Hacker News Reader

Comment by lentil_soup | Hacker News Reader

"Rovio still plans to release an animated Angry Birds film in 2016"

I really fail to see what they are trying to do with this. That game has hardly any "story" behind it and the characters are not really that interesting. I know they're trying to push a brand but all this random stuff they're making around it comes across as bland.

View on HN

I thought the same thing when I first heard of the Lego movie. I'm not nearly as much of an angry birds fan as I am a lego fan, but from that experience I learned to reserve judgement before I see it.

Yeah, you are right. Maybe LEGO was better at letting their brand grow and becoming something more "nostalgic" for all of us? Or is it just that they made a decent movie out of it?.

The difference is that the Lego movie was dreamed up by someone outside Lego (Dan Lin) who then got the Lego company on board, not an exec at Lego deciding that they "need to capture the film adjacency in 2014."

Comparing Angry Birds to LEGO seems a bit far fetched.

Many people have been growing up with LEGO for over 50 years and have emotional ties to it.

Angry Birds was a successful money-grab but it's hardly even in the same league as truly popular video games (PacMan, Tetris, Super Mario...).

Lego's "problem" with a movie, if anything, is that the field was wide open; Legos can be absolutely anything. So there's space to write a decent movie and the difficult comes from "blank page" syndrome more than lack of possibility.

Angry Birds have the exact opposite problem; like many games, the narrative is paper thin, and that's fine for a game but makes it difficult to adapt into any narrative-focused medium. You'll probably just end up with a bad-Dreamworks-style movie that substitutes snark, sarcasm, and licensed pop music for plot and well-worn stereotypes for character. And it may sell or may make a profit, because they often do, but it'll also sink without a trace after its run is done. And I'll have no interest in it, but some may get some brief enjoyment out of it... though the 2016 timing is awfully suspect if Angry Birds is already fading, the movie needed to be out about six months to a year ago...

While I was working on the original version of The Sims 1, there was some crazy talk about a movie. I dearly hoped that nothing would ever come of it, since it couldn't possibly be anything but terrible. Fortunately it seems to have been canceled!

http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/The_Sims_%28film%29

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1482462/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sims#Other_media

>Producer John Davis revealed on an interview that he is taking inspiration from John Hughes's 1985 film Weird Science for the movie adaptation.

>"What they realize is that they can scan their world in, because this is the most lifelike, real Sims game ever. As they are playing this, they are all of a sudden realising [that] what they are playing on the game is having an effect on the real world. So in effect, through the game, they are able to control their world. It's wish fulfillment, and obviously it turns against them."

How could that possibly not bomb in the worst possible way?

I imagine they would have had to bury the DVDs in the same hole as the ET cartridges.

>I really fail to see what they are trying to do with this. That game has hardly any "story" behind it

That hardly troubled tons of other movies that did the same, from Garfield (comic strip, not much of a plot), Prince of Persia (prince saves princess for evil guy, that sums it), to the Lego movie, etc. They can always write a plot involving pigs and birds fighting.

Plus, there's the existing Angry Birds cartoon series: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Birds_Toons

>and the characters are not really that interesting.

They are funny looking enough to sell hundreds of millions of merchandize with them on. And the interesting story wont be in the game, it will be in the movie (if they succeed).

The benefits though are obvious: if they succeed with the movie, they can tap into kids minds like Mickey Mouse, not just like some forgotten in 5 years game fad.

Here's the "Angry Birds Go! Cinematic Trailer":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XreVL3Q0Gyk

I think that may be for a game rather than a movie but anyway.

They said they were going to be the next Disney. Maybe they are trying to follow that path with just this one big hit product, and failing to see that it's not really the same time as when Disney managed to build their brands.

Yeah, I see what you mean. I must say I don't know much about the history of Disney, did they push their brand so aggressively at the beginning? or was it more "organic"?

Thinking about that, it is interesting that Disney doesn't make movies with their traditional brand characters any more. Maybe because of those characters lack a bit of depth for a full blown movie? (like Angry Birds)

Traditional Disney characters are very popular in Europe in the form of comic books: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_comics

I grew up with these books (I am Portuguese and we got the Brazilian ones) and the stories have much more depth, and the universe where they live more continuity than you'd might expect. This format is still very popular in France and Germany, for example. But not in the USA. I never quite understood why.

The Disney comics are very much 'slice of life' mixed with comedy; the stereotype I have of US comics is that they're action comics, mostly serious business (and explosions), and not a strong basis for comic comics (geddit).

I grew up with the weekly Donald Duck comics, <3.

Just a couple of short OT notes to illustrate this:

# As an example of deep Disney comics, Don Rosa's Magnum Opus "The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck" should be pointed out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Life_and_Times_of_Scrooge_M...

This book and Don Rosa's works in general are a prime example for love of detail in every aspect, deep characterization of the seemingly flat Disney characters and rigorous background research for the historic embedding (and the embedding in the works of Carl Barks).

# Another person benefiting the popularity of Disney comics in Europe was the German translator Erika Fuchs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erika_Fuchs

Being an art historian and a member of the educated middle-class, she took the liberty to translate Disney comics in a very literary fashion, with multiple references to classic literature. Many of her word and phrase creations have become part of the German language.

# A couple of months ago the French-German rather highbrow TV channel arte screened a documentary that circulated around the internet: The first half of the piece deeply characterized Donald Duck, while the second half applied this characterization to the acceptance of disorientation and personal failure in our society.

# The traveling exhibition "Duckomenta": http://www.duckomenta.de/content/engdex.htm

I don't speak a word of German so I've not read any of the comics but I love the names "Tick, Trick & Track", do you know if Erika was responsible for those names?

The information in the German web on this is contradictory, so I'm not sure. While two articles mention that she translated them herself, another source says that the publisher decided on the names before she began working.

The nephew's names have been translated quite diversified in general:

English Original: Huey, Dewey, and Louie

Chinese: 路儿，杜儿和辉儿

Danish: Rip, Rap og Rup

Finnish: Tupu, Hupu ja Lupu

French: Riri, Fifi et Loulou

Italian: Qui, Quo, e Qua

Dutch: Kwik, Kwek, en Kwak

Swedish: Knatte, Fnatte och Tjatte

Spanish: Hugo, Paco y Luis / Hugo, Diego y Luis / Juanito, Jorgito y Jaimito (from different translations)

Turkish: Cin, Can ve Cem

This was particularly significant in Italy, where Disney opened their first foreign subsidiary (before WWII) and came to be one of the largest publishers in the country at one point. They even had to open an official "Academy" project to train artists and writers in order to sustain production; most Disney comic books published in Europe and South America were actually produced in Italy, back in the 80s and 90s.

One of the reasons for the popularity of such a format outside the US is the way the comic book market developed after the 60s. In the US, superhero comics built a parallel distribution system with dedicated stores; this system catered to hardcore superhero fans but not to the mainstream. Mainstream comics were mostly relegated to syndicated strips, a format that privileges simple joke-based comedy. Also, in the US most "newsagents" are actually convenience stores with a magazine rack; in Europe, this is very different: every town has (or used to have) a centrally-located, fully-dedicated newsagent stocking as much as it can of every publication under the sun. Press distribution is often regulated by law in much stricter terms than in the US. The typical father going to the newsagent every day to get a newspaper would also buy something like "Glamour" for the wife and "Topolino" (Mickey Mouse) for the kids at least once a week.

The american authors did not write enough stores to fill the demand in Denmark so the Danish publisher had to write additional stories for the weekly magazine in Denmark.

http://www.b.dk/kultur/danskere-laver-anders-and-til-hele-ve...

Another OT data point from http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Duck_(comic_book):

"in 2014 it was read by 1.6 million Dutch citizens above the age of 13 [...] In 2008 it was the most read magazine among Dutch students (10%)."

There is not much particular about that 10%; it is about even with the "1.6 million Dutch citizens above the age of 13".

Part of the appeal is that it has new stories specially written for the Dutch comic. It also has cameo appearances of real life persons. It is not uncommon to see a newsreader, sports star, politician or criminal with a name that resembles that of a real Dutch person appear in a comic. Getting that done to you is a badge of honor. Google tells me Mark Zuckerberg even made it that far: http://duckipedia.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/mark-zuckerberg-i..., as did the Beatles (http://duckipedia.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/de-bietjes/) and Madness (http://duckipedia.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/madness-in-de-gal...)

Click around for other examples. Apparently, Carl Barks did that, too, with Brigitte Bobo (http://duckipedia.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/brigitte-bobo/)

If I can judge from my child and his friends, I can tell you the angry birs brand is just massively popular and that the lack of story is absolutely irrelevant to them (they just care about levels, birds' powers, things they win, etc.) The story, bah, what for ?

You think they would be as interested in an animated movie?

Rovio has made a boatload of animated shorts already, most of which are as dumb and flat as you'd imagine them to be, but I still see my kids watching them with interest. Just like Digimon had its audience, Rovio's flick may find their.

In my experience kids will watch almost anything as long as it's colorful, it moves and it makes funny sounds. Surely Angry Birds animated shorts are popular because kids recognize the birds, but I'd say that's hardly a basis for a strong, stable and lasting brand. When some other game with cute characters gets very popular and kids lose interest in Angry Birds games they (and by transitivity: their parents) will also lose interest in Angry Birds animated shorts and Angry Birds merchandise (exhibit A: this news article). It's not like <12 year olds are the best target audience for brand loyalty and disposable income.

Digimon actually had some interesting plot and characterization. Yes, most of it was one- or two-dimensional but the character dynamics between Tai and Matt and his younger brother were actually quite good.

Digimon (first season) had superb characters who were all multi-dimensional. Izzy was adopted and they had a small arc on that and Sora has a trouble relationship with her divorced mom who she lives with. I found this series very interesting as a 10 year old boy.

Thanks, I couldn't remember details on the other characters! despite loving Izzy, I mostly remember him as "the techy nerd" of the group. I also found the series very thought-provoking as a young boy.

"dumb and flat"? Maybe it's just the fact that I have a 5 year old and a 3 year old, so I've become somewhat of a connoisseur of animated shorts, but I've actually been fairly amazed with the quality of most of the animated shorts. With no real dialogue to speak of, there is an awful lot of humor packed into these, and the voice acting combined with the animation in some of the shorts is pretty damn impressive, often conveying a surprising amount of emotion and expressiveness that I would not have expected.

I'll give you dumb possibly, but flat? Watch a good number of them again and see if you still say that.

Maybe you meant Pokemon.

Digimon's characters were quite deep. Matt vs Tai had the rivalry thing going (especially since Matt represented friendship, despite straying from the path he eventually proved himself to be a very reliable friend). Tai's progression from false-courage (accidentally turning Agumon into SkullGreymon) to true courage (MetalGreymon) is also quite thought provoking.

Its got a relatively straightforward formula. Associate each character with a virtue, and then they told a story about it. (Courage for Tai, Friendship Matt, Knowledge Izzy, Sincerity Mimi, Honesty Joe, Hope TK). The evolution of each character was associated with a physical being (the Digimon) that got stronger as each kid recognized the strength of their virtue.

But the Digimon characters made relationships based on their virtues, in particular Tai (Courage) vs Matt (friendship). The younger sister of Tai (Kari, representing "Light") was good friends with Matt's younger brother TK (Hope). Etc. etc.

There was a _lot_ of character interaction and development.

On the other hand, Pokemon is just straight up milking the series. Real depth of characters can be found in "Pokemon Special" comics however, and some Pokemon games have legitimate villains now.

A friend of mine went to see that movie with his kids, quickly gave up trying to understand what was going on and had a great nap instead. Kids were 7-9-ish, he was 40. I'm pretty sure it was Digimon.

> That game has hardly any "story" behind it and the characters are not really that interesting.

Given that the boardgame Battleship -- which has zero story and no characters -- had a major motion picture based on it (or, at least, branded based on it), I don't see that as a particular problem.

Couldn't the same be said about LEGO movies?

Yes it could, but then again, LEGO is on a completely different scale than angry birds.

With LEGO there was no story, no plot, no purpose, no motivation. Any story with LEGO was imagined by the kid playing with it.

Can the same be said about angry birds? Probably not. There is a vague story (Pigs steal eggs, Birds are angry) but there isn't much room for imagination.

On top of that, LEGO is a cultural phenomenon that has stood the test of time. The same can't be said with Angry Birds (see the article above).

There are a few games that had only a basic plot that was expanded upon in more detail by later games or movies. Doom for example.

But are there any where this process turned out well?

Mario?

zelda & metroid series are fairly well regarded.

Mortal Kombat? Uwe Boll's Postal is also surprisingly good.

Ultima. Yeah, it flamed out in the end, but from Akalabeth/Ultima 1 to Ultima 7 was an amazing journey of elaboration on a theme. Some other RPGs could be named here. Final Fantasy has certainly seen a lot of elaboration over the years. The recent Wasteland 2 is receiving a decent reception and it is based on a game from the Commodore 64 era that, in terms of bytes, probably fits comfortably into the first couple of frames of the intro movie for Wasteland 2.

It can be done. But all the examples I can name are in genres where narrative is a focus. I've got nothing like Angry Birds I can name.

> But are there any where this process turned out well?

If by "turned out well" you mean "turned a profit", probably quite a few.

If by "turned out well" you mean "created a film that was critically well-received or generally regarded as a timeless classic", probably not.

I understand that many of these movies didn't even create a profit in the sense that it's usually understood; rather they took advantage of German tax law to enable their creators to save more in taxes than the movies cost to make.

Except LEGO is a product and the LEGO movie is nothing but an off shoot.

If LEGO the movie is a flop, that in no way relates to the success of LEGO product.

LEGO has been selling bricks for decades and their volumes just continue to increase.

Have you been paying attention to what Hollywood puts out lately?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com