|
Post by kaylathehedgehog on Jul 1, 2011 8:22:56 GMT -7
I don't know if I'd go that far with 'Rainbow Brite' and 'Care Bears'.
Care Bears flat out contradicted the history of the Care Bear family between the first and second movies, what with the Care Bears and Care Bear Cousins not knowing each other in the first movie, yet growing up together in the second movie. Even if the first movie took place sometime in the middle of the second, it still doesn't explain why the Cousins had their tummy symbols when they were babies, but lost them when they got older. Plus, True Heart and Noble Heart just popped up out of nowhere with no explanation of where they came from, nor how they came to have the cubs.
As for Rainbow Brite, the only characters we really got any background information on was Rainbow and Murky. Even then, we were never told where Wisp came from, nor how she came to Rainbowland. Not mention that the Color Kids never got any background history.
|
|
|
Post by indigodragon on Jul 1, 2011 9:33:15 GMT -7
Yeah, that always confused me with the Care Bears movies. But over the years I've been theorizing. My theory is with the Care Bears movies, the first film prequels the DiC TV series while the second film prequels the Nevada TV series. Although, it doesn't show us where Hugs, Tugs and Grams Bear came from. Nor a background story on No-Heart and Beastly.
Though with Rainbow Brite, you are right that we didn't get a background on Wisp, Murky or the Color Kids.
|
|
|
Post by kaylathehedgehog on Jul 2, 2011 21:06:45 GMT -7
Also something weird about the Care Bears.
Grams, Hugs, and Tugs were in 'Care Bears and the Freeze Machine' along with Professor Coldheart. That movie came out in 1984.
Come 1985, the DiC series rolls around and Coldheart's there, but not Grams, Hugs, and Tugs. In the Nelvana series, Grams, Hugs, and Tugs are there, but not Coldheart.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2011 7:22:02 GMT -7
I hope nobody minds me commenting on the earlier discussion about CGI versus traditional animation! I follow the animation industry a little bit, and it's well worth noting that whilst traditional animation actually generally costs less, it's CGI that has levelled the playing field and allowed all sorts of companies (even some unheard-of ones) to successfully compete in the field of theatrical animation (oddly, right now it seems that CGI is necessary in order to compete, in spite of the lower costs of traditional animation), and removed that "All animation is made by Disney"/"All animation that isn't Disney isn't as good" stigma that seemingly prevented such competition before (want an example? Look at how many people think that all of Don Bluth's productions were "actually" not-as-good films by Disney ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) ). To get a look-in, a theatrical Teddy Ruxpin movie made nowadays would pretty much have to be CGI. Personally, I don't mind that, as long as it was handled well. I would lean towards the Pixar way over the Dreamworks way, myself. It wouldn't necessarily have to be made by either of them - my point is just that Dreamworks' animation style is often very caffeinated, seemingly to try to counter a perceived attention span problem with its target audience, and I don't think that that would fit the Teddy franchise. As much as I loved the style of the animated series of old, I also know that business-wise, newcomers need to discover Teddy and his friends, and that's not going to happen if a new production isn't done in a way that the youngsters of today are familiar with. A comeback needs to happen as much for them as for the existing fans, if not more so!
|
|