whenever someone introduce a movie like this to this website. The purpose of reviews and critics, is often to effect the public thinking often, and if it's all just personal, I guess I hope the fans of this and that, goes make there own then.

Unless, I'm confusing "review" with "critic", are they both different?

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None Average: 4 (3 votes)

A review is an evaluation of something, while a critic is a person who offers criticism (perhaps you were thinking critique?). Reviews often features criticism.

Criticism is often considered the most important and valuable part of a review. Anyone can summarize a work - and such summaries are often already available - but a critical review can suggest why certain groups should or should not spend their time to experience a particular work; it may also provide valuable feedback to the work's creator, and highlight features which the reader might otherwise have failed to appreciate.

Of course, it's not just about giving an opinion – the "why" is important. If one reviewer cares about different things to another, they may have wildly different opinions of a work.

People rarely seek to review works which they find entirely uninteresting; and where they do have an interest, they also tend to have preconceptions. A good reviewer can look beyond those, but their opinion will still be flavoured by them. This is why it's important to look at several reviews. Of course, if they all trounce a work for different reasons, it's probably a dud.

I wouldn't call this particular story a review – it's a preview in which Fred states his opinion. I suspect he won't be reviewing this.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (4 votes)

Old comment edit - Don't expect this as "new"

I guess it's a bit different, but it still won't change the fact that if every review actually does include "personal opinion", then I wonder why they are there?

For example, I seen a review on the old movie somewhere, basically unfairly comparing designs to "This world's" wolves, when honestly it could be argued they didn't head that way, it was all a personal idea, which is fine on it's self. When I see things like that, I view that the person says that without personal, or something.
Or wait, was that review, just a review? Or was it part critic? Because people these days try to talk as a critic based on personal opinion.
Anyway, the problem these days is that if "reviews" are consider very important, and "review" are often tied to personal view, then there would be no point for others to see before watching or looking. Maybe I confused "review" with "critic" because sadly, MANY people who claim they are critics (Don't even get me started on RT where every user review is disguised as a "critic").

Oh and no, I wasn't. I was just a bit sad that a article story out there, in the public where everyone (including A&O fans) could see, because no-one will agree with anyone these days.

EDIT: I feel really sad that people like to down vote this all the way down to ground, after I gave out even informational stuff, especially based on the fact that it's been proven clearly that "major biased" sharing has created an unnatural environment around whatever and all. Guess that's the way this "community" works at this time. Basically people on here aren't as open as I think, and yes, it's fair to argue that and I seen people done it before.

Don't reply to this.

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None Average: 3.4 (5 votes)

I have not seen "Alpha & Omega 2", but I have seen "The Black Cauldron" and "The Swan Princess", both of which Richard Rich directed. And I thought that they stunk, both for the direction and for the stories that were full of holes, inconsistencies, and characters acting ridiculously stupid just to provide the audience with a cheap laugh. The quality of the animation was very high, though. With "Alpha & Omega 2", just by looking at the trailer, I can tell that it has poor direction, probably a poor story, and bad animation. Animation can often look weird because of the director's choice of an unusual art style, but "Alpha & Omega 2" does not offer a "different" art style. Its CGI animation is fully in the style of Disney and Pixar; it's just very poor in comparison. Richard Rich should know better; he's been around since the early 1980s, at least.

If you want to see hatred based just on a trailer for an unseen movie, check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwyUzHEG_XY and draw your own conclusions.

Fred Patten

Your rating: None

I don't think a similar art style should automatically mean it should be compared to Disney or Pixar. It's possible that it can be weird as it's own similar art style, but should they have done better? Yes, as long if it's approved on it's own similar style, even if it's exact. Though, having weird styles with animation doesn't make it a bad animation.
Of course, there are perhaps flaws in some animations of this, like lack of matching, choppy, too non-sense bad, if the movie had that, yeah they should improve that. I'm not sure what kind of flaws you think, so I had to put out all of whatever I think I could get.

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

If it looks like they were trying to emulate a particular style, but failed, it is reasonable to make that comparison - especially as they're aiming for Disney and Pixar's audience. Likewise, it is reasonable if they succeed in evoking that style, but fail in one or more technical aspects which go along with it.

At one point in the trailer, two main characters are jumping over a gap on a vine, and the motion of their bodies just doesn't look quite natural, despite an obvious attempt to emulate nature. That is not a question of "style" - it is the sort of thing that a good reviewer should be highlighting, and it is what Fred was getting at with "bad CGI".

I think a lot of the opprobrium you see is directed at the very cheesy nature of the movie as well. This is perhaps inevitable in such direct-to-DVD sequels, and readers should also consider the wildly differing budgets.

Your rating: None Average: 2.6 (5 votes)

So if it looks like "Humphrey" was going to walk on four legs all the way to some random house, but then stand up in a Anthro-way, it's now "bad"? Because "Disney" didn't do this? Are you saying that an "anthro" movie that was inspired or even not should only have one or the other? While it may looked like it was going to be at what I said first, I think if the "second" part I mention was on purpose, then it is a style and not something to bring up, if this isn't what you meant, then never mind.

It's possible people can aim for a similar style but then add new styles over it. People has done this with new animation, cartoons, etc all the time. And A&O1/2 has done this, and people seem to actually like it as it's own thing. Your idea of "looks like" is biased based on people expecting "pixar" and "disney" when they can understand that it wasn't directly meant to go that way.
There isn't any proof that they were aiming for both directly anyway. To me, they just wanted to make there own view, but use inspire by some Disney kind of designs but add there own mix on it, as it's own new Anthropomorphic culture. Even if they didn't intend that on purpose, it still looked like it at the least. For that, it's not fair to compare it because one part took a style at one point. Especially if people enjoyed it as it's own thing, even if it wasn't meant to go that way.

Speaking of "unnatural", Disney has had a similar role at the start, then they started doing the same thing. (I.E. many anthro shows, movies, etc.) Many starts from what I seen, looked very unnatural, but then people liked it as it's own new style. This isn't anything new.
However, I did not see the full trailer, didn't feel like it, but since you mention this part as an "unnatural" example, I'll take a look real fast to see if we are on the same page - - - OK, I looked, the pups? I took a look at it, just now and honestly, I don't see how it went wrong maybe, was it when one was biting the other's tail? Or when they landed off? The landing off seemed to look like it wasn't enough speed, if that's what you mean, then I agree, but I won't agree it's major though, or that it's not-style because the way they looked BEFORE they jumped off didn't look like earth pups way.
If you were referring to the way the body moved, or looked, then honestly, that IS a style, I think the movie was meant to be part anthro (Un-expecting moves that wolves can't do on this planet and crazy wild movements, I.E. freedom). Though, yeah they should of made it look like they would make it to the cliff maybe. But a movie that is part natural and part "not" natural, if it's recognized, I think it's fair to question it as a style, therefor, no need to "highlight" that part except for maybe speed issues.

I'm not saying every single animation was perfect, not even a style, I was mainly talking about anthro moves (Like standing and dancing (Not matching this planet's Wolves)), that IS a style, not an error. And looking at the whole movie, while not perfect, it's not something to look down just because of a couple of errors or if one thought the whole animation was messed up which can be argued because everyone has a different view of interest for it, so I said if people enjoyed it, it's kind of a new possible style, just like NES games are now...

Sorry for long reply, but I just don't think it's fair at all to always compare to Disney or any other known style because of similarity, compare real-life to something that's not meant to be, or even if it looked like a certain style (before I said real-life), but then complain because it wasn't what any expected and realized it was another style close to Disney or something. Might as well slap a "not 100 % known style to known movie", and "not 100 % this Earth wolves" sticker on the box if people always like to expect a certain thing.

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None

No, that's not what I meant. Doing thing differently to Disney is fine. It's when you are actually trying to be like Disney but failing that there's an issue. :-)

In truth, what's at issue most here is the quality, and you can't really expect Disney quality on a Costco budget. It may not be entirely fair to compare such movies. And yet, if they're being offered at the same price . . .

I was thinking mostly of the part where they released from the vine; the movement seemed off. There were a few other instances where movement was linear, like they'd just said "go from point A to point B" without considering acceleration. This didn't happen so much with the motion of the wolves, that looked pretty good. There were also little details like the quality of mouth texture and motion. They would have been great ten years ago (at least for CGI), but now they stick out.

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (6 votes)

It may sound harsh, but I believe that an animated feature -- any movie, actually -- should be tailored to its production capabilities. If you can't afford to produce Disney quality, don't try to compete with Disney in quality. Choose something scaled back to what you can produce. There have been some marvelously inventive films in a variety of forms of limited animation. Look at what the animators of "My Little Pony: Equestria Girls" have done with Flash animation.

Fred Patten

Your rating: None

Well like I said, people can try to head to Disney but then add there own thing or head another direction. And this movie or other looks basically fine as a "lower" (kind of) thing on there own, which proved fine by some people. The idea against this Disney "lower" thing is based on people who keep watching modern Disney (or pixar) and expect this to be like this, which is clearly a personal (Possible Nostalgia) thing. Which isn't fair to force judge and compare movies like these too, especially once people understand it.
In some parts, movies like these might look a bit like a "lower" disney or pixar, or even other but that won't make it bad, as it's own thing in our time (Regardless) speaking in a "critic" way.

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None

Well, I never seen it that they were trying directly.

You mean the way the vine moved?

"They would have been great ten years ago (at least for CGI), but now they stick out."
That right here is the problem, it's not fair to now say these "older" like graphics are now bad or outdated because of the way graphics are now. Clearly, and I mean clearly, there are people who still enjoy any graphics, and I accept watching this like any other graphic. While it may stand out to others, it's not going to stand out to everyone else. So I say this movie will be OK (despite a couple of errors) to those who "still play an older console" (phrase).

People were once very closed about graphics in video games, people I think used to judge one console to another, because others had better graphics, now these days, we don't do that anymore "Wii U "sucks" because PS4 has higher animation and graphics." As one would say. I need to make a article on how opinions based on that are ruining the fun for others who enjoys it, same how people judge movies because it was an attack on there Nostalgia glasses..

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

As Troj mentioned, the storyboard art actually looks pretty good. The characters have expression and personality that's almost completely lost in the 3D final product. The movie might have at least looked decent if those storyboards had been passed to a competent 2D studio.

The 3D animation looks like an imitation of Disney/Pixar done by some students with obsolete software and computers. The 3D character design is awful, and the faces don't seem to be modeled properly--they look like painted on textures.

It's especially surprising that the textures and rendering look so poor; I'd think that would be the easy part nowadays.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (5 votes)

People can get pretty passionate about why they like or hate movies. On the CartoonBrew web site, when the original movie came out and they posted a talkback thread, they baited it with "C'mon Furries, I'm counting on you. This one's right up your alley... let us know what you think." Here was my reply:

Arright, you want a furry's opinion on it... well you DID ask. First thing to understand is that when furries go out to see movies like this, objectivity takes a major hit. There's not a tremoundous amount of anthropomorphic stuff to be found in mainstream culture, so it's often a case of grasping at whatever straws can be found, quality be damned. That's why it's a heavily art-based subculture: generating its own content is the only way to get the furry fix until the next sporadic movie or cartoon comes out. A lot of furries won't watch the film for the plot, they're looking for cute scenes, poses, clever species-related humor, symbolic aspects - if enough little fleeting sparks happen of whatever appeals to the viewer, entertainment has been achieved.

Initially I had no intention of watching this film. Actually I learned of it here on Cartoon Brew and agreed with the general consensus. I deliberately avoided telling my local furry community about it, because I didn't want to give it any additional publicity. As it turned out, someone else clued in and went all (and I quote) "OMG WOLVES!" This is the grasping-at-straws thing I'm talking about. What's sad is this person is over age 30, like me.

What's also sad is that I still haven't thrown off similar attitudes. I must admit to being partially interested in going to see Voyage of the Dawn Treader to see the CGI critters. But with age comes maturity. I didn't watch The Secret of Kells for the critters; I sat awash in the beautiful designs. Curious to see The Illusionist. I love animation, furry or not. If it happens to be anthropomorphic, great, icing on the cake, unless it's a complete piece of shit like Roadside Romeo. I need good writing, anthropomorphism be damned.

Anyway the reason I ended up going was that there was a get-together happening afterwards that I wanted to attend and I needed a ride, so it was part and parcel. First bad sign, in a city of over 600,000 people it was only showing on two screens, 3D only. Opening weekend Saturday matinee... 30-ish people in the audience, a very bad turn-out. Most of them were a large group of 5-to-8 year-olds. Of the local furries, besides me and the OMG guy, only two others showed up. So the trailer had not made much of an impression on our group either. Another over-30 furry friend of mine, living in a different city with 4 times the population, had only 12 people in the theater when he went. He too questioned why he was there to begin with, and described his experience using the words "pain", "make it stop", and the characters as "boring" and the design "gross".

Still, let's start at the beginning: Trailers. Yogi, most of which I missed (uuugh, thank god) because I was out getting a drink. The only thing I saw was BooBoo hanging onto the side of a vehicle while his butt was pummeled by the tops of passing fenceposts. As if the Cartoon Brew posts about it haven't been nightmarish enough. Second trailer, Tangled. Enh. (Personal bias.) And that was it - only two trailers. I was surprised.

Film plot: "alpha" and "omega" are class differences within the wolfpack. There are multiple alphas (trained hunters, duty, responsibility, seriousness) and omegas (lower class, who are supposed to ease tensions, by telling jokes, etc., their duty is to encourage fun in the pack; surprisingly didn't often use the clumsy-goof trope). Custom has it that alphas and omegas don't form relationships together. Main protagonists, Kate and Humphrey. What the trailer didn't show is that the two of them are long-time childhood friends to begin with, they're not especially adverse to each other's company; but now that Kate is becoming a trained alpha, she must move on. There is also a neighboring wolf pack, the "Eastern wolves". They have no more caribou on their territory, are beginning to starve, and are crossing territorial lines. An agreement is made that the two packs will unite to ensure survival and avoid war, to be sealed by an arranged marriage between Kate and the son of the Eastern pack's leader, Garth.

Kate is initially impressed by Garth's many skills until she finds out that his howling is epically terrible. In fact his howling is so bad, it stuns birds right out of the sky. (This is one of the few better jokes in the film.) Before she can reconcile what she wants to do, and before Humphrey gets a chance to express his feelings for her, they're tranquilizer-darted and carted off to a park in Idaho as part of a park repopulation program. Immediately they start heading back north, because without Kate, the two wolf packs will go to war. To appease tensions until the full moon deadline, Kate's sister Lilly (an omega) hangs out with Garth.

At this point we get the road/buddy film thing happening. Humphrey gets Kate to be a little less serious, and earns her respect by saving her life at one point. They travel with the occasional help of a French-Canadian goose golfer and his bird sidekick caddy. Meanwhile, Garth encourages Lilly's self-confidence, and she teaches him how to howl. In fact his howling gets so good that now he attracts birds to him instead.

Anyway, war is about to break out and Kate arrives in the nick of time. She appears to be sacrificing her own interests for the good of the packs, but at the last moment can't go through with it. Fighting starts to break out, interrupted by a caribou stampede that almost kills the two pack leaders, who are saved by Kate and Humphrey. Their deep friendship and Humphrey's mourning over Kate's near-death impresses them that maybe custom should be broken and alpha-omega relationships be given a try, so Kate hooks up with Humphrey, and Garth with Lilly. The end.

Sex jokes: surprisingly few, though a good bit of leering-at-potential-girlfriends. The word 'mate' (noun, not verb) is barely used, thank god. Toilet humor: a lot. I counted at least 14 instances, not including many butt shots. The toilet humor stops abruptly after the road-trip part of the movie ends; this was refreshing. The end portion gets a good deal more serious and dramatic.

I have to tangent here momentarily to talk about 3D. Personally I'm not a fan of the trend. I don't like how it causes directors to frame shots, it makes my eyes water, and the glasses make the lighting less vibrant. 3D animation falls into three categories for me:

(1) Innocuous 3D - this is the most common, and is the general state of affairs in Alpha and Omega. You forget the film is in 3D, can suspend your disbelief, and although nothing special is happening, it's quite passable as is. This was, in my opinion, the only thing that made Avatar in any way notable; the successful creation of a full CGI/live-action 3D world you could suspend disbelief in. Pity the rest of it was such a piece of crap. Unfortunately this effect is immediately ruined when...

(2) A film sets up a shot specifically for 3D purposes which will look all too obvious in 2D, making one's brain leave the film. Things flying out of the screen, "Oooh, look at THIS in your FACE!"-style, or over-dramatic shots to show depth and layers. I absolutely HATE all of it. There's a good deal of this in Alpha and Omega, espcially right at the beginning of the film. Frankly Coraline did this too, as did the run-from-the-dogs-over-cliffs chase scene in Up. (Which also felt like a videogame tie-in.)

Films that do it right? Yes, you can set up shots that work in 2D and 3D, that don't make you feel like you're missing out while watching the 2D version. Films that successfully did this: Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragon. Excellent work, people!

(3) Full immersion. Very, very fleeting. Very rare, and hard to pull off. Something about the 3D atmosphere of the scene just clicks. You get goose pimples... and then it's gone. If 3D is going to continue, this is what I want. I've only experienced it twice. One of the forest scenes in Avatar, and a single point in Bolt. What did it? Blades of grass waving in a light breeze in the foreground.

Okay, back to the film. Alpha and Omega goes between (1) and (2) a lot. (3) is never achieved. Animation quality, enh. Could be a lot better, could be worse. I didn't personally like the character designs - but they're good enough to achieve their purpose. Only had two "WTF?" animation moments: when some of the wolves are doing a weird curvy dance early in the film; and a section near the end when the packs had been united, and all the background characters start doing a weird hopping-skip thing. I mean seriously, wha? Fur textures, passable, works better on some characters than others. Body language, passable. Two major fails: the CGI motion of saliva and mud. Seriously, get help.

Here's something that I liked: No one breaks out into song. THANK YOU. Bonding and cameraderie between wolves is done by howling, and it's not "Awoooo!", it's basically musical singing without words. Whoever's responsible for that decision in the film - you deserve recognition. It was an excellent choice. Sadly, because of songs in previous films, it felt like the characters were about to break into song. Such relief when they didn't!

Script dialogue: nothing special. Voice acting: good work. Also nice touches: Garth isn't a jerk. He's a nice guy as it turn out, no idiotic male rivalry. Closing credits: Looked more 3D than the rest of the film! Lots of the animators' sketches, 3D models, reference sheets - really nice to see the work behind the film shown during the credits like that.

Canadian goose and sidekick: boring. Their wacky dialogue wasn't; it lacked snapiness and pacing. As characters they were ok, but... yawn. This film takes no risks. All very formula, doesn't stretch boundaries or even experiment with them. The only thing in the film that surprised me was just how... vicious Kate's mother is. She was a bit scary, to be honest. The effect was enhanced by her facial design being worse than everyone else's. And given that "alphas-and-omagas-shouldn't mix" was the whole defining pivot of plot conflict, an attitude so well-entrenched in wolf society, it felt really weird for it to be dropped so readily to achieve the happy ending.

Worth watching? If you're an animation fan, no. Animation student? Maybe, to analyse and critique. A parent with 5-to-8-year-old children? Actually yes, if you need to fill some time. This is what I'd describe as a "babysitting movie". There's very little in it to appeal to adults except for the odd throwaway line here and there. None of the writing-on-two-levels that Pixar does so well.

But it's not a movie that'll have you writhing in pain for an hour and a half. Certainly a lot of eye-rolling, at worst an eyes-glazing-over moment or two. It's animated fluff that doesn't stand out, and would make a decent rental for young kids.

Sure, you could do better. But contrary to expectations, it could have been a LOT worse. It's cohesive despite the toilet humor. The kids in the theater laughed, they had fun. And for some it was their first 3D experience. Heck, all it took was a non-descript cloudscape at the start and a whole bunch of them went "Whoooooaaaaa!..."

For me, it passed the time I guess; no desire to watch it a second time, and I don't think the recent rise in 3D ticket prices was worth the experience. It's a run-of-the-mill, dumb "let's see if we can make some money from kids" formula movie. I don't think it's worth praising or demonifying; it will not stand out in the annals of animation history.

Your rating: None

Your information is interesting.
Though;
"Arright, you want a furry's opinion on it... well you DID ask. First thing to understand is that when furries go out to see movies like this, objectivity takes a major hit. There's not a tremoundous amount of anthropomorphic stuff to be found in mainstream culture, so it's often a case of grasping at whatever straws can be found, quality be damned. That's why it's a heavily art-based subculture: generating its own content is the only way to get the furry fix until the next sporadic movie or cartoon comes out. A lot of furries won't watch the film for the plot, they're looking for cute scenes, poses, clever species-related humor, symbolic aspects - if enough little fleeting sparks happen of whatever appeals to the viewer, entertainment has been achieved.

Initially I had no intention of watching this film. Actually I learned of it here on Cartoon Brew and agreed with the general consensus. I deliberately avoided telling my local furry community about it, because I didn't want to give it any additional publicity. As it turned out, someone else clued in and went all (and I quote) "OMG WOLVES!" This is the grasping-at-straws thing I'm talking about. What's sad is this person is over age 30, like me."

Though the only thing I don't agree on averagely is that other reasons other than "plot", "animation", etc is a flaw thing, and worse, depending on there age.
I have to admit, I like it because of my own reasons, and I wouldn't mind at all sharing the movie for others who has similar or who has a different view on plots and designs.
For graphics, (Is graphics animation?) I viewed it as a "graphics/modeling fan" who was interested into experiencing it for there own thing and see how they did it. I thought it was decent as there own models. :P So for example, this movie is worth watching for any personal reason, and not worth watching for even more. If I was watching for animation, it depends on how I view animation, if I accept all kinds of animation, then it's good, if I don't, then nvm..

I need to make a review for the first one later.

Sorry if I mis-read your post.
Edit: I read more on that website, you said the designs were bad, and judging them for what it was, including the spin thing Kate does.
Yeah, everyone has a different opinion, I don't think it's fair at all to judge a personal design, as a reviewer. Considering, I actually loved it, and should be expressed for others who could like it, if desired.
Of course, personality, it's valid, for plain non-critic reasons though.

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None

This comment deserves its own post. I liked the review and your discussion of 3D.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

I loved the absolute balls out of Gravity (it's basically The Grey IN SPACE!), but it's the movie that I offer as final proof that 3D is bupkiss (or however you spell that); I watched it in 2D and I was completely immersed.

Hell, I read a book the other day; it didn't even have pictures! Immersed!

But anyway, also surprised you haven't seen the The Illusionist yet; makes me feel better for still not having seen A Cat in Paris or Chico & Rita. I ... actually kind of hated it, but it was more for message rubbing me the wrong way than a technical or story standpoint. EDIT: Whoops, noticed this is a repost of a really old post; you probably have seen The Illusionist.

As for Alpha & Omega, well, it's a lot like Free Birds that I just saw last night (and will give a full review on sooner rather than later ... probably?); terrible movies, both of them, but, as you pointed out, you take what you can get. Even some of the terrible aspects are what made it enjoyable, and not in a "campy, so-bad-it's-good" way, either. I mean, if you're a furry (or, hell, a human) your tastes means you're going to like certain terrible things that are objectively terrible. Pauline Kael liked The Exorcist II; Roger Ebert liked Cars 2. Que sera, sera.

But anyway, Free Birds was the better terrible movie.

Your rating: None

I was wondering about Free Birds! But yeah, I did get to see The Illusionist eventually, a beautiful but extremely sad film. I saw A Cat in Paris (it was ok), but not Chico & Rita, the trailer didn't hook me. I haven't been folowing the international releases much lately, although the Brazilian Rio 2096 looks interesting.

Your rating: None

Since "Free Birds" is basically a slapstick-comedy fantasy, it seems pompously futile to criticize it for being historically inaccurate. But they did NOT have turkeys on the menu at the first Thanksgiving dinner (which was in 1621, not 1620, anyway), and I thought that it would've been both funnier, more interesting and imaginative, and more historically accurate if they go back in time to 1620 to prevent the Pilgrims from eating turkey on Thanksgiving, find that nobody in 1620 is eating turkeys, and having to search through time to find out when turkeys did get put onto the Thanksgiving menu, which would have taken them to Turkey, and to Victorian London where they could meet Ebenezer Scrooge. (Remember that big Christmas turkey at the end of "A Christmas Carol"? It's connected.)

Fred Patten

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

Yeah, as a guy who loved the designs that are not terrible at all, due to proven visual intros being just as fine on there own like the Ice Age Squirrel guy..
Sorry to say, your view of designs or other aren't objectively a fact. I didn't think the "certain" kinds of things are terrible at all. True to you however...

I know, I know, couldn't hold it..

I looked at Free Birds on a trailer, I guess the humor was so opinion like, like the laughing part of the masked man seemed kind of humorous to me.

Your rating: None

Yeah, that was actually a great joke, probably the best in the movie (I really need to write that review).

I don't remember hating the design in either movie (and I really liked Free Bird's design on certain characters), though the female wolves having "long hair" design elements was a bit odd (though I loved emo-doo wolf to pieces).

They were terrible more for story elements and not-very-funny jokes (also, they were the first theatrical features of both studios, so while they do lose points for sometimes off animation, they don't lose as many points as if, say, DreamWorks or Pixar had done the same thing).

Your rating: None

Guess I'm not much alone on that part then much. :D

I was just being the "just in case" type of guy so I included design. Yeah, the long hair part may have been a design they wanted to go with, for me I think it was "unique" and different than the usual things we see.

I didn't see it that much, though the story was perhaps fine as something basic and maybe a bit new if we were to look within it I think. But in anyway, not everyone will agree it's terrible though.

Your rating: None

I don't remember if I gave my own thoughts on this trailer yet.

Now, I'm not going to be the guy who complains about it's own art style on the designs of the characters, because there are people who loves it as there own thing, even I do. Changing a art-style of designs to another design would ruin it.. Yet, it's a pretty original result to me as well, yet even is seen as something you can recognized with.

I think at first when I saw it, I thought the graphics looked basically like some Wii U, video game (Would be awesome if there was one though, haha) with murky graphics, I looked closely due to my "shy" reasons, but I didn't care, I looked at the trailer. Apparently, the shading isn't too "murky" as that's often the main thing that bothered me, but it is in some areas. The other thing, I question is why did Kate say something like: "Humphrey you're begging!" in a bad way? Not sure why, maybe I need to watch the movie more. Back at "murky" if that's the right word, I often can't tell if it's a "graphics" style. Like if it's some kind of Cell Shading? If not, and probably isn't, not sure, then they should make them match more with the environments. The theory on why the first one didn't have this "problem?" was probably because of a style the directors were trying to use.

As my thoughts, is this something to look forward too? If you enjoy any graphic thing (Regardless of our current timeline for huge graphics), similar to gamers to not matter on graphics only, yes it is, even if your one of those "college guys" who like to look at how other people can go with there own expression, go for it, since this looks like a good "practice", I think.
If you love these characters from the first, then yeah, may depend.
If your just for a holiday, I think it looks OK for a holiday unless you personality don't like 2001 (Sort of) like graphics, and go for movies like "Toy Story", "Shrek", etc...

However, if your a graphics fan by simply expecting extreme, HD, usual movies by Disney, Pixar, and other, then don't waste your money.
Hate wolves, well then you know what to do. xD
If your not a fan of the way the designs look, don't waste.
If you except a very 100 % perfect (opinion vary) regardless of the graphics, then don't waste, unless you are open and not care about some flaws.

For Story, Scripts, and Plot, I cannot tell yet. It's a trailer.. Some parts however (Humor) did look like something both kids and Adults could enjoy. Adults these days though are often different, but I did get some thoughts.

Don't expect this as a review, I think. I need to make a full one after I watch the second if I have time or something... It may have similar writing at some of the parts.

Diamond_Man.exe - Not real fursona
Science/Knowledge/Sense > Bias or Biased

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

If this thread had more studio plants in it, it'd produce more oxygen than the Amazon.

Your rating: None

Really?

Your rating: None

I don't remember hating the design in either movie (and I really liked Free Bird's design on certain characters), though the female wolves having "long hair" design elements was a bit odd (though I loved emo-doo wolf to pieces).

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.

About the author

Fred (Fred Patten)read storiescontact (login required)

a retired former librarian from North Hollywood, California, interested in general anthropomorphics