Sorry, but DingoWalley1 was just speaking about a hypothetical scenario regarding who would get what if Sony does wind up selling off their film and TV divisions when The You-Know-What Movie inevitably tanks.
If that were the case, then Sony (provided they still have their film division after this) would have 2 years to come up with a Popeye movie, or at least show to everyone "hey, we're still totally doing this movie!"
In all seriousness, maybe we should put a pin on the Popeye thing again and find a different topic. Such as:
Who's this "certain other director"?
Oh yeah, the director of Ghostbusters (2016).
Poor guy, he never asked to direct that thing or get teased at...
...is what I probably would say if I was a little more certain about whether or not he deserved to get booed and such for doing an all-female Ghostbusters movie or if he even asked to do it.
What was the general consensus on that movie? Last I recall, it was "some loved it, others hated it." Is it still that or has that changed?
edited 27th Jul '17 5:49:04 PM by TargetmasterJoe
The new Ghostbusters movie was overall a good movie, but didn't do enough to really get people talking outside of the pointless nostalgia whiners. It's a Gen 1 issue, from what I remember.
Anyway, a resounding meh sounds about what I'm expecting. I did not expect it to be all that good anyway, due to the premise(namely, trying to give characters who are supposed to be one-note tons of personality).
That said, once I see it for myself(the more poeple hate on it, the more I want to see it in theaters over simply Netflix), I'll judge it then. Likewise, I don't trust a review until I see the contents of a review and to make sure it's constructive criticism. Unfortunately most reviews for this movie will lack the constructive part. :/
Shadow?Which is funny because the inspiration is entirely from the director's own experiences only, some of Toy Story(which does not have the same premise as this movie or anything like Wreck-It Ralph), and getting a text message.
So excuse me if I write those reviews off as not knowing what they're talking about. Show me a review that actually judges the movie with knowledge of the interview, and then I'll bother listening to it. I don't trust reviews that are written with ignorance. What's sad is the interview absolutely should've been a required read before releasing a review(at least for those under the embargo). Then at least they would have a properly researched review available.
Hell, I'm still facepalming at anyone who blames this movie for others getting canned when there's absolutely zero evidence to suggest this ever happened. If they canned any movies to make this one, it should be very easy to cite and prove that's real. Otherwise, it's basically crap made up to justify hating a movie that has zero relations to SPA making decisions they have zero knowledge of the reasonings behind.
edited 27th Jul '17 6:44:44 PM by Irene
Shadow?Having a coincidental message means jack in reality.
There is nothing in common with the inspirations as is.
So let it go already.
Now what I want to know is if SPA banking it on this is reality or a rumor. I hope it was a rumor, mostly cause they have lots of potential movies to still make.
Also, lol at the idea any movies were canned for this. There's not only a lack of evidence, but nobody can cite this either. I wonder why. -_- Maybe people could just realize it's a pure coincidence and they never released any real information on why the movies were canned. Could it be because, I dunno, they didn't like the premise? We don't know at all. Which is really the only fact that exists.
![]()
You're aware that it didn't replace Popeye, right? Popeye was canned for absolutely no reason known. Hell, the most logical explanation is he's not relevant in anything right now, and SPA can't risk throwing out movies to try and "reboot" series that aren't active. They can at least risk something with actual relevant stuff. Emojis are relevant. There's actual logic on risking things on it. It's not the best choice, obviously(assuming the rumor is real they were counting on this movie), but at least the logic has real bearing to it.
edited 27th Jul '17 7:47:53 PM by Irene
Shadow?What I find funny about everyone making comparisons of the
Movie to Wreck-It Ralph is that video game characters ALSO inherently need to exist in a locked state. One is always the bad guy, another is always the good guy, and that cannot change, that's in their code. And yet that movie turned out to be incredible!!!!
Well, yeah. That's kind of the point. Emojis have one specific emotion/state. That's who they are.
The thing is, that's why they can't really branch out or get development. It ruins the characterization. Video game characters can easily get development as normal. They just are supposed to act a specific way in their own game. Thus, one has a better way to create development.
The issue isn't the inspiration at all that created The Emoji Movie. That was a great inspiration, and I'm honestly proud to see a Director really try and put a lot of soul into their work. The issue is they were using a premise that couldn't do anything but fail and had no way to execute it better. Greatly inspired movie, no way to make it good. It's pretty much the most accurate thing to say about it.
Shadow?Eh, I'd argue that while the concept for the film may not be inherently bad, it does raise a lot of eyebrows on how on earth was the studio going to pull it off. Almost everyone seemed to be on the same page of disbelief when the Emoji Movie was announced. It may not had been flawed from the start, but using emojis as the concept for an entire film was a highly questionable decision from the start.
The Lego Movie can be pointed to as an example of a very high concept film turning out great, but people were skeptical on how you would be able to make a film out of toy bricks when that film was first announced too.
edited 27th Jul '17 8:34:22 PM by Yeow95
has a clue, but it's usually not the correct one 0.55% of the timeAs I recall, Popeye (or at least Genndy Tartakovsky's vision of it) was canned because it was deemed "not modern enough" by the bigwigs, which is kind of a conundrum because how do you modernize something like Popeye without making it dated later on?
That's entirely why the issue isn't the premise(entirely) or the inspiration(which was very unique). It's the execution and the fact you're trying to turn one-note characters into multi-faceted.
The problem with the premise isn't the idea behind it, it's the subject matter in itself had no chance of working well.
Also, from what I understand, the idea they stopped production of two movies for this is simply based upon "the timing was similar" and actually was never a hard given fact nor an article/anything to cite. It's very clear the page needs to be edited to fix this annoying rumor. We kind of do have a rule that they need to be factual, not basically WMG'ing when it comes to stuff like Trivia, etc.
So far, nobody has a clear story on it. It wasn't even "canned" so much as shelved for now. That's kind of the issue here. What's the real story? That way we can make sure the page actually accurately tells it. It's like the telephone game. People keep adding bits and pieces to the actual facts, making it fictional and full of rumors.
edited 27th Jul '17 8:36:22 PM by Irene
Shadow?You know, I think I'm guilty of blaming the Popeye movie's cancellation on The Emoji Movie, and I know that isn't right, especially since I otherwise dislike it when people blame something next in the pipeline for getting their favorite thing cancelled. It's a real "speck-in-your-brothers-eye-log-in-your-own" situation.
I still don't have high-hopes for the movie whenever I see it, but I should at least stop holding that against it.
Also, this is unrelated, but would it kill Rotten Tomatoes to have a more descriptive and creative consensus for the movie than just a "🚫"? Why not use several poop emojis?
edited 27th Jul '17 8:43:28 PM by kablammin45
"Hey, least I didn't lose all my artistic talent when I crash landed in the arena here."I agree if they did a High Concept right with the Lego movie, then I actually think they could have done one with the Emoji movie by not trying to make it a soulless pandering cash grab.
![]()
![]()
I mean, the closest thing we got to what happened with Popeye was from this interview:
Genndy Tartakovsky: Basically, we did a screening, and it was great. Internally, everyone was super happy with it. I think it was also exactly what King Features wanted. We had a great reaction.
But this was also during the culmination of the Sony hack, and I could feel that something was going to happen soon. So after the screening, I didn’t get an answer from them, which was weird because everybody was so positive. Usually, we meet and talk, and get notes. But they had a meeting on their own, and that was it. I just got a phone call afterward telling me how great it was, which always makes me suspicious. If they just call to tell you it’s great, there’s something going on, because they didn’t offer any notes. Later on, I personally went to see Amy Pascal, and said, “Look, I’m a big boy. I can take it. I just need some information.” And she said, “Look Genndy, we love you, but we just don’t like Popeye.”
Cartoon Brew: Wow.
Genndy Tartakovsky: And that was the core. I think they’re still developing Popeye, trying to find a way to make it, but just not the way I was making it, which I think was very sincere and respectful to the way Popeye was.
...But I guess that's not enough, is it?
edited 27th Jul '17 8:55:04 PM by TargetmasterJoe

Things go into the public domain around 75 years after the death of their original creator.