Why did cartoon adaptations shift into being as photorealistic as possible? Isn't the appeal of a cartoon capturing all the fun colors, exaggerated designs, and crazy sets?
Who the frick is asking, "DIDN'T YOU ALWAYS WANT TO KNOW WHAT FLOUNDER WOULD LOOK LIKE AS A REAL FISH?".
Still holds up all this time later...even if it was drawn by a diaperfur
OP I don't know if you noticed this, but almost all of the examples in the "then" side are photos of real people and not cartoons
Did you miss the word "adaptation"?
I think the Turtles look cool.
>Dick Tracy movie
For the past 2 decades, Turner Classic Movies has descended into shitposting over this movie. Back in 2009, they did a retrospective on the movie, and had Warren Beatty come in to talk about it, but he came in full Dick Tracy costume and stayed in character the entire time and talked about how Warren Beatty's directing ruined the film. Then, this year, they did a second retrospective, which boils down to TCM host Ben Mankiewicz making a group Zoom between Dick Tracy and Warren Beatty and trying to keep the peace between them while they hashed out their bad blood.
I know this isn't really the point of the thread but I will not miss an opportunity to inform people.
If by two decades you mean 30 minutes every 10 years.
That's what makes it even more bizarre and funny. These specials are meant to air only like once for the rights, slipped in between the extra space between movies.
Yeah, I meant it in the "the sum of all references to the 30s movie in the past 20 years were two shitposts" sense
because that shit back then looked goofy
Everything on both sides was goofy, but left at least had charm
naw, it didn't. it was terrible back then. all of it is garbage. live-action adaptations are soulless.
Dick Tracy is underrated and Batman Returns is the best capeshit film there is.
>Batman Returns is the best capeshit
Nostalgia is a hell of a drug
No argument
Don't live your being a contrarian. It's not healthy.
If anything calling Batman Returns the best capeshit movie ever is contrarian. It's not even the best batman movie.
cause these movies are made for "general audiences" and general audiences collectively have no souls.
>critical and commercial failure
IT'S NOT FAIR!
I dont think you can completely blame audiences for what the studios give them. Yeah, the lion king demake was successful. Would it have been LESS successful if it was less realistic? I really doubt it. Kids like cartoony CG animals, everybody knows that. I think it was successful just because it's the Lion King IP and it was one of the first realistic remakes, before people knew how bad they really were.
I think it was bolstered by being an animal-driven movie, too. You can slap a regular lion on screen and entertain kids in a way that doesn't happen with "regular guy talks and an animal shows up sometimes". They were always going to flounder once they ran light on animal-centric ones to redo.
Because Hollywood is run by morons.
At least on capeshit's side, I think it started with Raimi's Spider-Man. Yes, the movie is very stylized compared to today's bland movies, but it was the first big hit that showed that the characters could be thrown into our universe, instead of transforming the universe around the characters like Burton did with Batman.