Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Finishing cleanup of complaining, including meta guesses that have nothing to do with the film's story.
Changed line(s) 1,3 (click to see context) from:
* Why would anyone want to live in the Arctic?!
** With Global Warming and Overpopulation it's not so much a "why" as a "when"
*** You do realize Global Warming would [[TemptingFate melt the Arctic]], and [[FridgeHorror drown anyone hypothetically living there]], right?
** With Global Warming and Overpopulation it's not so much a "why" as a "when"
*** You do realize Global Warming would [[TemptingFate melt the Arctic]], and [[FridgeHorror drown anyone hypothetically living there]], right?
to:
* Why would anyone want to live in the Arctic?!
** With Global Warming and Overpopulation it's not so much a "why" as a "when"
*** You do realize Global Warming would [[TemptingFate melt the Arctic]], and [[FridgeHorror drown anyone hypothetically living there]], right?Arctic?
** With Global Warming and Overpopulation it's not so much a "why" as a "when"
*** You do realize Global Warming would [[TemptingFate melt the Arctic]], and [[FridgeHorror drown anyone hypothetically living there]], right?
Changed line(s) 5,10 (click to see context) from:
*** People do live in the Arctic. Lots of them. Whole cities worths. There are settlements as far north as Svalbard. And no, the Arctic is not going to melt because it is not made of ice. Most of it is not even covered in snow all year round. None of this makes the film's plotline any more logical, of course - if anything it makes it less so.
* '''Why was it released to theaters if it was going to be just a DTV movie?'''
** That's actually a good question. Wouldn't it make more sense to have it as a straight to DVD movie? It would cost less money and with there being no theatrical trailer, more people would probably get the DVD.
** Money. Lionsgate probably figured they might make more money off the film if it was released in theaters. While it would've cost less money to go straight to DVD, they probably wouldn't have made much money in the process. They managed to make roughly $24 million from it, off a budget of only $18 million.
*** That's not very much money, though, as the marketing budget and similar costs aren't accounted for. As a matter of fact, the film [[BoxOfficeBomb bombed]].
* Hey, here is an interesting question. If we bought into the idea of building luxury homes in the barren arctic, how would Norm's plan going along with Greene's plan to raise his approval rating to build homes in the arctic save his home? Sure he tries to turn against him, but wouldn't staying out of it be a better move, considering if he did, Greene would never get his approval rating?
* '''Why was it released to theaters if it was going to be just a DTV movie?'''
** That's actually a good question. Wouldn't it make more sense to have it as a straight to DVD movie? It would cost less money and with there being no theatrical trailer, more people would probably get the DVD.
** Money. Lionsgate probably figured they might make more money off the film if it was released in theaters. While it would've cost less money to go straight to DVD, they probably wouldn't have made much money in the process. They managed to make roughly $24 million from it, off a budget of only $18 million.
*** That's not very much money, though, as the marketing budget and similar costs aren't accounted for. As a matter of fact, the film [[BoxOfficeBomb bombed]].
* Hey, here is an interesting question. If we bought into the idea of building luxury homes in the barren arctic, how would Norm's plan going along with Greene's plan to raise his approval rating to build homes in the arctic save his home? Sure he tries to turn against him, but wouldn't staying out of it be a better move, considering if he did, Greene would never get his approval rating?
to:
*
** That's actually a good question. Wouldn't it make more sense to have it as a straight to DVD movie? It would cost less money and with there being no theatrical trailer, more people would probably get the DVD.
** Money. Lionsgate probably figured they might make more money off the film if it was released in theaters. While it would've cost less money to go straight to DVD, they probably wouldn't have made much money in the process. They managed to make roughly $24 million from it, off a budget of only $18 million.
*** That's not very much money, though, as the marketing budget and similar costs aren't accounted for. As a matter of fact, the film [[BoxOfficeBomb bombed]].
* Hey, here is an interesting question.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Cleaning complaining.
Deleted line(s) 4 (click to see context) :
** Because the movie needed a GreenAesop, I guess.
Changed line(s) 7,10 (click to see context) from:
* '''Why was this even released to theaters if it was going to be just a DTV movie?'''
** That's actually a good question. Wouldn't it make more sense to have it as a straight to DVD movie? It would cost less money and with there being no theatrical trailer, more people would probably get the DVD. And when I say people, I mean grandparents that mistake it for some other kind of movie.
** Lionsgate is not smart when it comes to animated features.
** Money. Lionsgate probably figured they might make more money off the film if it was released in theaters. While it would've cost less money to go straight to DVD, they probably wouldn't have made much money in the process. As horrible as this film is, at the very least, they managed to make roughly $24 million from it, off a budget of only $18 million.
** That's actually a good question. Wouldn't it make more sense to have it as a straight to DVD movie? It would cost less money and with there being no theatrical trailer, more people would probably get the DVD. And when I say people, I mean grandparents that mistake it for some other kind of movie.
** Lionsgate is not smart when it comes to animated features.
** Money. Lionsgate probably figured they might make more money off the film if it was released in theaters. While it would've cost less money to go straight to DVD, they probably wouldn't have made much money in the process. As horrible as this film is, at the very least, they managed to make roughly $24 million from it, off a budget of only $18 million.
to:
* '''Why was this even it released to theaters if it was going to be just a DTV movie?'''
** That's actually a good question. Wouldn't it make more sense to have it as a straight to DVD movie? It would cost less money and with there being no theatrical trailer, more people would probably get theDVD. And when I say people, I mean grandparents that mistake it for some other kind of movie.
** Lionsgate is not smart when it comes to animated features.
DVD.
** Money. Lionsgate probably figured they might make more money off the film if it was released in theaters. While it would've cost less money to go straight to DVD, they probably wouldn't have made much money in the process.As horrible as this film is, at the very least, they They managed to make roughly $24 million from it, off a budget of only $18 million.
** That's actually a good question. Wouldn't it make more sense to have it as a straight to DVD movie? It would cost less money and with there being no theatrical trailer, more people would probably get the
** Lionsgate is not smart when it comes to animated features.
** Money. Lionsgate probably figured they might make more money off the film if it was released in theaters. While it would've cost less money to go straight to DVD, they probably wouldn't have made much money in the process.
Changed line(s) 12,13 (click to see context) from:
* Hey, here is an interesting question. Okay, so the whole point of building luxury homes in the barren arctic is stupid, but even if we bought into it, how would Norm's plan going along with Greene's plan to raise his approval rating to build homes in the arctic save his home? Sure he tries to turn against him, but wouldn't staying out of it be a better move, considering if he did, Greene would never get his approval rating?
** Yes, but clearly no one mentioned this to the movie's writers. [[IdiotPlot And now here we are]].
** Yes, but clearly no one mentioned this to the movie's writers. [[IdiotPlot And now here we are]].
to:
* Hey, here is an interesting question. Okay, so If we bought into the whole point idea of building luxury homes in the barren arctic is stupid, but even if we bought into it, arctic, how would Norm's plan going along with Greene's plan to raise his approval rating to build homes in the arctic save his home? Sure he tries to turn against him, but wouldn't staying out of it be a better move, considering if he did, Greene would never get his approval rating?
** Yes, but clearly no one mentioned this to the movie's writers. [[IdiotPlot And now here we are]].rating?
** Yes, but clearly no one mentioned this to the movie's writers. [[IdiotPlot And now here we are]].
Changed line(s) 15,16 (click to see context) from:
* Why would Greene's approval ratings go ''up'' when he attacks Norm in the restaurant? Why would people approve of a man breaking into a public building and committing acts of terrorism against an animal?
** Because of bad writing.
** Because of bad writing.
to:
* Why would Greene's approval ratings go ''up'' when he attacks Norm in the restaurant? Why would people approve of a man breaking into a public building and committing acts of terrorism against an animal?
** Because of bad writing.animal?
** Because of bad writing.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
** That's actually a good question. Wouldn't it make more sense to have it as a straight to DVD movie? It would cost less money and with their being no theatrical trailer, more people would probably get the DVD. And when I say people, I mean grandparents that mistake it for some other kind of movie.
to:
** That's actually a good question. Wouldn't it make more sense to have it as a straight to DVD movie? It would cost less money and with their there being no theatrical trailer, more people would probably get the DVD. And when I say people, I mean grandparents that mistake it for some other kind of movie.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 15 (click to see context) :
* Here's my question, how did this movie get a PG rating? I'm asking this because some of the writing and jokes feel out of place in this "family animated film". Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that a lot of animated family titles tend to do this for the adults watching and I have no problem with it, but in this instance the movie really pushes it to quite noticeable levels. In fact a few movies like ''WesternAnimation/{{Foodfight}}'' and ''WesternAnimation/{{Shrek}}''[[note]]I'n saying it's a bad movie, I love it and I'm only using it as an example[[/note]] are the same way as well. If an animated movie wants to be adult oriented that's fine, in fact I want to see more adult animation in theaters, I just don't get why the MPAA continues to give these kind of films PG ratings when in most cases they're not aiming for one.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 16 (click to see context) from:
* Why would Greene's approval ratings go ''up'' when he attacks Norm in the restaurant? Why would people approve of a man breaking into a public building and committing acts of terrorism against an animal?
to:
* Why would Greene's approval ratings go ''up'' when he attacks Norm in the restaurant? Why would people approve of a man breaking into a public building and committing acts of terrorism against an animal?animal?
** Because of bad writing.
** Because of bad writing.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 16 (click to see context) from:
* Why would Greene's approval ratings go ''up'' when he attacks Norm in the restaurant? Why would people approve of a man breaking into a public building and committing acts of terrorism against animal?
to:
* Why would Greene's approval ratings go ''up'' when he attacks Norm in the restaurant? Why would people approve of a man breaking into a public building and committing acts of terrorism against an animal?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 15 (click to see context) from:
* Here's my question, how did this movie get a PG rating? I'm asking this because some of the writing and jokes feel out of place in this "family animated film". Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that a lot of animated family titles tend to do this for the adults watching and I have no problem with it, but in this instance the movie really pushes it to quite noticeable levels. In fact a few movies like ''WesternAnimation/{{Foodfight}}'' and ''WesternAnimation/{{Shrek}}''[[note]]I'n saying it's a bad movie, I love it and I'm only using it as an example[[/note]] are the same way as well. If an animated movie wants to be adult oriented that's fine, in fact I want to see more adult animation in theaters, I just don't get why the MPAA continues to give these kind of films PG ratings when in most cases they're not aiming for one.
to:
* Here's my question, how did this movie get a PG rating? I'm asking this because some of the writing and jokes feel out of place in this "family animated film". Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that a lot of animated family titles tend to do this for the adults watching and I have no problem with it, but in this instance the movie really pushes it to quite noticeable levels. In fact a few movies like ''WesternAnimation/{{Foodfight}}'' and ''WesternAnimation/{{Shrek}}''[[note]]I'n saying it's a bad movie, I love it and I'm only using it as an example[[/note]] are the same way as well. If an animated movie wants to be adult oriented that's fine, in fact I want to see more adult animation in theaters, I just don't get why the MPAA continues to give these kind of films PG ratings when in most cases they're not aiming for one.one.
* Why would Greene's approval ratings go ''up'' when he attacks Norm in the restaurant? Why would people approve of a man breaking into a public building and committing acts of terrorism against animal?
* Why would Greene's approval ratings go ''up'' when he attacks Norm in the restaurant? Why would people approve of a man breaking into a public building and committing acts of terrorism against animal?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** That's not very much money, though, as the marketing budget and similar costs aren't accounted for. As a matter of fact, the film [[BoxOfficeBomb bombed]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** People do live in the Arctic. Lots of them. Whole cities worths. There are settlements as far north as Svalbard. And no, the Arctic is not going to melt because it is not made of ice. Most of it is not even covered in snow all year round. None of this makes the film's plotline any more logical, of course - if anything it makes it less so.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 13 (click to see context) from:
* Here's my question, how did this movie get a PG rating? I'm asking this because some of the writing and jokes feel out of place in this "family animated film". Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that a lot of animated family titles tend to do this for the adults watching and I have no problem with it, but in this instance the movie really pushes it to quite noticeable levels. In fact a few movies like ''WesternAnimation/{{Foodfight}}'' and ''WesternAnimation/Shrek''[[note]]I'n saying it's a bad movie, I love it and I'm only using it as an example[[/note]] are the same way as well. If an animated movie wants to be adult oriented that's fine, in fact I want to see more adult animation in theaters, but I don't get why the MPAA continues to give these kind of films PG ratings when in most cases they're not aiming for one.
to:
* Here's my question, how did this movie get a PG rating? I'm asking this because some of the writing and jokes feel out of place in this "family animated film". Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that a lot of animated family titles tend to do this for the adults watching and I have no problem with it, but in this instance the movie really pushes it to quite noticeable levels. In fact a few movies like ''WesternAnimation/{{Foodfight}}'' and ''WesternAnimation/Shrek''[[note]]I'n ''WesternAnimation/{{Shrek}}''[[note]]I'n saying it's a bad movie, I love it and I'm only using it as an example[[/note]] are the same way as well. If an animated movie wants to be adult oriented that's fine, in fact I want to see more adult animation in theaters, but I just don't get why the MPAA continues to give these kind of films PG ratings when in most cases they're not aiming for one.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 12 (click to see context) from:
* So how did Norm keep up the whole "actor in a polar bear costume" gig? Even if it was convincing, when he became Greene's official mascot he probably wouldn't be wearing the same suit he auditioned with. Unless it was custom-made, Greene wouldn't be allowed to use the likeness of the suit without copyright claims from the original company that made it. Greene should have figured out Norm's secret when no copyright infringements were filed.
to:
* So how did Norm keep up the whole "actor in a polar bear costume" gig? Even if it was convincing, when he became Greene's official mascot he probably wouldn't be wearing the same suit he auditioned with. Unless it was custom-made, Greene wouldn't be allowed to use the likeness of the suit without copyright claims from the original company that made it. Greene should have figured out Norm's secret when no copyright infringements were filed.filed.
* Here's my question, how did this movie get a PG rating? I'm asking this because some of the writing and jokes feel out of place in this "family animated film". Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that a lot of animated family titles tend to do this for the adults watching and I have no problem with it, but in this instance the movie really pushes it to quite noticeable levels. In fact a few movies like ''WesternAnimation/{{Foodfight}}'' and ''WesternAnimation/Shrek''[[note]]I'n saying it's a bad movie, I love it and I'm only using it as an example[[/note]] are the same way as well. If an animated movie wants to be adult oriented that's fine, in fact I want to see more adult animation in theaters, but I don't get why the MPAA continues to give these kind of films PG ratings when in most cases they're not aiming for one.
* Here's my question, how did this movie get a PG rating? I'm asking this because some of the writing and jokes feel out of place in this "family animated film". Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that a lot of animated family titles tend to do this for the adults watching and I have no problem with it, but in this instance the movie really pushes it to quite noticeable levels. In fact a few movies like ''WesternAnimation/{{Foodfight}}'' and ''WesternAnimation/Shrek''[[note]]I'n saying it's a bad movie, I love it and I'm only using it as an example[[/note]] are the same way as well. If an animated movie wants to be adult oriented that's fine, in fact I want to see more adult animation in theaters, but I don't get why the MPAA continues to give these kind of films PG ratings when in most cases they're not aiming for one.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 11 (click to see context) from:
** Yes, but clearly no one mentioned this to the movie's writers. [[IdiotPlot And now here we are]].
to:
** Yes, but clearly no one mentioned this to the movie's writers. [[IdiotPlot And now here we are]].are]].
* So how did Norm keep up the whole "actor in a polar bear costume" gig? Even if it was convincing, when he became Greene's official mascot he probably wouldn't be wearing the same suit he auditioned with. Unless it was custom-made, Greene wouldn't be allowed to use the likeness of the suit without copyright claims from the original company that made it. Greene should have figured out Norm's secret when no copyright infringements were filed.
* So how did Norm keep up the whole "actor in a polar bear costume" gig? Even if it was convincing, when he became Greene's official mascot he probably wouldn't be wearing the same suit he auditioned with. Unless it was custom-made, Greene wouldn't be allowed to use the likeness of the suit without copyright claims from the original company that made it. Greene should have figured out Norm's secret when no copyright infringements were filed.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 10 (click to see context) from:
* Hey, here is an interesting question. Okay, so the whole point of building luxury homes in the barren arctic is stupid, but even if we bought into it, how would Norm's plan going along with Greene's plan to raise his approval rating to build homes in the arctic save his home? Sure he tries to turn against him, but wouldn't staying out of it be a better move, considering if he did, Greene would never get his approval rating?
to:
* Hey, here is an interesting question. Okay, so the whole point of building luxury homes in the barren arctic is stupid, but even if we bought into it, how would Norm's plan going along with Greene's plan to raise his approval rating to build homes in the arctic save his home? Sure he tries to turn against him, but wouldn't staying out of it be a better move, considering if he did, Greene would never get his approval rating?rating?
** Yes, but clearly no one mentioned this to the movie's writers. [[IdiotPlot And now here we are]].
** Yes, but clearly no one mentioned this to the movie's writers. [[IdiotPlot And now here we are]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 9 (click to see context) from:
** Money. Lionsgate probably figured they might make more money off the film if it was released in theaters. While it would've cost less money to go straight to DVD, they probably wouldn't have made much money in the process. As horrible as this film is, at the very least, they managed to make roughly $24 million from it, off a budget of only $18 million.
to:
** Money. Lionsgate probably figured they might make more money off the film if it was released in theaters. While it would've cost less money to go straight to DVD, they probably wouldn't have made much money in the process. As horrible as this film is, at the very least, they managed to make roughly $24 million from it, off a budget of only $18 million.million.
*Hey, here is an interesting question. Okay, so the whole point of building luxury homes in the barren arctic is stupid, but even if we bought into it, how would Norm's plan going along with Greene's plan to raise his approval rating to build homes in the arctic save his home? Sure he tries to turn against him, but wouldn't staying out of it be a better move, considering if he did, Greene would never get his approval rating?
*Hey, here is an interesting question. Okay, so the whole point of building luxury homes in the barren arctic is stupid, but even if we bought into it, how would Norm's plan going along with Greene's plan to raise his approval rating to build homes in the arctic save his home? Sure he tries to turn against him, but wouldn't staying out of it be a better move, considering if he did, Greene would never get his approval rating?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
** Lionsgate is not smart when it comes to animated features.
to:
** Lionsgate is not smart when it comes to animated features.features.
** Money. Lionsgate probably figured they might make more money off the film if it was released in theaters. While it would've cost less money to go straight to DVD, they probably wouldn't have made much money in the process. As horrible as this film is, at the very least, they managed to make roughly $24 million from it, off a budget of only $18 million.
** Money. Lionsgate probably figured they might make more money off the film if it was released in theaters. While it would've cost less money to go straight to DVD, they probably wouldn't have made much money in the process. As horrible as this film is, at the very least, they managed to make roughly $24 million from it, off a budget of only $18 million.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added line(s) 6 (click to see context) :
** Money? On paper, it does sound like you could make a lot of money off of that idea, even if just in the short run.
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
** That's actually a good question. Wouldn't it make more sense to have it as a straight to DVD movie? It would cost less money and with their being no theatrical trailer, more people would probably get the DVD. And when I say people, I mean grandparents that mistake it for some other kind of movie.
to:
** That's actually a good question. Wouldn't it make more sense to have it as a straight to DVD movie? It would cost less money and with their being no theatrical trailer, more people would probably get the DVD. And when I say people, I mean grandparents that mistake it for some other kind of movie.movie.
** Lionsgate is not smart when it comes to animated features.
** Lionsgate is not smart when it comes to animated features.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
* '''Why was this even released to theaters if it was going to be just a DTV movie?'''
to:
* '''Why was this even released to theaters if it was going to be just a DTV movie?'''movie?'''
** That's actually a good question. Wouldn't it make more sense to have it as a straight to DVD movie? It would cost less money and with their being no theatrical trailer, more people would probably get the DVD. And when I say people, I mean grandparents that mistake it for some other kind of movie.
** That's actually a good question. Wouldn't it make more sense to have it as a straight to DVD movie? It would cost less money and with their being no theatrical trailer, more people would probably get the DVD. And when I say people, I mean grandparents that mistake it for some other kind of movie.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
* Why was this even released to theaters if it was going to be just a DTV movie!?
to:
* Why '''Why was this even released to theaters if it was going to be just a DTV movie!?movie?'''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:
** Because the movie needed a GreenAesop, I guess.
to:
** Because the movie needed a GreenAesop, I guess.guess.
*Why was this even released to theaters if it was going to be just a DTV movie!?
*Why was this even released to theaters if it was going to be just a DTV movie!?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
What was even the point of that comment?
Changed line(s) 4,5 (click to see context) from:
** Because the movie needed a GreenAesop, I guess.
** Conversation starter? A realy, really desperate conversation starter?
** Conversation starter? A realy, really desperate conversation starter?
to:
** Because the movie needed a GreenAesop, I guess.
** Conversation starter? A realy, really desperate conversation starter?guess.
** Conversation starter? A realy, really desperate conversation starter?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
** Bragging rights?
to:
** Bragging rights?Conversation starter? A realy, really desperate conversation starter?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:
** Because the movie needed a GreenAesop, I guess.
to:
** Because the movie needed a GreenAesop, I guess.guess.
** Bragging rights?
** Bragging rights?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3 (click to see context) from:
*** You do realize Global Warming would [[TemptingFate melt the Arctic]], and [[FridgeHorror drown anyone hypothetically living there]], right?
to:
*** You do realize Global Warming would [[TemptingFate melt the Arctic]], and [[FridgeHorror drown anyone hypothetically living there]], right?right?
** Because the movie needed a GreenAesop, I guess.
** Because the movie needed a GreenAesop, I guess.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
** With Global Warming and Overpopulation it's not so much a "why" as a "when"
to:
** With Global Warming and Overpopulation it's not so much a "why" as a "when""when"
*** You do realize Global Warming would [[TemptingFate melt the Arctic]], and [[FridgeHorror drown anyone hypothetically living there]], right?
*** You do realize Global Warming would [[TemptingFate melt the Arctic]], and [[FridgeHorror drown anyone hypothetically living there]], right?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* Why would anyone want to live in the Artic?!
to:
* Why would anyone want to live in the Artic?!Arctic?!
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* Why would anyone want to live in the Artic?!
to:
* Why would anyone want to live in the Artic?!Artic?!
** With Global Warming and Overpopulation it's not so much a "why" as a "when"
** With Global Warming and Overpopulation it's not so much a "why" as a "when"
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Why would anyone want to live in the Artic?!
