Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Cartoons - Classic Vs. CGI Remake by NostalgicChills Cartoons - Classic Vs. CGI Remake by NostalgicChills

It's official. Hollywood is running out of original ideas. What's worse; is that this trend is becoming increasingly more popular as time goes by. Cartoons like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and various Disney fairytale cartoon films are STILL being exploited even to this day.

And i understand that some cartoons can be well converted into CGI/live action, for example Transformers seems to do well in this medium. But most cartoons can't be converted so easily; at least not very well. Particularly ones with animal protagonists, because usually; the CGI version of cartoon animal characters end up looking like lifeless plush puppets, as you can see in the image. Even worse is when they try and blend CGI animals with live action people, with very awkward results.

Don't get me wrong though, i understand what they're TRYING to do here. They're trying to appeal to people's nostalgia, and at the same time introduce a new generation to an old classic cartoon. But with that said, why don't they ever rebroadcast the original TV series' that the film was based off of? At best, the movie introduces a new TV series based on the cartoon, but they almost never play re-runs to introduce people to the original series. It kind of defeats the purpose they claim to have.

By the way, have you noticed something about the marketing strategy for the CGI remakes of these cartoons? Notice an overuse of a particular eyewear that is often placed to make characters look 'cool' or 'rebellious', when in reality it just makes them look like total douchebags?? And here i thought putting sunglasses on a character for this reason died out with the 1980's, but for some reason this cliche is making a very obnoxious comeback! And i referenced the CGI characters from actual movie posters, so i'm not exaggerating this! Even Disney doesn't use this cliche anymore; after Oliver & Company failed miserably despite this marketing method. Sunglasses don't automatically make characters cool! They have to earn that status with an actual PERSONALITY.

Anyway, there's a lot to get through here! So lets go!

1. ROCKY & BULLWINKLE (TV series 1959 - 1964) vs. (The Movie - 2000)

If I'm not mistaken, this is the one that started it all. This i believe was the first cartoon to be converted into a full length CGI movie. The results....were not so good. Yeah, you're probably just now looking at this and thinking: "oh yeah, I (vaguely) remember when this existed." Anyone would tell you that this was not a good idea from the start, this movie has aged TERRIBLY! Almost to the point of non existence. The CGI is a real eye sore, this movie has probably some of the worst graphics you'll EVER see in a movie! And you can't even blame its age for this, think about it: this movie came out in 2000, a whole five years after the first full length CGI film was released (Toy Story), and the CGI in Toy Story looks MUCH better than this film. But that's not the only problem, the TV series really didn't need to be made into a movie, its simplicity made it too difficult to develop a good story. This is the problem for most of these remakes, another reason why i don't understand why movie makers want to do this in the first place. Very few cartoons have versatile universes in which the characters live. Most of the time, their worlds restrict creativity and development, because these worlds and character personalities can't be distorted too much; without a severe backlash from loyal fans.

2. PEABODY & SHERMAN (Peabody's Improbable History TV series 1959-1964) vs. (Dreamwork's Peabody & Sherman 2014)

For this, i've seen both the series and the movie. Yes, the graphics are MUCH better in this than the Rocky & Bullwinkle movie; that much is obvious. But as a movie goes, while it got reasonably good reviews; i was rather unimpressed. When i saw the trailers for this, i thought to myself: 'Another one of these?? Give it a rest already!' But then i saw it was animated by Dreamworks, and i thought: 'oh ok, Dreamworks can make pretty good movies; perhaps this one won't be so bad.' THEN i saw it was directed by Rob Minkoff, the director of one of my all time favourite movies The Lion King! Then i was like: 'Hell yeah! This movie is going to be awesome!' Dreamworks does great animation, Rob Minkoff can do great movies; i was pretty psyched for this! So i went to go see it, sat down and watched it and...eh.

It wasn't BAD, but it wasn't that great either, it wasn't even that memorable. I think it roughly has the same problem as Rocky & Bullwinkle, not much elbow room for creativity. And i say this because; Peabody & Sherman are literally from the same cartoon universe as Rocky & Bullwinkle! Peabody's Improbable History wasn't even a show on its own, it was a short segment series in the Rocky & Bullwinkle show. Each episode is literally only 5 minutes long, they were cute and charming but they don't leave much to work with. Also, the show is too old and forgotten. CGI cartoon remakes usually only work if the characters are widely recognizable, this isn't the case with the characters from THIS cartoon. I only knew of them thanks to a particular Simpsons episode! Speaking of which, this movie seems to be very similar to another Simpsons episode as well, the one where Ned Flanders trusts Marge to look after his sons Rod and Tod; and she inevitably helps them break free from Ned's overprotective grip. This film pretty much has this plot too, but panned out for a full length movie. It also has all the common cliches in the book, right down to the heroic sacrifice fake out death scene; I really HATE those in films now! Yeah i know 'it's a kids movie', but i don't think this excuse should justify bad writing. Can you imagine if Disney started making bad movies with lazy writing; and used that excuse to justify it? We wouldn't be impressed.

Again, this movie wasn't horrible by any means. But i did expect more from Dreamworks, and i expected a LOT more from you, Rob Minkoff.

3. GARFIELD (TV series 1988-1994) vs. (The Movie - 2004)

Remember when i said that CGI cartoon animals look really awkward when mixed with live action people? This is what i'm talking about. The two elements really don't blend well together, the only time this can be done well is if the animal is animated realistically (i.e Aslan from Chronicles of Narnia), when they are animated as CGI cartoons however; you get awkwardness. When i started this; i was sure that i had never seen the Garfield movie, but actually; i did. I saw it when it first came out in cinemas, but it was so forgettable that i forgot i had even seen it. That's not a good sign. Unfortunately though, it was popular enough to warrant a sequel. Only one sequel though; thank goodness! Garfield himself is a timeless comic character, very loved and well recognized in pop culture. He was uncaring and incredibly self centred, but never to the point where he was unlikeable. The movie however, failed to capture Garfield's natural charm, which was really a disadvantage for a full length picture. Why is he unlikeable in the film? I'm not actually sure. Maybe it's his voice actor's delivery, or perhaps his dialogue was badly written; maybe a mixture of both? I don't know. But i found Garfield in the movie just not that fun to watch, because of which; i found the movie not very fun to watch either. And i have to ask 'why is Garfield animated but Odie isn't??' I never got that. They used a real life dog to play Odie, but used a horrible looking CGI puppet for Garfield! And they never explained why! That annoys me way more than it should!

All i can say is, i really hope Jim Davis was payed a shit load for letting Hollywood mess with his character like that!

4. ALVIN & THE CHIPMUNKS (TV series 1983-1990) vs. (The Movie - 2007)

This one is a little harder to talk about, because i haven't at all seen any of the cartoon series' about these characters, but i have seen the (first) movie. While i was working on this piece, the Alvin & the Chipmunks movie played on TV, so i thought i should watch it to gain a perspective on it. Honestly though, i didn't watch the whole movie. I got through most of it, but then the whole 'sabotage' plot point came up with the record producer (or whoever was the 'Villain' in this movie) and i thought to myself 'i've seen this plot point play out in movies SO many times; there's no point watching the rest because i already know exactly what's going to happen.' The movie up to that point wasn't THAT bad though, i'll give it that. It was predictable and gimicky; but it was also cute and harmless. One big flaw though, is the music they decide to feature in the movie. If you want your movie to withstand the test of time, go for timeless themes and stories. Don't put modern day references in your film! It will age your movie with every year that folows it, the same problems lies with the sequels based on what little of them i have seen. This franchise was popular for a while, but now it has really died. That's what happens when you try to make your movie popular instead of good.

5. SCOOBY DOO (TV series 1969-1972) vs. (The Movie - 2002)

Ok, this one REALLY annoys me. I grew up watching the Scooby Doo cartoon, and all of the knock off series' that came after it. While i wasn't a 'hardcore' Scooby Doo fan; i still enjoyed watching the cartoon as it has well imprinted itself into my nostalgia. And then this abomination came out and annoyed fans the world over! With good reason...it sucks. It's badly written, it's stupid and it's just weird. The original series may have been cheesy and outdated, but it had an identity and a personality to it that is still being satirized even to this day. The movie tries WAY too hard to funny, and the CGI is pretty bad! Yeah, i know it's from 2002; but they made Scooby Doo look like Marmaduke! The plot 'twists' made no sense, the characters' personalities were way off and the movie had very little to do with the original show regardless of the fact that they used the same characters! For example, the (original) show makes it clear that there's no such thing as supernatural beings or occurences in their universe; something this movie clearly didn't understand.

The only thing that i can give this movie credit for; is that it is responsible for Scooby Doo's major comeback. Whether or not that was actually a good thing though, is debateable.

6. TINTIN (TV series 1991-1992) vs. (The Movie - 2011)

I can't really talk much about this because I haven't seen the movie on this one, but i have seen the TV series. It makes me wonder why they decided to make a movie based on a comic and TV show that no one really remembers that well. It has the same problem as Peabody & Sherman. Personally, i had forgotten that show even existed until i saw the trailers for this movie. The show was decent enough, but nothing spectacular. I remember only watching it when there was nothing else on. So, i wasn't really surprised when the movie tanked finacially. The movie didn't look that bad though, the animation i thought looked really impressive; and the film itself received generally good reviews. But i guess it just didn't have much to offer adults or children, which is probably why not many people remember this movie at all. I think it's established that Tintin does NOT convert well to other mediums other than comics, much like Garfield.

7. THE SMURFS (TV series 1981-1990) vs. (The Movie - 2011)

Again, i haven't seen the movie of this one. And to be fair...i don't want to. Just looking at the poster made me cringe! Why Hollywood? WHY? Talk about an odd choice for a full length movie! And how did it become so popular?? I have no words for this. If any of you want to contribute to this section, feel free to do so. Because i've got nothing.

8. YOGI BEAR (TV series 1961-1988) vs. (The Movie - 2010)

Yet another childhood classic of mine to suffer at the hands of CGI animation! I didn't watch the actual show that much, but the Christmas specials centred around this character were a big part of my childhood! And i still watch them every year as a Christmas tradition. When i saw the trailers for this...i died a little inside. It received terrible reviews, the movie tanked...thank god.

9. THE LORAX (Cartoon special -1972) vs. (The Movie - 2012)

What is it with Dr. Suess adaptations and dumbing down the story, message and characters? The original cartoon of this was sombre, thought provoking and dignified. The movie is the COMPLETE opposite! It focuses too much on being mindless entertainment and completely neglects the original story's tone and message. But again, this movie became wildly popular for a while. Why? I don't know. Luckily, its popularity has died; and now it's just another one lost in the rubbish pile of these films!

--------------------------------

Ok, i think i've bitched and moaned about this long enough now. I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with CGI animation, but for crying out loud; leave classic cartoons alone! And you know what comes next don't you? You'll deny it, but the fact is; it's already happening as we speak. Live action/CGI remakes of classic Disney films! It's already begun, Alice & Wonderland has had the treatment already; and soon Dumbo!
What's to stop them from doing this to other films like Aladdin or The Lion King? You know it could happen, and there will be nothing you could do about it.

Oh, and i almost forgot. The idea for this piece was heavily inspired by the discovery that a new classic cartoon CGI remake is coming soon! All i can say is; I hope none of you are too emotionally attached to the classic Peanuts cartoon...

(Dis)Honorable mentions:

- Transformers
- Marmaduke
- Casper
- The Flintstones
- Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
- Avatar: The Last Airbender

And way too many more!..
 

Add a Comment:
 
:iconmichaelsupyo:
michaelsupyo Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2017
originals > CGI remakes, however they aren't all bad
Reply
:iconpookiesaurus4:
pookiesaurus4 Featured By Owner Jun 12, 2017
I heard Mr. Peabody is nicer to Sherman in the movie, because he has the role of a father figure, where as in the animated series, Sherman was more like his "pet human"
Reply
:iconmichaelsupyo:
michaelsupyo Featured By Owner Jun 12, 2017
I mean he seems like a strict parent in the cartoon. What is more he's a dog you know :D
Reply
:iconpookiesaurus4:
pookiesaurus4 Featured By Owner Jun 12, 2017
But I like the movie, it's cute. I love Andre the black nerd's review of the movie. He mentioned this part where Sherman's all like "I love you, Mr. Peabody" and Peabody says "I have deep regards for you too, Sherman."
Reply
:iconmichaelsupyo:
michaelsupyo Featured By Owner Jun 12, 2017
The movie and Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoon are half century apart and society has evolved a lot since
Reply
:iconpookiesaurus4:
pookiesaurus4 Featured By Owner Jun 12, 2017
Okay
Reply
:iconlydiaprower8:
LydiaPrower8 Featured By Owner May 10, 2017
I liked both the Tintin movie and Mr Peabody and Sherman.
Reply
:iconkirbygamer12:
KirbyGamer12 Featured By Owner Apr 25, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Let it Die
Reply
:iconhomestarrunguy:
HomestarRunguy Featured By Owner Apr 25, 2017  Student Digital Artist
L E T   I T   D I E
L E T   I T   D I E

L E T   I T   S H R I V E L   U P   A N D   D I E
Reply
:iconpapermariofan1:
Papermariofan1 Featured By Owner Apr 8, 2017
I loved the Tintin movie.
Reply
:icontimewap1:
Timewap1 Featured By Owner Apr 7, 2017
I think those so called Icon are just plain bad no matter what the medium.
Reply
:iconillcitvirus115:
illcitvirus115 Featured By Owner Feb 21, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
I thought The Lorax and Peabody and Sherman were okay...
Reply
:iconelementalsunburst:
ElementalSunburst Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Me too plus Garfield is a guilty pleasure of mine
Reply
:iconillcitvirus115:
illcitvirus115 Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Yeah
Reply
:iconaotearoa-geek13:
aotearoa-geek13 Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2017
Man, when I was a kid, I enjoyed the Garfield film. But now that I'm a teenager, I'm wondering what I was thinking. Aaaaand yeah, Scooby looked like a rubber chew toy that someone was tossing back and forth in front of the camera. hmm 

Tintin was amazing though; I also thought that the Lorax was okay depite being detatched from the original story and tone. Peabody and Sherman made my inner history nerd go nuts (in a good way) and as for the Chipmunks, Yogi and Smurfs...meh.Meh

I didn't see Rocky and Bullwinkle though so no comment on that. hmm 
Reply
:iconvitormiguell:
vitorMiguell Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2017
YES! just the picture itself, perfectly summarizes the point of view that I completely agree on, also, 3d characters look all the same and have the same personality.
Reply
:iconavatarcat09:
AvatarCat09 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2017
I like Garfield and Mr. Peabody And Sherman. The rest, I can't really say the same...though I haven't seen Yogi Bear, Rocky And Bullwinkle, or Tintin.
Reply
:icondeviant867:
Deviant867 Featured By Owner Edited Jan 10, 2017
OMG THE CGI BEAR IS TERRIFYING!!! I am not trying to be mean but I will have nightmares.
Reply
:iconluspear-soram:
Luspear-Soram Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2017  Hobbyist Artist
I have also noticed that Hollywood runs out of ideas. A new example is the Trolls movie. I remember having Trolls when I was little. It is weird for them to make a comeback. It seems like a cash grab. I never saw the new movie, because I wasn't interested. I use a pun for this case. These ripoffs are trolling us.
Reply
:iconhorseturtle:
Horseturtle Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2016
LOL
Reply
:iconthatguywiththetshirt:
ThatGuyWithTheTShirt Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2016  Hobbyist
no Marmaduke?
Reply
:iconalvittany5:
Alvittany5 Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I don't agree for Alvin and the Chipmunks. I really loved All Alvin 's movie. You know, CGI are made for children who don't know the original ;)
Reply
:iconluli34678:
Luli34678 Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
The sunglasses are so cliche
Reply
:iconjeana1:
jeana1 Featured By Owner Oct 15, 2016
I like both versions of 'Alvin and the Chipmunks', except from 1979-1980, 1980-1982, and 2003. (I never heard about the 1958, 1959 or the 1960 versions of them, though.)


I like both versions of 'Rocky and Bullwinkle'. (Mostly the movie.)


I like both the comics, the cartoon and film series of 'Garfield', although I never seen the 2 films series.


I like both versions of 'Scooby Doo'.


I think I like the film version of 'Mr. Peabody and Sherman'.


I think I like both versions of 'Yogi Bear'.
I like the movie version of 'TinTin', although the artist in the film made the cartoon self of him.:rofl-rev: 


I like both the cartoon and the film versions of 'The Flintstones', but when watching the 1st film, starring John Goodman, I didn't like how dirty Fred Flintstone's feet are, but only on one scene. [Link]

Reply
:icondrippin99:
drippin99 Featured By Owner Oct 6, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
pore mr peabody
Reply
:iconthatvhsguy:
ThatVHSguy Featured By Owner Sep 26, 2016
The Scooby Doo remake was undoubtedly one of the worst remakes I have ever seen. The plot was boring, the visuals were horrid, and don't get me started on that CG trainwreck that's supposed to be Scooby.
Reply
:icontooneguy:
ToonEGuy Featured By Owner Edited Sep 14, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
One of the only "cartoon to live-action" translations that works for me is honestly 1995's Casper movie. The ghosts in that movie still looked cartoonish while looking very real at the same time.

I thought 1994's The Flintstones and the original 90's TMNT film series worked perfectly fine in live-action as well, largely in part due to those great looking animatronic suits in TMNT and the amazing recreation of Bedrock in The Flintstones.
Reply
:iconfnafrules111:
fnafrules111 Featured By Owner Aug 22, 2016
the fact that the cgi films exist not to mention a good few are hanna barbera jut look
Reply
:iconendler:
endler Featured By Owner Aug 10, 2016  Hobbyist Artist
I'll admit, I enjoyed the Tintin film. It was harmless, pretty nice animation, and I appreciate the fact that they didn't try to modernize it like a lot of the other movies noted here. It had a sense of charm to it that matched up with the older instalments in the series. Unlike the others mentioned, which just loads themselves up on pop culture references, annoying pop/rap music numbers and equally annoying advertising. 
Reply
:icontypewriter17:
typewriter17 Featured By Owner Aug 9, 2016
Your CGI remakes of those classic characters is awesome.  FYI, I won't go to the movies to see them but I'll watch them when they finally get to TV.  Totally awesome picture.
Reply
:iconladydemon389:
LadyDemon389 Featured By Owner Jul 20, 2016
*shudders* Yogi's eyes will steal your soul X_X
Reply
:iconblondetardis26:
BLONDETARDIS26 Featured By Owner Jul 6, 2016
well, Mr.peabody and sherman wasn't THAT bad... *heh,heh*
Reply
:iconmariostrikermurphy:
MarioStrikerMurphy Featured By Owner Jul 6, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Why Hollywood had to ruin our childhood with live-action adaptations...?
Reply
:iconangiethesupertiger:
AngieTheSuperTiger Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2016  Student Digital Artist
Childhood memories :'3 god bless you (
Reply
:iconjoshvirgin:
joshvirgin Featured By Owner Jun 12, 2016  Hobbyist Photographer
>_< I freaking HATED the Scooby-Doo movie! It felt so little like the cartoon it was trying to be like and more. And I don't think you'll need to worry about the Peanuts movie too much. It doesn't looked half assed by the looks of it. I'm thinking of giving it a go.
Reply
:iconskeeter64p:
skeeter64P Featured By Owner May 22, 2016
I HATED that Garfield movie and yeah they made MORE Alvin and the Chipmunks movie, 3 more to be exact. I kind of like the Peabody and Sherman movie, HATED the Smurfs movies, disliked the Rocky and Bulwinkle movie
Reply
:iconpackaderm:
packaderm Featured By Owner May 17, 2016
wow that is funny, good job
Reply
:icondavyjonesgirl1992:
DavyJonesGirl1992 Featured By Owner Edited Apr 30, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
I grew up watching alvin and the chipmunks. I think they're the reason I like for example, the beatles, michael jackson, and more. It kinda pisses me off that people like the chipmunks cgi movie. Personally, I find them ugly looking, with their weird faces and especially the hooded gangster shirts. What ever happened to Alvin's symbolic hat? No movies or tv shows seem to be unique anymore :(
Reply
:icondavyjonesgirl1992:
DavyJonesGirl1992 Featured By Owner May 31, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
I even forgot to mention that the worst cgi remake was thomas the tank engine. I used to watch him on tv with either Ringo Starr or George Carlin as mr conducter. It was called Shining Time Station. I loved how beautiful the theme song was.Now, it's that cgi crap. It was so unique with the model trains and expressions they made. My childhood has been ruined in a way :'(
Reply
:iconderpygirl100:
Derpygirl100 Featured By Owner May 17, 2016  Student Traditional Artist
Thank god! I can live in peace now! Someone knows who the Beatles are! :)
Reply
:icondavyjonesgirl1992:
DavyJonesGirl1992 Featured By Owner May 17, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
Yep! Although, Davy Jones is from a band called the monkees. But the beatles inspired the band. They even had their own tv show. Sadly, Davy Jones died 7 years ago. But I definitely know the beatles. I saw Paul McCartney (my favorite, of course ) in concert when I was 10. It was an unforgettable experience :) 
Reply
:iconderpygirl100:
Derpygirl100 Featured By Owner May 17, 2016  Student Traditional Artist
I LOVE PAUL! :love: 
Reply
:iconarrowman64:
Arrowman64 Featured By Owner Apr 6, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I like the Rocky & Bullwinkle movie and Tin Tin, but the others I can see why they're hated...well, except Peabody and Sherman, cause it looks like they're appealing to the show in that one.
Reply
:iconmoosiful:
Moosiful Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2016  Student General Artist
3D Bullwinkle looks better than the 2D version of him, to me.
Reply
:iconderpygirl100:
Derpygirl100 Featured By Owner May 17, 2016  Student Traditional Artist
Agreed! :)
Reply
:iconmoosiful:
Moosiful Featured By Owner May 17, 2016  Student General Artist
Yay :D
Reply
:iconderpygirl100:
Derpygirl100 Featured By Owner May 17, 2016  Student Traditional Artist
SMILES FOR DAYS! :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
:) :) :) :) :)
Reply
:iconmoosiful:
Moosiful Featured By Owner May 17, 2016  Student General Artist
Lumpy's so cute!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lumpy Scoutmaster Icon Lumpy's so cute!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lumpy Scoutmaster Icon Lumpy's so cute!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lumpy Scoutmaster Icon 
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
July 9, 2014
Image Size
1.5 MB
Resolution
4016×2410
Submitted with
Sta.sh
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
19,931 (6 today)
Favourites
628 (who?)
Comments
257
Downloads
96
×