Nine hideous Pixar ripoffs


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2016/12/26/nine-hideous-pixar-ripoffs.html


#2

Well maybe I was wrong - maybe you can just park the kid in front of any damn video.


#3

I think one thing that bugs me more are “10 worst” video makers that can’t or won’t use announcers with minimally expressive voiceovers.


#4

Dear lord the number one entry there really deserved to ‘win’ that award. That is legitimately the worst animation quality i have ever seen anywhere. :smiley:

Reminds me a little of the Studio Trigger anime Inferno Cop*: which is an on-purpose low budget offering using copy-pasted 2D characters animated cheaply for maximum hilarity. Yet somehow this abomination manages a ‘quality’ several orders of magnitude worse o.O

*NB: not panning this here, it is absolutely brilliant if it suits your sense of humour :smiley:


#5

Based on the still images, I assumed someone was making fun of student projects, which seemed unfair. I’m still pretty sure they’re student projects (even the big-budget movies look like cheap video games), but student projects that someone monetized somehow. I can easily imagine the supposed animation studios offered scammy “Learn to animate!” classes just so they could package up and sell the final class projects (in addition to whatever they got in tuition fees).


#6

is it better, or worse than wachmojo? I can’t tell.

I prefer videos that don’t leave me with the impression that I’ve been wasting my day watching stupid videos.


#7

They really have it in for Pixar’s Cars for some reason, easily the most popular film in our house, and the one with the most toys. Such says nothing about film quality, admittedly.


#8

Cars with faces what talk? I mean, suspension of disbelief is one thing but talking facey cars? Puh-lease!


#9

I know this might sound cruel, but I was actually wondering if the makers of this video used some kind of computer-generated voiceover. There are odd mispronunciations and slurring together of phonemes that sound artificial. I thought it might be an intentional thing … using a fake voice to talk about fake movies. The repetitive and annoying background music also seemed designed to maximize disgust.

The movies profiled certainly deserve ridicule. They look abysmal. I feel like I need to watch some classic Chuck Jones as medicinal eyewash.


#10

Cars is much beloved with car-loving boys of all ages and is easily one of their most profitable films to date.

Cars 2, however, got lousy reviews, didn’t do so well in theaters, is their least popular movie ever, and my nephew (who sleeps on Lightning McQueen sheets) demanded to leave halfway through, saying “that’s not Lightning and Mater.”

Hoping the third one is an improvement.


#11

From experience there are two groups of voice overs in Youtube: dull monotone almost robot like or overly dramatic OMGWTFBBQLOL.

It is rare to find a pleasing voice over.

Disclaimer: I’m a voice actor, so I may be a bit too demanding…


#12

I knew that Ratatoing would be amongst them! It was the only one I have seen, and it was awesomely bad. Cynical cash-grab multiplied against extreme incompetence. I am in a minority who love the craft which can go into even primitive computer animation, but this is a sloppy glitchy mess. And it makes no sense. It’s like a fever dream without drugs, and I can scarcely imagine how much more ponderous it would be to watch whilst stoned.


#13

The world makes absolutely no sense! Unless of course humans built the world, died out and now cars rule it. But still, how do they maintain everything?!


#14

You only earn The No Prize if you can also come up with a functioning, in-universe reason for why the apparent inconsistency in logic can be explained.

No No Prize for you!

Although, good effort in the first part.


#15


#16

I’m a graphic designer, who obtained his degree in 1986 – right before computers made EVERYONE a “graphic designer.”

So I feel your pain. Good voice acting, like good graphic design, is criminally under-appreciated.


#17

Or some Ren and Stimpy. That’ll work too. :slight_smile:


#18

Well, there’s the shared universe theory for all of pixar’s films - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pixar_universe

Considering the time it’s supposedly set we could suppose all the self-driving cars gained sentience.


#19

That No.1…
Another thing we Germans have to say sorry for.
Sorry for Toys Story, world. And sorry for all the other abysmal crap that Dingo Pictures has pumped out so far.
http://www.dingo-pictures.de/en/index.html
It is a mystery to me how they stay in business.


#20

Voiceover says: “…if you’re not Disney and can’t rely on your vast stable of original characters…”

Oops. The picture displayed during that voiceover shows characters from mostly public domain works adapted by Disney: Aladdin, Jungle Book, Pinocchio, Little Mermaid, Sleeping Beauty, Pocahontas, Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, and Tarzan. Mickey Mouse and Peter Pan have only been kept out of public domain by legislators stretching the laws when they should have expired. Of course these specific visual depictions of public domain characters are protected, but the only Disney characters from works still under copyright in the US that I see in the group picture are Lady & The Tramp, Bambi, Goofy, Minnie Mouse, Lion King, 101 Dalmatians, and along the bottom you can barely make out Lilo & Stitch and The Fox & the Hound. So more than half of that vast stable are public domain characters. Most of the rest were licensed or bought from other works, not original to Disney. There should be no shame in other animation studios trying to adapt the same public domain stories, just because Disney has done a fairly good job with many of them.

PS - they admitted Lion King is funny-animal Hamlet. Original-ish.