What is With the Knee-Jerk Aggression Toward 'The Fantastic Mr. Fox'?
Bloggers are quick to jump the gun as the vitriol begins to spew
The opinion on the trailer for Wes Anderson's The Fantastic Mr. Fox seems to either be screams of delight or scowls of discontent. It seems as if it is just one more example of people forgetting completely about the story-telling aspect of movies and hoping the look fits into the nice little box they have in their mind, or at the very least matches up to everything else we see in theaters nowadays.
Over at Slash Film Russ Fischer says, "There are great little moments in here, mostly through dialogue, but the animation doesn't have me convinced. It looks very flat… That sense of creepy '60s/'70s television animation hasn't gone away, and the whole clip has a feeling of disconnection." Considering Fisher points out liking the dialogue, but got so caught up with concern over the animation has me a bit bewildered. I really don't see where "creepy" comes in or even "flat", but I guess his comparison to '60s/'70s television makes sense, but doesn't everyone love "Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer"?
S.T. VanAirsdale at Movieline doesn't even wait to get to his text before lobbing a grenade via his "The Fantastic Mr. Fox Trailer: Who's to Blame For This?" headline, and while I am thankful his attack isn't aimed at the animation – or even the movie – he seems to be eviserating the trailer itself:
The movie itself may be great – just the right kind of risk-taking diversion Anderson's critics have been demanding all this time. Look at Mr. Fox's subtle slumping gesture when Badger cries out his expertise in explosives, and say Anderson and his animators weren't paying attention. But for everything that looks like it went into the film, how can 20th Century Fox not take the same meticulous care in cultivating its audience? I thought that was the point of trailers. (See: Serious Man, A) Sigh. I don't know what I was expecting, but it was anything but a letdown like this.
Christopher Campbell at Spout merely says he has "no interest in this thing after seeing the trailer" but doesn't give much of a reason before bringing in his cast of supporting links, outside of saying he's not "a big fan of stop-motion" and is "against huge stars being employed for voice work in animated films." The first reason I can give him, but are you really going to blame a film for employing big name actors? To each his own.
Katey Rich at Cinema Blend piles on the voice work saying the voices "don't particularly match the animal characters they're voicing." I guess this means George Clooney doesn't actually look like a fox, which I would have to agree with, he doesn't. I would also argue James Gandolfini doesn't match the monster Carol in Where the Wild Things Are, but then I would be assassinated by the online masses so I won't say that…
Mickey Pagels at The Playlist wonders if the movie "was made for the Wes Anderson fans or for the people that plan on seeing Aliens in the Attic this Friday." I guess there is no in-between on that one… perhaps people who enjoy good story-telling and aren't immediately concerned with whether or not this is specifically a Wes Anderson movie as much as they hope it simply is a good movie. Also, I'm sorry, but to say "Bill Murray sounds bored as does Owen Wilson" is looking at a trailer way, way, way too closely in my opinion.
Finally, there are a pair of comments on my own posting of the trailer with "Hohn C." saying, "Woww… this looks HORRIBLE," and Patricia saying, "Agreed. Wallace and Gromit made this look easy. But this is seriously awful."
Everyone has a right to their opinion, of course, and while some of the issues raised seem a little silly to me they aren't entirely invalid concerns, and don't bother me as much as the fact so many movie-lovers seem so quick to dismiss something merely for looking different. Especially when "different" is typically part of the online battle cry.
Looking back, I will quickly point to VanAirsdale's argument comparing a trailer for an R-rated film (A Serious Man) to what appears to be a PG-rated kid flick is preposterous. Perhaps the fanboys in the audience are also upset there aren't any giant CG robots or masked men in tights and will also quickly write this one off as well. How's that for keeping an open mind? Come on.
Glenn Kenny took another look at the VanAirsdale complaints and Campbell's round-up of negative publicity and posted on his blog:
The Loud Family's "Ballad Of How You Can All Shut Up" goes out to Movieline's S.T. Vanairsdale and Spout's Christopher Campbell, whose concern-trolling (no links) over the putatively underwhelming trailer for Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox isn't really anything more than very poorly disguised pre-emptive poking at a film that they're clearly dying to shit all over. The bad faith is palpable; you can practically hear the guys honing their boasts about how they helped "bring" the movie "down" that they can recite at all the corporate holiday parties they hope the recession won't be canceling. Really makes you love the internet even more than usual.
However, for the rest of the complaints I am actually quite shocked. If anything, the trailer previewed an animated film that looked nothing like any of the studio-driven animated films we have seen over the past several years. Considering we are talking about a group of movie bloggers that beg and demand originality it seems incredibly odd they would be so quick to pile on a film so obviously 100% unique when it comes to comparing to everything from the latest rash of CG features and even the recent stop-motion animated work of Henry Selick and Tim Burton.
Photo: Focus Features
Actually, Selick's Coraline (talk about creepy) is a perfect example of a film that looked amazing, but the story was incredibly weak. I think the animation in Fantastic Mr. Fox is a breath of fresh air in a medium that has nothing but a series of copycats hellbent on wowing us with visuals and – other than Pixar films – hardly determined to interest us with story. Hell, everything now also comes tagged with the gimmicky "In 3-D" tagline to which I was incredibly happy to see a good online friend in Vince Mancini at Film Drunk tackled in his posting of the Mr. Fox trailer:
A lot of the other movie sites out there are complaining about the animation looking "weird" or "flat", but I like that it's easy on the CGI and not 3D. 3D is particularly stupid. I like to be free to look at any part of the frame without getting a GD headache, and the screen looking like a pop-up book isn't a huge selling point for me. And if I wanted to wear glasses I would've been born a nerd. I don't want 3D, I don't want my chair shaking around, and I don't need an "immersive experience." How bout you just make a good movie and let me sit here with my nachos and stay outta my sh*t, eh hotshot?
Nope, The Fantastic Mr. Fox is not in 3-D. It's not a CG-driven film either. It doesn't even use motion-capture technology designed to revolutionize the history of cinema. However, it looks like it has compiled an incredible list of talented actors to voice what looks like a wholly unique animated experience with a story that looks like it could be a lot of fun.
Of course, I say this knowing full well the animation is all pretty much everyone is going to look at, completely dismiss and most likely turn this into a box-office failure as they go marching on to the Jeffrey Katzenberg CGI 3-D drum beat. At least, come November 13th, I have something unique to look forward to before the next 3-D CG motion-capture, knock-my-socks off with 70-foot tall movie screens assaults my senses and steals my soul. Will it be good? I don't know, but I am anxious to give it a try.
Here's the trailer one more time for those that didn't watch it at the opening of this post.
I would love to hear your thoughts. Am I crazy or hypocritical? Do you agree/disagree? I know this is a small round-up of opinions and there were a lot of positive comments in the Internet as well, but I pretty much focused on the negative because this seems like the kind of film to champion rather than put down at first sight.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 38 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
It's a trailer. If it makes you want to see the film, great, if it makes you want to skip it, that's fine too. But you can't judge an entire film by its trailer.
Honestly I think the animation looks like the best part of the film based on the trailer, and I'm excited to see it, but if I felt the opposite I wouldn't write a piece about who's to blame for it. To me this looks like piss poor journalism brought on by our demand for instant news.
Between this and "Where the Wild Things Are," this seems to be the year to get excited about the "family" genre once more. Aside from "The Darjeeling Limited," I have like or loved the rest of Anderson offerings, "The Lifer Aquatic," in particular. I really like the throwback to t.v. shows of old and I think, coupled with Anderson's peculiar sensibilites, will give this film just the right blend of comic eccentrism to reach a bit beyond Wes' generally built-in audeince. Still though, I can't believe that with all the carbon copies and mindless drivel currently occupying theater screens, people seem only to be able to muster skepticism or contempt when anything remotely unusual is previewed. You might not be tired of Apatow's "stock" comedies or Bay's explo-gasms, or even overrated hacks like Oliver Stone, trying to beat us into submission with his fanatical, left wing politics, but I am. This film may be the first and last of its kind if you continue to negatively scrutinize major talents, because 10 times out of 10, they're already more successful than you'll ever be. Leave the creativity to the artist and the judgment to the critics. You're place is the cinema, watching wide-eyed as masters of their crafts display all that ever has, or will ever be important to you: the movies. So rub those chips from your lap, get a steady job, lose some of those love handles and act like an upstanding member of your society. All those pretty ladies you pine over are wet dreams, hint; these are supposed to be forgotten after you jerk off. Besides, when's the last time these chumps have been inside a lady? Visiting the Statue of Liberty doesn't count. But I digress. Film lovers don't need anymore of these self-professed "cinemphiles," championing their favorite movies like spoiled children fighting over christmas presents. You're a fucking fanboy, dude. Get over yourself.
Interesting article, Brad… Indeed, it is nice to see something so different and out-there when formulaic, bland movies like The Proposal are coming out. It is true that some work could have been done on the fluidity of the character's movements, and the set design isn't great. But the trailer shows that the movie has wit, audacity and a strong story to top it off. With kids movies like G-Force and Aliens In The Attic coming out, need we ask any more of it?
"Bloggers are quick to jump the gun"
This surprises you?
@Dan Johnson: I'm confused… are you addressing me? Because you seem to be reiterating my points and then decide to bust out the curse words.
The reason I blame the film for the big name voice talent is that I can't separate any of these people from their face, and that's distracting when you're trying to become acquainted with imaginative characters.
@Christopher Campbell: Does this mean you have a hard time with the majority of animated films? It's hard to find many without known actors voicing the cast. Also, it seems the same problem would carryover to live-action films considering you have the added distraction of the actual person and not just the voice. Isn't it all about submitting to your imagination?
I do have a problem with a lot of animated films. But many times a well-known actor will alter their voice slightly. Clooney is one of the biggest stars and rarely plays a character we can easily separate from our overall sense of Clooney the actor. He actually did an ok job disguising himself in the South Park movie, but there's no way I'll be able to watch this film without picturing Clooney's face.
I find it especially annoying and strange that many TV ads for animated films show footage of the actors in the studio, so we even know what the actor looks like while doing the voice recordings. I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks this a problem.
I really like everything about this trailer. Brad, your comparison the Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer is spot on.
The voice work from what we have here seems terrific.
(I dislike what was a subtle dig at Where the Wild Things Are… To me it kind of seems like Brad is dismissing that film the same way others are dismissing Fox, because what you've seen so far hasn't exactly lit your fire. Then again you said that my comment on your comment would happen so, touche')
Also, I feel like Glenn Kenny hit the nail right on the head in his assessment of not just those 2 internet critics but the world of internet movie writing in general (both from sites like this one, and the people who post in comments like myself) the state of internet movie talk on the whole is a breeding pool of shit talking and useless bitching. If you would care for an example here consider Chud.com removing comments from individual stories because the readers of that site often only made comments to bad mouth the writer of the piece or the fact that the simply disliked the news and felt the need to vent themselves in a pseudo public forum. Example 2 EVERY aintitcool talk back. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. (these things for the most part are not a problem here at "the rope" which is why this is one of the few websites worth reading beyond a "news report")
Additional thought:
could someone explain to me what was SOOOO great about the "A Serious Man" trailer? I dig the Coen Brothers and the movies they make but I simply did not get this trailer or the uproar and numerous calls of "best trailer in the history of advertisements!!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!! and so on and so forth…
(its like the bizzaro version of the "Fantastic Mr. Fox" debate.)
I disagree with you in that Coraline had a weak story. I thought it had one of the strongest stories in an animated film this year. As for Mr. Fox, I do like the old-fashioned jerky feeling, like an old Rankin Bass Christmas special. And I am a big fan of Wes Anderson's work. The trailer delighted me. It reminded me a lot of Anderson's previous works, especially Darjaling Limited and Life Aquatic. However, the second half of the trailer did not impress me as much. I'm not sure why, but it kinda reminded me of Chicken Run, which I am not a big fan of.
@Christopher Campbell: That makes sense, and I agree with your second paragraph and those are images I rarely add to the galleries for those films. I guess I just have a hard time with your take because I am able to separate the two, just like I do with live-action movies. Like I wasn't thinking of George Clooney as Daniel Ocean when I watched him in Burn After Reading.
@Ken: When I say "weak" for Coraline I am primarily referring to what I felt was its inability to carry that story for 101 minutes. Had that been an 85-minute feature I probably would have adored it. As for your comments referring to Chicken Run I have read others saying that, both positively and negatively.
@Bustray: I like a little chop to the animation. It gives the movement a little more pop.
I absolutely agree with this article (and Brad's subsequent comments) except I think it's totally fair to compare the trailers of A Serious Man and Mr. Fox. I enjoy both but I've watched Mr. Fox a bunch more times. For the record, I am a W&G fan but not much of an Anderson fan.
@Christopher Campbell: Clooney rarely plays a character we can easily separate… really? You don't see a difference between Oh,Brother, Perfect Storm, Ocean's, Syriana, Confessions, GN&GL, Clayton, Leatherheads, or Burn? I think there are a few films you might want to revisit. Besides, what other marque name fits the role of a sly fox? Maybe Willis?
Look dude, you are so selfish, you just value your own opinion, I thought that Coraline was a masterpiece and here you put me like if I was a jerk. Can't you even show some respect? Really take a look at yourself before criticizing someone else's opinion. For me, the trailer looks just AWFUL.
@Honh C.: I think you are misunderstanding. Notice how Chris and I discussed his opinion. It's about about trying to get further to the point as opposed to just hearing something is AWFUL. There is no offense meant or doled out as evidenced by me saying everyone is entitled to their opinion. Saying something is awful without justification is pointless, it's the reason you don't read a movie review and expect one word reviews saying, "Good, great, bad, mediocre, decent, awful." That wouldn't get us anywhere. I am merely wondering why people are so quick to abandon what I believe looks like such a unique and interesting picture.
It was just my opinion and I really think that you at least can tell if a trailer looks good or bad by thw way you see it, like for example, I find the Where the Wild Things Are trailer just incredible, but this is just not the same.
I agree with Brad on Coraline. I thought that while Coraline was a great looking film, it was a bit boring overall.
I also think that people bitch too much over trailers and test screenings etc. By the time the film comes out they go into the film looking to tear it down or praise it to the high heavens. Either they’re LOOKING to criticize it or CHOOSING to ignore its flaws, rather than just viewing it with an open mind, clear of preconceived notions. Which is why I dread Oscar Season.
On the other hand, people did the same thing to Jennifer’s Body. I mean haven’t we all looked at a trailer and thought this looks shitty.
Personally I didn’t mind the way the trailer looked, but for me, the storyline didn’t seem interesting.
@Dan Johnson: what the hell are you talking about? haha. I am excited for this because I try to get excited for every film, because I love film in general. Fuck trailers.
Who can't get excited about this. The animation is finally something fresh and new, and unlike some comedies nower days the jokes are funny. What more can you ask?
Yes, Clooney doesn't sound like a fox, but who does? And to the dude who can't seperate the actors from the voices, use your imagination. It's kind of one of the main points of film.
I wouldn't care much about the internet. it's full of weirdo's, mad men and the deluded.
Animation looks bad, I couldnt pay attention to anything else. Way too old school for me.
I liked the trailer quite a bit, certainly garnered my attention but if you ever get the chance read the section in Empire magazine about Fantastic Mr Fox and there was (for me) some very interesting tidbits, here's quote from the cinematographer Tristan Oliver, sorry for the length of it
"What Wes likes in terms of his other films is a very flat, even lighting set up. That's not something i like at all, and it's not the way I like to work, because it's not a way that lends itself to animaton – animation starts to look very toy like and very children TV like if you light it flat. That's always been the default position for quick Postman Pat-style animations. Over the years, i've tried to make it more realistic. More like a proper film rather than something for kid's that's a bit sloppy and a bit easy. So we butted heads on that. But we've ended up with a good compromise, and he's given me a lot of scope."
I think people are being particularly brash. There is a lot of Anderson's trademark deadpan humour, but it really does remind me of old stop-motion I used to watch as a kid (one I think was called 'The Old Man in the Mountains' but I can't find it online anywhere), as well as echoes the animation of Selick's James and the Giant Peach (another Dahl adaptation). And the voicework is pure Anderson too. So I guess Anderson fans like myself will go and see this but I'm worried about the kids. Films like this, or Where The Wild Things Are might have been perfectly popular in the 80's or 90's (though might've been high-jacked by Jim Henson) for kids, but I'm unsure whether kids these days will care. Maybe younger kids, but older kids will wanna see 3D robots and aliens and stuff. If this is a hit I will be so pleased.
This is exactly what i would expect from Anderson. The fact that i got a couple of laughs from the trailer (specifically from the Streep and Schwartzman voice work) makes me want to see this thing. I guess i can see where people are coming from with the animation looking a little funny, but we seriously don't need anymore Pixar/Dreamworks-ish looking movies. Before those two came along EVERYTHING animated was actually flat. The fact that this looks kinda like stop motion and kinda not has me more intrigued than anything.
When you hear someone is adapting Roald Dahl, one of the strangest children's authors ever, would you really want a traditional looking film? I wouldn't.
Who cares what others think, is my opinion. Some of favorite movies are mixed when reviewed, and to be honest I figure a reaction like that is a good thing. Something too overwhelming in terms of bad or good can be jarring before viewing.
I was sold on this the moment I read a headline that read "wes anderson". With his filmography, its going to be what he always doesan and anybody who likes his movies can complain from dusk til dawb, they're gonna see it. For wes, the worst case scenario is that he gets limited release and therefore gets no box office (darjeeling ltd).
As far as the animation…love it, its weird and original and I can't wait.
I'm currently a college student, working towards a bachelor's in Media Arts and Animation.
I sincerely hope that the trailer doesn't show finished animation. I've known fellow students who do better work. Right now, for me, it falls in the category of "you're willing to show that, in public?" And if the voice performances seem a bit off, some of that can also be blamed on the animation. The lip and body sync isn't tight.
Unfortunately, since the release date is only 3.5 months away, it seems likely it will look the same on the big screen. You can't revise stop motion as easily as CGI.
I haven't read the book. I'm currently corresponding with a person who has read it. His initial reaction to the trailer was, "Based on the book? I guess some of the characters are…"
My own reaction was, "It looks like a pastiche of Great Escape and Ocean's Eleven." Maybe I should include Chicken Run, considering its similarities to Great Escape as well. I liked those movies.
I've looked at the book preview on Amazon. It looks like a fun little book. I didn't get the same feeling from the trailer. It feels like they're trying to push it towards the 18-24 demographic, which (IMHO) is never a good thing for a children's story. The trailer also feels like the movie will will carry a message demonizing commercial poultry farming (which does not seem the premise of the book, from what I've learned).
So, my reaction, at this point: (1) poor animation; (2) unfaithful story, possibly altered for marketing; (3) possible heavy-handed message.
"If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, the [movie] will die." Or I won't go to see it, at any rate.
@Tuyu: Not everything has to be 'perfect', they don't teach that in school. Sometimes the charm comes from the imperfections; if everything was perfect nothing would be unique.
Sidenote, the biggest problem with early (and some current) CG work is that it's too polished, it's lacks realism: dirt, scratches, inconsistent textures and colours.
I'm sure your familiar with old Disney and Fleischer animations and I'm sure everyone in your class could "do better work" than that but I'm not tossing out my old tapes/DVDs anytime soon.
I love all types of animation and as I stated above, the trailer for Mr. Fox is visually amazing.
As far as I know this is only the first trailer and what I get from it is the reminiscent film style of childhood shows like Postman Pat or even Rudolph the red nosed reindeer, now that's not a bad thing it's just different which is quite refreshing especially when we are being bombarded with 3D (don't get me wrong I do like the occasional 3D movies but some just don't need it). Now I can see why people are bad talking the movie from the trailer because the animation does seem a little off so to speak but that does not mean it doesn't deserve a chance, sometimes different surprises you in good ways. Anderson's movies usually are unusual when you compare them to the mainstream box office hits but you have to admit his films always have an interesting plot and I believe that this movie will be no different. Personally I won't be lined up on opening night to see it but I will definitely pick it up when it comes to DVD.
Here's why I don't like the trailer: The animation sucks.
To paraphrase Richard Roeper's review of "Star Wars: The Clone Wars", yes, you do need good animation in a good animated film.
Also, the voice by George Clooney is distractingly recognizable. That's not his fault, though.
This post is dead on. These days whenever a director steps off the treadmill which demands everything looks glossier, slicker and has more CGI they get blasted for it.
It's like Michael Mann's use of digital – everyone's free not to like it, of course, but people talk about it as if he somehow forgot or wasn't able to treat the video to look more like film. Do they really think the $80m-budgeted Public Enemies couldn't afford to do something that the $5m Slumdog Millionaire could? Likewise, Wes Anderson had all the time and talent you could ask for to make this film; it looks how he wants it to look. Criticise it all you want, but to say that its look is down to amateurism or poor craft is dressing your opinions up as objective truths.
Really, once you get past the fact that it's his first animated film, this all boils down to "New Wes Anderson Film Looks Retro, Quirky". Which isn't much of a story, and certainly isn't worth the blogosphere exploding with rage over.
Personally I think the trailer looks great… I wish people would stop being fussy with the way a screen looks.. films are a method of storytelling and this film looks like it will deliver that.
The animation is Stop-Motion, which I prefer over the lazy, boring CGI we see in every single film recently.
If you can watch Beetlejiuce and slay the animation in that (as it is similar in style and movement) then you clearly are an idiot. The jerky animation gives the whole film character and in Wes's sense a classic way of telling the story. It gave Tim Burton his own style aswell, which we all know and love… I hope…
ONE last thing.. it's a children's story… Road Dhal wrote the book.. If you're not a fan of a nice little story then don't watch a trailer called Fantastic Mr. Fox.. watch the latest blockbuster and allow your brain to dribble out your left ear.
I thought the animation looked unique and it feels like a departure from the usual CGI stuff, but for me the dialouge, voices and pacing just didn't work. I'll still check this out but something about the trailer annoyed me that I don't think can be fixed in the film.
it's poorly lit. the animation is bad, even for stop-action. the production design is underwhelming. it looks like crap. more than half the reason Wes' movies are enjoyable is because they are a visual smorgasbord, even when they fail narratively.
i wish this movie luck. it's really bad for indie cinema that these "interesting" directors keep failing, both cinematically and financially. (anderson, richard kelly, charlie kaufman, clooney). we need a great crossover hit. this looks like just another dud.
Personally, i was very disappointed by the trailer. It has a stale feeling about it, like a movie made for a different decade. I am not talking about the 3-D, CGI either. I am not referring to the cinematography but to the way the story is being presented in general. I feel that that it is directed in an uninspired way and that it is going to be very dull even for small children to see.
Now as far as big names are concerned, since when did the piling of movie stars ever guarantee a good movie? Most of the times such situations result in a mushy melting pot story with no distinct style.
Why did you say, "and even the recent stop-motion animated work of Henry Selick and Tim Burton."? I can't tell if you're also talking about Tim Burton's Corpse Bride, or erroneously crediting Tim Burton with Coraline like all the other movie reviewers who haven't done their research.
@Gary: Yes, I'm talking about Corpse Bride, which is why I mentioned both of them. Why, would it matter either way? Not sure what that question would have to do with the conversation.
@Brad Brevet: It was just a little confusing.
I agree that Fantastic Mr. Fox is a breath of fresh air. I thought that the crude look was great. It looks like something I wish came out in 1985 or something. The dialog doesn't sound… I don't know the right word for it… huge, over-the-top, over-enunciated. It's like they took the actors to a bar and told them to pretend they were in a Quentin Tarantino movie as they read their lines. And making the puppets with fur. That's nuts but they did it anyway. I admired that.
@Tuyu:
A brief followup to my previous post:
I finally got one of my instructors to watch the trailer. Mr. Anderson teaches traditional art, sculpture, and has his own stop motion animation studio (makes shorts and commercials).
His comments boiled down to one thing:
Not enough in-betweens.
So, in theory, they could have taken some frames out of the trailer (though why they would is a mystery). If would be difficult, but not impossible, for them to create more in-betweens.
So, it is possible that the film will look better when it hits theaters.
Being one of the people who actually designs characters for everything from feature films such as Ratatouille, Kung Fu Panda, Madagascar, etc I am thrilled to see this. And as for going up against Aliens in the Attic- well, I have to confess I am credited on that with character design as well but as it happens sometimes the filmakers decided to go down a different road and left my designs (and apparently their story as well) on the cutting room floor. I am a huge fan of Wes Anderson's work, and when I saw Life Aquatic I remember being so impressed with the underwater sequence- the naive clumsiness of the animation was spot on for showing us what Bill Murray's characters' undersea fantasy world could look like. And now this looks like a picture book come to life- much the way we, as viewers, are always challenged to participate in theater (or super crude animation like South Park or King Of the Hill) – we are concious of the artificial, the artifice, of the medium the entire time we are watching it. That is part of the sophistication of Wes Anderson's choices here- to choose stop motion, and to design it to move like this, and to light it like he did. All of the "effects" in the trailer seem to support this conceit as well- (ie; cotton ball explosions) as well as the scene blocking- which looks so much like the way he would cut live action footage. It's brilliant. As for the students out there who think they could do better- think again, Grasshopper. Things are not always what they seem. You would be most fortunate to be able to achieve the mastery of your chosen medium and tell a story like Wes Anderson can. Based on this trailer, my bet is this looks very promising- I vote it a must-see.