Housepets!

I’m only making a new topic because I don’t know if it should go in video games or somewhere else... and I need to talk about this somewhat weird trailer I’m not sure how I feel about

What is the trailer supposed to be giving a preview of?

The detective Pikachu movie that’s coming out?

I imagine it would have been fine in the Silver Screen thread.

So what did you want to say about the trailer? I watched it and it looks.....interesting. I'll probably Redbox it when it comes out.

If you're a fan ... enjoy!

This is making me wanna play Pokemon Red again!

This Twitter fan art, tho!

https://twitter.com/charlubby/status/10 ... 0278368256

I'm legit interested. Art style looks really cool.

And we get Pikapool.

Welp, glad to see some fanart is already showing up. Wonder what the plot is gonna be? Also, wonder if they’re gonna actually use that “it’s about hope” line in the actual movie, surprisingly that was the only eye rolling thing in it for me, even though some of that CGI will take some getting used to.

I am cautiously optimistic about this actually, cause that trailer really hit all the right buttons for me. It's really dumb, but in all the right ways somehow

Obbl wrote:I am cautiously optimistic about this actually, cause that trailer really hit all the right buttons for me. It's really dumb, but in all the right ways somehow

It looks FUN.

I am just so happy knowing that Disney/Pixar likely hates that trailer. I don't know anyone who wanted them to keep going after Toy Story 3's ending, so I'm chuckling since any buzz about their trailer got stolen by Pikachu, especially considering some people consider Pikachu "Japan's Mickey Mouse"

from the trailer this seems to be less a "so dumb it works" concept, and more "So dumb it's... actually just really dumb."

You’re talking about the toy story ones right?

this one

the character models are over-detailed to the point of falling straight into the uncanny valley, Ryan Reynolds is a complete miscast his voice is too deep for a character that small (to be fair, anyone who's voice doesn't sound prepubescent would have the same problem, so limited pool), and while i might by biased by my experience with the series being predominantly early days, the shot composition isn't anywhere near colorful or vibrant enough the majority of the time. to gritty.

also the choice of song seems to be aiming for 'campy and comedic', while the clips and dialogue seem to be going in a completely different direction.

I’m actually really looking forward to it. Mainly because it looks like it going to be the most faithful video game movie yet. I mean, compare this to the Monster Hunter movie that’s been announced, where the first behind the scenes photo is just a bunch of stock military characters that are wildly out of place with literally everything about Monster Hunter.

Enjoy, fans … but not one on my "must see" list.

Buster wrote:this one

the character models are over-detailed to the point of falling straight into the uncanny valley, Ryan Reynolds is a complete miscast his voice is too deep for a character that small (to be fair, anyone who's voice doesn't sound prepubescent would have the same problem, so limited pool), and while i might by biased by my experience with the series being predominantly early days, the shot composition isn't anywhere near colorful or vibrant enough the majority of the time. to gritty.

also the choice of song seems to be aiming for 'campy and comedic', while the clips and dialogue seem to be going in a completely different direction.

I kinda wonder if the uncanny valley is being used intentionally, they are monsters after all, so maybe they are playing into that fact with making them look that way... I mean it’s definitely the case with Mr. Mime.

Playing into seems to be the case with Battle Angel Alita so maybe they are doing something similar with the Pokémon

I agree that the CGI characters look pretty bad. Some look creepy when they shouldn't like Jigglypuff, and others look like fake stuffed-animals. I could understand if this is part of the trend to increase the CGI:live action ratio to the point where it's more like an animated film with live action aspects like Alice in Wonderland. If that's the case, that means this movie's being sacrificed on the alter of progress a bit. For some reason I don't have any issues with the deep voice of detective Pikachu, even despite him having a high pitched voice from the perspective of people who can't understand him. I've never played the Detective Pikachu game, so I don't know how good a plot it had or how faithfully the movie is adapting it. I just hope Psyduck isn't only there to be an ex machina. At this point, my stance is I'd see it for free, but I don't know how much I'd pay to see it. Keep in mind, this is only the first trailer and we should be getting more information.

Personally, I think the CG is just okay, no real feelings either way. As for the designs, I like them, they feel like a good mixture of real life animals and Pokémon aesthetics.

i supose part of my issue with it is finding CG that tries too hard to pretend it's not CG, whether that be being over detailed in all the wrong ways to the point of being off-putting (Like SquareSoft trying to make a movie about scifi ghosts that one time! Or every single Bay-former ever!), or being under-detailed in a failed attempt to mimic more simplistic media to the point of making me question why they bothered switching mediums at all *coughentransformersergoncough* *coughdragonprincecough*.

"coughfanbasecough" "coughMoneycough" I just hope it's not a let-down for those who love that world....

It is way too different from the game

Hawkfang42 wrote:It is way too different from the game

well, DUH, it's a hollywood movie. expecting it to be true to the game is like expecting looneytunes to translate well into a shonen anime.

Never did play the Detective Pikachu game, so no clue. But movies have different structures entirely from games. I've heard this is usually the first reason that video game adaptations don't work, though of course there are typically plenty of other reasons.

actually movie adaptations in general fail more often than not because the director and or writer dislikes, or doesn't get the appeal of, the source material, and is there because he/she is being paid to be. or because the director is uwe boll, who just doesn't "human" well in general.

Valid points. I believe I read that Uwe Boll did it mainly because of some tax loophole, I believe that at the time he was a director, you could claim movie losses on tax work. I believe that has since been closed.

I've looked into the directorship of the Super Mario Bros. movie. That was a disaster from the start.

"Movie losses"? Sounds like "The Producers"......

I maintain that the first Silent Hill movie holds up as Good Video Game Movie. Yeah yeah, changes to the plot and lore, I know, but that's what adapting something for cinema means. And anyway, Silent Hill is the poster child for Confusing Story, some straightening out was to be expected and benefitted the adaptation.

Simplifying the story was basically the crux of why despite being a good movie, it was a bad silent hill, though.

Good quality, and failure to be true to the source material are not mutually exclusive. If you want an even better example of doing a quality job while simultaneously missing the point entirely, Startrek Discovery. Insurrection and Nemisis might have been trying WAY too hard but they were at least the real deal. The Abrams movies were at least true enough to the source material to be passable half the time, even if they do have about as much logic and consistency as three legged pants, at least they weren't that atrocity.

Buster wrote:Good quality, and failure to be true to the source material are not mutually exclusive. If you want an even better example of doing a quality job while simultaneously missing the point entirely, Startrek Discovery. Insurrection and Nemisis might have been trying WAY too hard but they were at least the real deal. The Abrams movies were at least true enough to the source material to be passable half the time, even if they do have about as much logic and consistency as three legged pants, at least they weren't that atrocity.

Disco is one of the best Treks we've had in a long time.

Certainly better than that Enterprise abomination, and the reboot movies too.

you're dead to me.

I'm sure he will find a way to trudge on.

I liked Enterprise. I haven't seen Discovery, mainly because I refuse to pay for CBS all access.

I'm looking forward to the movie. It took several views of the trailer for me to get over the sheer of it all. I'm hoping it does really well so we can keep the live-action movies going just because it is such an interesting and new concept for the Pokemon series.

Buster wrote:you're dead to me.

Am I considered dead or alive if I bring up that Seth McFarlane show feels more like Star Trek than STD? (I love that they didn’t consider that acronym with Discovery)

Gameb18oy wrote:

Buster wrote:you're dead to me.

Am I considered dead or alive if I bring up that Seth McFarlane show feels more like Star Trek than STD? (I love that they didn’t consider that acronym with Discovery)

considering I hate STD (also i love the double meaning of using that acronym for discovery thank you. ) and consider it an abomination so undeserving of the name trek that it made me reevaluate my stance on Abram's take on the series... McFarlane cant possibly do worse.

A sense of optimism for a better tomorrow even in the bleakest of circumstances and storyline that are built around allegory for how we can be better as a people, by following the example of a society that's already better, are the core of what made trek trek. Pretty much everything after the midway point of voyager has struggled with the latter(in Enterprise's case it was justified because they weren't there yet, but at times you could see it starting), but at least Enterprise and AbramsTrek knew they needed to make a passable attempt at the former. the big problems with those two both come from poor adherence to continuity.

STD not only has negligible continuity adherence (just to name a few examples, they are set in a time period where the federation canonically has less than ten member species, yet they decided to add new aliens anyway. they have DS9's tech tech level on a pre-TOS ship... somehow... and they can't use 'alternate timeline' as an excuse this time. then there's the klingons. the klingons are a mess; if it were just a visual overhaul i'd be fine with that, the problem is the cultural derailment. Also the neutral zone treaty and the resulting federation/klingon 'cold war' that was a reoccurring plot point in TOS should be in effect by now... yet the klingons have a zoneless border... WHY? that makes no sense! the treaty existed specifically to prevent THIS problem by giving the grumpy space aliens a 'minimum safe distance' everyone knew about!), it completely abandoned the above mentioned 'core' of what makes StarTrek. Were it an original series with it's own setting and ANY other name it would be an incredible show, but as StarTrek it's a giant steaming pile of ____!

Buster wrote:

Gameb18oy wrote:

Buster wrote:you're dead to me.

Am I considered dead or alive if I bring up that Seth McFarlane show feels more like Star Trek than STD? (I love that they didn’t consider that acronym with Discovery)

considering I hate STD (also i love the double meaning of using that acronym for discovery thank you. ) and consider it an abomination so undeserving of the name trek that it made me reevaluate my stance on Abram's take on the series... McFarlane cant possibly do worse.

A sense of optimism for a better tomorrow even in the bleakest of circumstances and storyline that are built around allegory for how we can be better as a people, by following the example of a society that's already better, are the core of what made trek trek. Pretty much everything after the midway point of voyager has struggled with the latter(in Enterprise's case it was justified because they weren't there yet, but at times you could see it starting), but at least Enterprise and AbramsTrek knew they needed to make a passable attempt at the former. the big problems with those two both come from poor adherence to continuity.

STD not only has negligible continuity adherence (just to name a few examples, they are set in a time period where the federation canonically has less than ten member species, yet they decided to add new aliens anyway. they have DS9's tech tech level on a pre-TOS ship... somehow... and they can't use 'alternate timeline' as an excuse this time. then there's the klingons. the klingons are a mess; if it were just a visual overhaul i'd be fine with that, the problem is the cultural derailment. Also the neutral zone treaty and the resulting federation/klingon 'cold war' that was a reoccurring plot point in TOS should be in effect by now... yet the klingons have a zoneless border... WHY? that makes no sense! the treaty existed specifically to prevent THIS problem by giving the grumpy space aliens a 'minimum safe distance' everyone knew about!), it completely abandoned the above mentioned 'core' of what makes StarTrek. Were it an original series with it's own setting and ANY other name it would be an incredible show, but as StarTrek it's a giant steaming pile of ____!

I know there’s no actual language used there, but if you feel you need to use language, considering where we are I’d use “carp” as a default, as it’s in keeping with the comic. Anyway, I think the funny thing about the Orville is that it’s more like Star Trek than it has any right of being, and I heard that’s basically because they hired a lot of Star Trek writers for the show... and it really shows. I’m surprised only a few trekkies are talking about it because I was sure it be considered a Star Trek spiritual successor or something considering how bad STD is

word substitutions annoy me more than having to use blackout boxes.