Garfield: The Movie IS COMING!!!!!!!!!!! (1 Viewer)

[JasenP]

I will see it if Steve Buscemi is cast as Jon.

 

[Zack Scott]

Aw great. More crap.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

here's the difference. Henson's characters were handed over to longtime associates, people who had worked and studied with these characters for YEARS

As far as I know, Garfield has no understudy

 

[Ross Williams]

Man, they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for properties to adapt these days. How do you turn a few joke character into a whole film? I liked Garfield as a kid, and I really liked the cartoon, but now I only read it out of habit, it never makes me laugh. I expect this to be the same quality as those other quality comic adaptions: Dennis the Menace, Richie Rich and Casper

When can we expect the Family (Worst comic strip ever!) Circus movie?

 

[John Spencer]

"There you are, enjoying your comics, when all of a sudden, there's the Family Circus just waiting to SUCK, and ruin your whole experience."
"Then why don't you just not read it?"
"I hate it, but I'm compelled to read it."
Man, I love Go.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

A friend of mine's sister went to Rutgers and would bring home the student newspaper and they took a family circus comic and made it dirty. Some of the funniest stuff I had ever seen came from those papers.

 

[Rob Lutter]

I wish they would make a Foxtrot movie... me and Jason have a lot in common

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Now here's a movie I wouldn't mind seeing, although the voice of Garfield is pretty much dead.

 

[Iain Jackson]

Has this story been confirmed by any other sources? The official Garfield website still doesn't mention anything about a movie... how reliable is the Hollywood Reporter usually?

I won't be happy until this is definitely confirmed by several reliable sources...

 

[ThomasC]

Fox announced yesterday that it will hit theaters this year on December 19.
http://www.comingsoon.net/cgi-bin/ar...5884269,96065,

Peter Hewitt directs the live action/CGI Garfield, which is adapted from the syndicated cartoon strip read in 2600 newspapers by 260 million readers around the globe. In his film debut, Garfield's owner, Jon, takes in sweet but dimwitted pooch Odie, turning Garfield's perfect world upside down. Now, Garfield wants only one thing: Odie out of his home and life. But when the hapless pup is kidnapped by a nasty dog trainer, Garfield feels responsible. Pulling himself away from his beloved barcolounger, Garfield springs into action.

Still no word on who will supply the voice of Garfield.

 

[Edwin-S]

God. They went through the meat, through the bone, and straight into the marrow when they decided to turn a dried up gag a day comic strip into a feature film. The synopsis of the film is already telegraphing STINKER. Jim Davis should get some class like Watterson has and just say no. Davis is showing zero respect for the character he created. It's not like he needs the money. After all, the Garfield machine makes something like fifty million a year.

If these guys have to develop a comic property, at least have the decency to develop something with characters that you can build a story around. A forties period film starring THE SPIRIT might be a good start.

 

[Ricardo C]

Oh. Dear. God.

What the freakin' hell are they thinking???? Not only is the prospect of a live-action version of Garfield scary, the idea of turning a dry, sarcastic strip liek Garfield into a movie should scare any fan of the character. Garfield simply will NOT work well in a three-act movie. Remember the Tom and Jerry movie from a few years back? Remember how much it SUCKED? Why did it suck? Because they completely betrayed the characters in order to make them fit in the traditional setup/conflict/resolution format. Can you imagine Garfield being plopped down into a lame, generic setup like "Garfield befriends kids, saves family", or "Garfield runs away, has adventure, grows up", or, as the reports say, "Garfield springs into action ot save Odie"? I won't bother watching this movie. Boneheaded moves like this are what makes me fear the day where the Simpsons movie comes along, destroying what's left of the characters.

 

[Malcolm R]

Who's playing Lyman? :wink:

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Unless I'm mistaken, the story for the movie sounds an awful lot like the story of one of the cartoon episodes of Garfield. Considering the cartoon wasn't extremely horrible, the movie might turn out OK.

 

[Edwin-S]

Unless I'm mistaken, the story for the movie sounds an awful lot like the story of one of the cartoon episodes of Garfield. Considering the cartoon wasn't extremely horrible, the movie might turn out OK.

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

The animated version of the story was a half hour treatment. The strength of the animated version was that all the characters were done in Davis's style plus the good voice casting for Garfield. A movie version is going to have be at least 80 minutes long. The story premise seems pretty thin for an 80 minute or longer feature. Worse yet is the moronic idea to do a live action/CGI mix. The idea didn't work for "Rocky and Bullwinkle", so why do they think it is going to work for characters that are even thinner narratively than Rocky & Bullwinkle. Using live action/CGI for these types of properties is stupid. The effect is too jarring to the sensibilities and results in an incomplete suspension of disbelief. If they want to make a feature film using the characters, they could at least have the common decency to make it a fully animated show with a solid storyline.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

The idea didn't work for "Rocky and Bullwinkle"

It worked well for Gollum.

Keep in mind that the story is going to be the introduction of Odie, the cat vs. dog fight between Garfield and Odie, Odie getting dognapped, Garfield finding him, and the two of them getting back home. If they do it right, that much could fit into at least 90 minutes.

I'm going to wait and see on this one.

 

[Malcolm R]

Well, if they're introducing Odie, they'll have to include Lyman since that's how Odie arrived. He was part of the package deal when his owner, Lyman, begged Jon to let him move in.
Unless, of course, they're going to re-write Garfield history. :frowning:

 

[Mark Kalzer]

Well...no one's ever been able to explain Lyman's strange dissapearance. Maybe they'll have an explanation for that in the movie? Where Lyman brings in Odie, then falls down an elevator shaft...

Seriously though, I'd much prefer if they stuck to hand drawn animation for this. I just can't see this being a CGi cat in live-action. Not for Garfield.

 

[Ricardo C]

It worked well for Gollum.

Two issues with your comparison:

1. Gollum is a humanoid (though deformed) creature with a photo-realistic (as in "not cartoony") look. So, he blended in well with his co-stars.

2. There was no "definitive" interpretation of Gollum before the LOTR films came along. Garfield and Odie have VERY distinctive looks that could be totally ruined in the transition to CGI.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Ricardo-

I know, and I agree completely. I was trying to be facetious (if that's even the correct term).