the trailers for a live-action and CGI Marmaduke movie I've been seeing (beyond the obvious things wrong with them, including their very existence), and I finally realized what it was.
Unlike Garfield, whose two similarly live-action and CGI movies turning a profit despite the howling of critics and the sad head-shaking of the public at large no doubt lead to the creation of a Marmaduke movie, Marmaduke doesn't talk. Not to people, not to the audience, not to other animals. And yet he can't shut up in these things.
I doubt there are any Marmaduke fans out there with enough affection and dedication to the single-panel cartoon to be able to support the designation of "Marmaduke purist," but whether or not your cartoon animal protagonist is merely a dumb animal or a sarcastic chatterbox would seem pretty fundamental to the creation of a film based on said cartoon animal protagonist, wouldn't it?
Also, the Phil in the movie doesn't have a mustache like the Phil in the comic.
You mentioned that there are no "Marmaduke purists", and I think that's the real problem with this movie. No one in the whole world - except for Brad Anderson - cares about Marmaduke. It's a completely unmemorable panel, and it always was.
ReplyDeletenot as sad as "the incredible journey."
ReplyDeleteApparently, Owen Wilson's alleged suicide attempt only failed to kill him and not his career...
ReplyDeleteAnd yet you will be compelled to watch it.....like the fascination of a road accident or the unashamed ogling of someone in obvious pain. Unable to look away you will be exposed to the lovecraftian depths of despair and hoplessness.......
ReplyDeleteThat's what I don't understand about this whole thing. Why did they even bother calling it "Marmaduke?" Not only is he talking -- in the teaser trailer, he also refers to himself as a teenager, which has never ever been part of the premise of the comic. Nobody's going to see this movie based on undying love for the strip or the character, so why not just invent a completely new talking, teenage Great Dane and be done with it?
ReplyDeleteBecause if it's introduced as an established decades-old property, people will . . . give a shit? I don't know. Did the Garfield movies earn all that much? That's the only reason I can see for sticking with the property name.
ReplyDelete