MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Winn Dixie CG Abuse

I am not anti CG at all.

But sometimes, it becomes a hinderence instead of a help. And in the ads for Because of Winn Dixie, it is just that.

I am not a huge dog person, but I do know that people feel their dogs smile sometimes. And when the book that this movie was made from was written, I’m sure that the author was refering to that… and perhaps Winn Dixie “smiled” more or better than others.

But the Termite Terrace wall-to-wall smile that they stick on this dog in the commercial is an embarrassment. And it takes away from the charming idea that a dog really can smile. I can imagine a slight CG adjustment to make the “smile” more evident. But this just sucks… even if it will draw children.

Be Sociable, Share!

9 Responses to “Winn Dixie CG Abuse”

  1. bicycle bob says:

    its a waste of dough. cgi doesn’t save bad movies.

  2. L&DB says:

    CGI just makes bad movies somewhat entertaining.
    But this dog really does look like he has suffered
    some tragedy at the hands of the doctors from
    Nip/Tuck. Kids will love it, and I fear for their
    dogs afterwards.

  3. Mark says:

    It is kinda funny looking.

  4. teambanzai says:

    It is quite bad but I think the cgi weredog in Cursed is far funnier looking

  5. Garry says:

    I saw this movie at a preview screening at it was lame as shit. I dunno why they recruited my age group (18-25) but my friends was booing at it. My guess is that it wont do too well at the box offices unless winn dixie suddenly becomes a household name.

  6. JimmyConway75 says:

    Has anyone explored why Wayne Wang has been brought to the point that he’s directing Because of Winn Dixie?

  7. KamikazeCamel says:

    Wait, WAYNE WANG directed Because of Winn Dixie? I haven’t seen or heard anything really about this movie but… whoa. That’s sad. I loves me some Joy Luck Club.

  8. bicycle bob says:

    they should know better than to screen it for the 18-25 set

  9. Terence Daily says:

    My kids are looking forward to seeing this. That means I have to. LOL.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon