“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cheap outdated pop culture references isn’t “timeless” or even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? |