How can we not call 'Get Squirrely' a crappy movie?
Posted by Fred Patten on Wed 2 Dec 2015 - 14:10 —
Edited by crossaffliction
This article by Amid Amidi on the Cartoon Brew website about the coming anthro animal feature Get Squirrely says it all, or at least enough for us. The Canadian CGI animation looks horribly unfurry for the squirrels and bats, but okay for the frogs and snakes.The whole cast appears to be talking critters: bats, birds, hedgehogs, flying squirrels, regular squirrels – he may not have fur, but he’s a natty dresser – and more fart and poop jokes than you could wish for.
From the producer of four Shrek movies? With John Leguizamo, Jim Cummings and John Cleese?
About the authorFred Patten — read stories — contact (login required)
a retired former librarian from North Hollywood, California, interested in general anthropomorphics
[comment removed on request]
I think he means unfurry in the literal sense of the word; they all look live they've been shaved or something.
Which most likely means the producers were either too lazy or didn't have the time/budget to actually render fur.
I assume that the reason why Squirrely is always fully dressed in a suit & tie (and always wears a hat, even when indoors) is to disguise that he would look shaven otherwise. Lola, who doesn't wear a hat, has really short hair topped by a sort-of mohawk that looks gelled to the point of non-fluffiness. Yep, it looks like Vanguard Films & Animation (business office in West Los Angeles; production studio at an undisclosed location in British Columbia but probably Vancouver) doesn't have the latest CGI programs for rendering fur.
Gad, what a shame. Valiant (that pigeon movie they did for Disney) actually looked half-decent. In terms of rendering I mean.
So did the two “Space Chimps” movies that Valiant made. Well, co-made. The chimps had hair, not fur, but it looked decent.
I wouldn't know why, fur has been a staple of all CGI programs for years. Heck, I can generate fur with my home equipment easily enough.
Now, fur plus clothing, that's a more difficult thing since you get interaction between two simulations, but if the borders between the fur parts and the clothed parts are clear-cut, that's not a fatal obstacle either.
They wouldn't even need to do much simulation. Short fur is quite static unless hit by a collider object. Only longer fur and fluff need to have physics simulation.
Heck, Albee's "Kaze" did fur. More than a decade ago. In a hut in Alaska. There is no excuse for nude furries these days, it just looks ugly.
(Not that I would be tempted to see a movie that seems to live vicariously through scatological jokes...)
The only character named Squirrely worth seeing is Robert Crumb's Squirrely the Squirrel.
That does look horrible. Couldn't finish the trailer.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
On behalf of Canada, I apologize. x3
I'm a different furry with different opinions.
Debut Album out now go stream it plz
Ma'am, parents are concerned about your country's entertainments. Any thoughts?
Post new comment