Previous Rant

Rantings List

Next Rant

“NO” TO “ROBOTS”

                                                               by Michael Kirwan

     There are two reasons why I’m not going to see the new computer animated cartoon, “Robots”. I saw the huge banner advertising the film hanging dramatically at my local movie house and was immediately put off. FEMALE CHARACTERS. That clued me in that there would at least be a token romance forced into the storyline. I’m not a crazy homo DICK that objects to every hetero love depiction, normally I can accept the cinematic value of beautiful people of the opposite sex feigning unquenchable interest in each other. Who cares? Propagation of the species, reeling in teenage boys to ogle the lady’s boobs on a massive screen, there’s a ream of reasonable tactics involved in squeezing in some love scenes. But ROBOTS? Why? They have no sex organs (at least none were visible in the enormous poster other than metallic coned breasts) and they don’t make babies. Why on earth would robots require cross gender attachments when in actuality THEY HAVE NO recognizable GENDER? It’s sheer laziness to impose a male-female relationship on mechanical beings. One day robots may indeed form bonds with each other (or so “The Terminator” and “The Matrix” would have us believe) but it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever that manufactured items without the means to reproduce would flirt and hold hands with each other. All that money spent to create the highest quality visual representations of an alternate society and then they drop the ball completely in an effort to humanize the robots. What a great film might have been possible had they let their imaginations soar into a place where robots did have adventures and a community and friendships, but no. It’s just that old standby “boy chases girl”, the easiest, most hackneyed plotline to flicker in the dark. Chick robots? I think not.

      My other gripe is with celebrity voice-overs. If I wanted Billy Crystal and Robin Williams and Chris Rock I would seek out vehicles that featured them. Their own faces, bodies, obnoxious banter, and garish outfits right out there where you can see them. I have two examples why this is annoying. When “Alladin” came out I was hoping that there might be another of the Disney classics I had grown up with. But there’s nothing “classic” about the jinn making Arsenio Hall references. In twenty years (probably a lot less) no one on the planet is even going to know what an “Arsenio Hall” is. A movie filled with cheap outdated pop culture references isn’t “timeless” or even remotely satisfying for the next few generations. Old Walt knew the way to make money was to crank out product that wouldn’t age itself and thereby be able to be sold over and over again in perpetuity. “Alladin”, for all it’s charming music and pleasing visuals will have the lead weight of Robin Williams shtick dragging it into the realm of the forgettable.

       The trailer for “Ice Age” was so graphic, so exciting and so innovative and thrilling that I was maniacally anticipating its arrival in theaters. That scene, of that insane rodent and his acorn, was what I assumed was the future of CGI animation. I thought to myself, “They get. They understand that it is a VISUAL medium and they don’t have to fill the space with wall-to-wall “jokes” to make it entertaining as they did with “Monster, Inc.” I thought “Ice Age” would elevate cartooning to the social relevance they enjoyed under the reign of Bugs Bunny. But no. It wasn’t about the visual experience. It was just a chance for Ray Romano, Dennis Leary and John Leguizamo to do their usual routines without having to brush their teeth or shave. WHY DOES ANYTHING NEED TO CONVERSE IN THE ICE AGE? Couldn’t they just tell the fucking story GRAPHICALLY? Isn’t that the point of CGI? Roadrunner, Tom and Jerry, thousands of pre-sound cartoons engaged us without continual yapping, why can’t this industry rely on its strengths? The VISUALS?

     PIXAR! I’m talking to you. You’d think they’d get a clue after “Shark Tails” failed to find a huge audience, but again, no. Here’s “Robots” with an all-star (has-beens and media irritants) “cast” yakking incessantly and degrading the excellent visual experience. Why spend the money on these people when there is a population of real “voice actors” who would perform better at a fraction of the cost? That these mega-stars would take this work (and imprint their overblown egos on the project) from better-qualified actors who need these kind of jobs and the money is truly sickening. Boycott, gentlemen. BOYCOTT. I’m sick of having to mute CGI DVD rentals when I could be listening to funny sound effects that heighten, rather than overwhelm, a good cartoon. No character needed utter anything more than strange animal sounds in “Ice Age”. And can we PLEASE retire the “save the baby human” routine? Speaking of annoying film “set-ups” that need to be forever banished from movies, The old Steven Seigal staple, “You murdered my family, now I’m out for revenge”, is totally played out. Another lazy screenwriter’s chestnut. We’ve seen it a FUCKING thousand times! Can’t a good guy just kill people because he feels like it?

 

Previous Rant

Rantings List

Next Rant

 

 

Any images, writings or other content on this website may be copied for personal viewing only. They may not be: redistributed; sold; altered; enhanced; modified by artificial, digital or computer imaging; used on another website or blog; posted to any internet or computer newsgroup, forum or media sharing site; nor used for any other purpose without the express written permission of the artist or KirwanArts.com.

Any images, writings or other content on this website may be copied for personal viewing only.
They may not be: redistributed; sold; altered; enhanced; modified by artificial, digital or computer imaging;
used on another website or blog; posted to any internet or computer newsgroup, forum or media sharing site;
nor used for any other purpose without the express written permission of the artist or KirwanArts.com.