I'M GONNA WRECK IT!

[The SSB Intern]

Originally Posted by Ryong

I'm sure licensing all these characters wasn't a bitch!

Imagine all the paperwork for the video game that will surely by sold as a tie-in.

[Locke cole]

They should just make Hero's DutySugar Rush instead.

[Magus]

lol Q'Bertese.

Might have worked better with pastiches for all those other characters. I mean, it's hard to have Bowser in the movie without noticing that Wreck-It Ralph is just a pastiche of Donkey Kong and Fix-it Fred is a pastiche of Mario, and so, hey, where is Donkey Kong and Mario?

That said, how could I not love the concept? It didn't even attempt to dumb-down things--you'd have to be more than just familiar with Pac-Man or Mario as pop culture icons to know who Zangief is, so it does appear to be interested in doing something for people who love video games as well as the audience as a whole. Like Scott Pilgrim was enjoyable to anyone but it had things like the Fairy Fountain music from Zelda that only people who play video games are going to get.

[Locke cole]

I made something silly

[Magus]

Silly? Referencing King of Kong makes it genius in my book! A+ stellar joke there, comrade!

[Locke cole]

Vindication!

[Nique]

I don't get it.

[Locke cole]

It's a reference to a bit in the documentary The King Of Kong.

[Magus]

Originally Posted by Nique

I don't get it.

Hand-in your badge, Nique, you're relieved of duty.

[Betty Elms]

Originally Posted by Nique

My only problem is, why DIDN'T they get Pixar in on this? It's suspicious. Like, Disney made Chicken Little presumably because Pixar had the good sense not to be involved.

EDIT: I mean. I guess I'm still not sure how Pixar and Disney's relationship works anymore. Like, Pixar is technically involved because they own Disney or something?

Disney purchased Pixar. Disney was originally the studio's distributor, now the two have a much more symbiotic economic relationship, although they remain separate entities as studios. John Lasseter, Pixar's Executive Vice President at the time of the acquisition was made Chief Creative Officer of Disney, and Edwin Catmull, then the president of Pixar, was made president of Disney Animation.

That's how it works. People always act like the two are either completely autonomous or Disney now runs the shit out of Pixar creatively, but when it comes to the output of animated films, Pixar essentially took over Disney albeit without revamping the studio itself to an exceptional extent. They didn't get Pixar in on this because it's a Disney film. Disney has been making both CG and traditionally animated films for some time, at no point did they start divvying up projects based on medium.

Also Disney made Chicken Little because they effectively shut down their traditional animation branch in 2004 in order to hopefully better compete with Pixar and Dreamworks.

Originally Posted by POS Industries

Like basically Disney is still making animated movies, but apparently no one wants to see classic, hand-drawn 2D animation anymore according to studio executives

That was the studio exec decision like 9 years ago, Disney has resumed creating traditionally animated films although people like to pretend they haven't in order to justify being grumpy. Another thing people like to pretend: that studio executives are the ones saying nobody wants to see classic, hand-drawn 2D animation, when really that claim kind of is backed up by box office grosses.