This. Birds are lame animals. Humans don't relate to prey species. We simply do NOT. And before you say "But humans get killed and eaten by wild life." Yes and when it happens do you know how we react? We seek revenge. There was an interesting story in India where a park ranger was killed.
Why did he get killed? He was defending a tiger who killed a normal Indian citizen. The people are getting fed up with tigers being coddled and protected so they killed the tiger and the ranger? He was viewed by the locals as a traitor to his species, humans, and was shot to death using a pistol with silencer while he was making his rounds.
Humans are not prey animals. That is the moral of the story. As such we don't care for a movie about an animal we devour. The only way a bird character can get away with media is if they are anthro like Daffy and Donald Duck are where their outlandish personalities are so extreme it's their defining trait. The ducks from Migration for all intents and purposes are simply feral animals even if they speak.
Anyway if illumination wanted to do a feral animal movie select a species humans actually enjoy like foxes.
I mean yeah but you're missing a few key points:
1) we DO relate to predator species, which is why that guy was defending the tiger. it's in our nature, we see other predators as one of us. Problem is, while a lion has a family, a tiger would rather you frick off and leave him alone.
2) there are plenty of predator birds. you wouldn't watch a cool movie about a young falcon making his way in the world? learning from some wise old harpy eagle? tearing smaller birds to pieces to devour what's inside? just don't lump all birds together man.
How do you account for the success of the many films with heavy focus on mouse characters or other rodents?
we're not just predators, we're also scavengers who regularly eat from stored-up food caches. so we relate to rodents and monkeys and shit too.
They do but apparently the wonka movie is surprisingly more popular. Just remember that puss in boots last wish had an opening of only 12 million while this had an opening of 18 million, remember what movies having legs are
>wonka movie >surprisingly more popular
Lmaooo, those ducks are COOKED. And with Aquaman out, you have to wonder why Universal set up Migration to fail this hard.
I think the Wonka movie killed it since it's more Christmas-y. Maybe it gets more relevant after Christmas. I like the expressions but I've heard its constant annoying talking and a plot we've heard a billion times.
Every review talking about how it's the most kiddie animated movie in awhile killed any interest I had in seeing it. It sounds genuinely for 12 and unders in a way that most animated films avoid nowadays.
It's a little kids movie, and little kids are not discerning. I really don't see a reason for kids to go to a movie theater for something like this.
AFAIK, the only other theatrical movie this year aimed at this specific age range is Paw Patrol 2. If you were in this age range, which would you pick?
I haven't been able to watch this yet because I've been sick for the last week and it ruined my plans to see it theaters day 1 like I did for ruby gillman
Poultry based animated films have not had a good year between this and the new Chicken Run
This. Birds are lame animals. Humans don't relate to prey species. We simply do NOT. And before you say "But humans get killed and eaten by wild life." Yes and when it happens do you know how we react? We seek revenge. There was an interesting story in India where a park ranger was killed.
Why did he get killed? He was defending a tiger who killed a normal Indian citizen. The people are getting fed up with tigers being coddled and protected so they killed the tiger and the ranger? He was viewed by the locals as a traitor to his species, humans, and was shot to death using a pistol with silencer while he was making his rounds.
Humans are not prey animals. That is the moral of the story. As such we don't care for a movie about an animal we devour. The only way a bird character can get away with media is if they are anthro like Daffy and Donald Duck are where their outlandish personalities are so extreme it's their defining trait. The ducks from Migration for all intents and purposes are simply feral animals even if they speak.
Anyway if illumination wanted to do a feral animal movie select a species humans actually enjoy like foxes.
How do you account for the success of the many films with heavy focus on mouse characters or other rodents?
I mean yeah but you're missing a few key points:
1) we DO relate to predator species, which is why that guy was defending the tiger. it's in our nature, we see other predators as one of us. Problem is, while a lion has a family, a tiger would rather you frick off and leave him alone.
2) there are plenty of predator birds. you wouldn't watch a cool movie about a young falcon making his way in the world? learning from some wise old harpy eagle? tearing smaller birds to pieces to devour what's inside? just don't lump all birds together man.
we're not just predators, we're also scavengers who regularly eat from stored-up food caches. so we relate to rodents and monkeys and shit too.
They do but apparently the wonka movie is surprisingly more popular. Just remember that puss in boots last wish had an opening of only 12 million while this had an opening of 18 million, remember what movies having legs are
>wonka movie
>surprisingly more popular
Lmaooo, those ducks are COOKED. And with Aquaman out, you have to wonder why Universal set up Migration to fail this hard.
Doesn't that movie have a black girl OC protag? Cinemaphile hates that shit
There's only one duck that matters and that's Donald Duck
Daffy*
Plucky*
Then they waddled away
I think the Wonka movie killed it since it's more Christmas-y. Maybe it gets more relevant after Christmas. I like the expressions but I've heard its constant annoying talking and a plot we've heard a billion times.
Has anyone here actually seen it? I thought looked cute. But not sure it's worth the price of admission to check it out tomorrow
Go duck yourself shroommeister. You spend all day on here making worthless threads
Every review talking about how it's the most kiddie animated movie in awhile killed any interest I had in seeing it. It sounds genuinely for 12 and unders in a way that most animated films avoid nowadays.
It is
All of my relatives are too old to be used as a pretext to watch movies for children, and I feel uncomfortable watching this kind of stuff alone.
It's a little kids movie, and little kids are not discerning. I really don't see a reason for kids to go to a movie theater for something like this.
AFAIK, the only other theatrical movie this year aimed at this specific age range is Paw Patrol 2. If you were in this age range, which would you pick?
I love ducks and even I'm hesitant to go see it.
>Patos de Pixar, un viaje patas arriba
I haven't been able to watch this yet because I've been sick for the last week and it ruined my plans to see it theaters day 1 like I did for ruby gillman
It was whatever. Serviceable, and not actively mediocre like Mario or Wish.
Hot. Duck. Mom.
the tiny pupils+irises on the enormous eyes look really bad to me, tbh
>hating a comedy cartoon for being a comedy cartoon
You don't deserve Migration.
>love interest to supplement duck milf and gilf heron
I will now watch your movie.
haven't seen it but it looks cute
It's almost like Cinemaphile hates comics and cartoons.
I only go to the movies for Disney or Pixar, that is until Spider-verse came out.
It’s doing better than Aquaman and marvles.
No it's not.
not a very high bar youve set there, Anon, when the Adam Sandler lizard movie is better than your bar.
Mario made a billion because it's Mario. Nobody cares about generic ducks.
… I care about generic ducks…
>Nobody cares about generic ducks.