This needs to be put ahead of every film that James Corden stars in from now going forward.
Real or not, the hostility in this thread is hilarious, bordering on banal.
Nothing I have seen has suggested to me that this will be anything less than incredible.
Looks like a David Lynch dream sequence... disturbing to say the least.
The Lion King didn't blow it's cast budget stacking the film with oscar bait. Someone went out of their way to find world class singers, dancers, and choreographers for this and THEN CGI-ed them up.
The only source we have for the budget is the Guardian, and like it or not the Guardian is reputable. Until we see another source, 300 million is the credible number.
Mendelson by the way is completely insane if he's floating "under 100 million" as the number here. That's the budget for freaking Joker. Looking at that "most expensive films" list, Beauty and the Beast is the closest thing to this film- a musical loaded with ridiculous choreography but only half the CGI and a WAY cheaper cast than this, and it ran $250m- 20m more than the Lion King did.
I really hesitate to classify this as furry because everyone is still too damn human looking.Looks fine to me. Its Cats after all in movie form. It never shied away from stroking the hidden, inner furry in people.
I really hesitate to classify this as furry because everyone is still too damn human looking.
before a certain time and improvements in fursuit tech, this was what 99% of furries looked like and were into. people looking "kind of" like animals.I really hesitate to classify this as furry because everyone is still too damn human looking.
Funny because the human face with animal features pasted on aesthetic has always been very off-putting to me.Thats technically true for the movie. However, isn't Cats the stage play - the one with costumes with longer fur - well known as a gateway to furry-dom?
Funny because the human face with animal features pasted on aesthetic has always been very off-putting to me.
Because they arent actually cats
I can only speak anecdotally, but quite a few furries I know also hate the aesthetic in this.Oh so does the aesthetic of this Cats movie is actually off-putting to furries unlike say the stage version of Cats? I may know some people who would be disappointed by this.
before a certain time and improvements in fursuit tech, this was what 99% of furries looked like and were into. people looking "kind of" like animals.
these days you have animals looking kind of like people .
Are some comments in the thread offensive if you are a furry?I can only speak anecdotally, but quite a few furries I know also hate the aesthetic in this.
I can only speak anecdotally, but quite a few furries I know also hate the aesthetic in this.
we prefer to call them "foundational"
Reminder that Taylor Swift's character is wearing a collar, high heels, and nothing else.
Wait, what?Reminder that Taylor Swift's character is wearing a collar, high heels, and nothing else.
They really want people to want to fuck this cat.
"We'd only finished shooting in March, so all the visual effects [in the trailer] were at quite an early stage," Hooper told Empire. "Possibly there were, in the extremity in some of the responses, some clues in how to keep evolving [the production]. When you watch the finished film, you'll see that some of the designs of the cats have moved on since then, and certainly our understanding of how to use the technology to make them work has gone up, too."