I didn't know that movie even existed tbh but I'm not sure I would have gone to see it even if I did.
You forget that Le Petite Prince was canceled for its North American theatrical release nary a week prior! It can happen.
They cancelled The Interview's theatrical release about a week before it premiered too. They were still advertising for it on TV even after announcing it wasn't being released to theaters.
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?Well, that was because the studio was overreacting to rumored North Korean threats toward the movie.
Which probably weren't even North Korean, from what I've heard.
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?I have to say, this trailer alone showed to me just how badly this idea doesn't work. Basically, we have what obviously looks like a family-oriented movie, but with the characters swearing all the time and random HURR DURR SEX JOKE stuff shoehorned in. The raunchy stuff just feels pointlessly tacked onto what felt like an interesting premise, for no real reason. This trailer really made me want to see what the movie would be like if they threw away all the raunchiness and kept everything within the realms of PG-13. It really could be interesting. But alas...
Also, reading this thread and how everyone complains about the "adult" shows made me wish that there was an adult movie out there that has the following scene at the end of its trailer:
- Annah: Alright, let's get to [whatever is the point of the movie]!Bob: Wait! (Pulls a book out of nowhere and starts flipping through it) Before we continue, I am legally obligated to stop our quest dead in its tracks just to stand here and swear like a sailor for no adequate reason. Akhem. F**K! S**T! C**T! A**HOLE! TW*T! HELL! F****T! (...)Annah: (Looks at him dumbfounded)(The scene transitions to nighttime)Bob: ...B**CH! MOTHERF****R! BULLS**T! Uhhhh... (Starts flipping through the book)Annah: (Looks up at him from the magazine she's reading) Are you done?Bob: Not yet, I still have to throw about 50 more swears, just in case someone didn't get that it's not a movie for kids.(Cut to "COMING SOON!")(Cuts back to the scene)Bob: OH, right, I almost forgot! (Hides the book and instead pulls out a sausage and a donut. With a deadpan expression, he starts moving the sausage back and forth through the hole in the donut.) Sex joke. (Beat. Bob looks at the audience.) Laugh at this.(Cut to the name of the movie and some legal stuff underneath.)
edited 5th Apr '16 7:31:50 AM by ZuTheSkunk
My opinion: this is not the film. It's a trailer. Moving on.
You just made a script ten times more funny then anything I saw in the trailer.
Stumbled on the trailer by accident. Not impressed really.
As much as you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover, the thumbnail led me to know what kind of movie it is.
It's Over Anakin, I have the high ground!One thing I've heard from the screening reviews is that the sex scene is ridiculously graphic. So that's...something.
"A buddy is a buddy no matter how nutty."Between a hot dog and a bun? O.o
It's apparently a mass orgy of the main characters having sex with every position and fetish imaginable for several minutes. The MPAA made them tone down very little because I guess food sex doesn't fall under the same rules as human sex.
edited 7th Apr '16 9:18:32 AM by Assassin-sensei
"A buddy is a buddy no matter how nutty."...and what is the point of that, exactly? I don't have anything against sex scenes but this sounds completely absurd.
The point is that it's adult.
Because Hell and Back went over so well.
I didn't think Hell and Back was awful. Was it good? No. But I at least give it props for trying.
This just looks plain bad, like they didn't really care about entertaining anybody but the lowest common denominator.
edited 7th Apr '16 10:31:05 AM by Assassin-sensei
"A buddy is a buddy no matter how nutty."Hue-Hue-Hue-Hue! It's funny because cartoon foods are having graphic sex. Clearly a genius joke to progress the plot and not schlock to offend people who just ate while watching such pure brilliance.
Oh man, I am just not giving this film a chance like I have when the trailer first hit.
It's a Seth Rogen movie.
That pretty much sums up my feeling of this movie.
Ya, I'm weird like that...(I guess I'd be surprised if it's not meant to function like "Only a Woman" from Team America.)
I think the saddest thing about this movie (that we can tell so far) is how they are wasting a good chance to deconstruct people's need to anthropomorphise everything by using it to just tell vulgar jokes. It's understandable to have feelings for some people or animals (Toy Story, Zootopia) but not others (Cars, Turbo) so it's Ok to show this to people. The idea of living food is original yet shocking enough on its own. But nobody will remember this movie for that; they'll remember it as "Seth Rogen's animated shock jock movie."
In this film's defence, I think without the vulgarity, the parody intended might not come through at all. They've okayed so many patently absurd premises for kids' movies in the past, that Poe's Law would be in full effect — I mean, there already was a "kids' film" that tried to play a similar premise without any apparent irony. It'd be pretty difficult to differentiate between a satire of a bad kids' film and an actual bad kids' film if it didn't posit itself firmly as not for kids.
On that note, does anyone ever wonder why we, in real life, always anthromorphosise our food in advertising? There are so many advertisments that put happy faces on the things we eat, and so many chicken restaurants that have smiling chickens as their mascots. Isn't it kinda... weird how much we seem to want our food to be alive?
Except that Foodfight was about mascots and brands, not the actual food.
Wreck It Ralph and Who Framed Roger Rabbit are closer to Foodfight than this is...
Yeh, how many of us actually went to see Hell and Back last year?