Gnomeo and Juliet is baaaack (release in 2011)

[disdis]

two questions:

1. If this movie makes more money then Tangled, should we be even MORE worried for the future of Disney Animation Studios?

2. If this movie does well enough/ is good enough, should we expect or request a Character Meet/Greet in the Parks?

[estefan]

I don't judge entire films from trailers, but it's not hard to understand why Lasseter would reject this. That said, I'm still curious about it.

Oh and Matrix gag? I thought that sort of thing died out years ago.

[PatrickvD]

looks stupid. They advertise the Shakespeare angle, but why would they do this when we pretty much know neither of the main characters will die in the end?

Also the gags were lame. I didn't laugh once.

[UmbrellaFish]

It might be.... better than it looks. Definitely looks like a potential guilty pleasure type of movie...

Probably a rental for me.

[blackcauldron85]

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you know how long I've been waiting for that?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? OMG!!! I LOVE IT!!!!! So funny!!!!!!!!!

First the Tangled goodies today, and now this trailer!!!!! It looks awesomely funny!

[Elladorine]

I really like the character designs so I'll probably see this in the theater.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

I'm most interested in the fact that it bears the Touchstone logo, making it the first animated film since Nightmare Before Christmas to do that.

Why exactly? Because there's "questionable" content? Or because Lasseter doesn't like it and doesn't want people associating this with "the Disney brand" because he views it as bad?

[disneyboy20022]

The Trailer is now more widely available online other than Apple

http://enewsi.com/movies/190-18606.html

I'll have to watch this trailer later

[AliceinWonderland]

I'm most interested in the fact that it bears the Touchstone logo, making it the first animated film since Nightmare Before Christmas to do that.

Why exactly? Because there's "questionable" content? Or because Lasseter doesn't like it and doesn't want people associating this with "the Disney brand" because he views it as bad?

Watched the trailer, it looked very shrek like(gags, styling), not disney at all.. fail
on the plus side i do like the movie logo

[Barbossa]

In case anyone can't get the trailer links to work, here it is on Youtube:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/H7riZzwgwZQ?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/H7riZzwgwZQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

I'm puzzled about the Touchstone logo as well. Why release under the Touchstone logo?

I got a kick out of the Tiki Room and Fantasy Waters show references.

[singerguy04]

This film is being made by the same people who gave us "9". That film is pretty dark and has characters that die in some dark ways. Maybe Gnomeo and Juliet do die at the end of this film, and Disney doesn't feel comfortable releasing a film under their name where to title characters die.

that's just a thought.

[DisneyJedi]

Hmm. I'm still kinda skeptical about this. But who knows: I might change my mind when the release date draws closer.

Of course, I was kind of shocked by the gnome in the Borat-styled swimsuit.

[Neal]

I viewed the trailer with zero expectations and you know what? I kind of liked it! Some outdated gags and references, sure, but this looks kind of fun and cheesy in a good way.

Heck, this trailer had me more excited than any trailer I've ever seen for a Dreamworks movie... (oh, wait, that's not saying much...)

But seriously, maybe not a theatrical watch but certainly wouldn't mind seeing this on DVD.

[Goliath]

Some general thoughts:

1. 'From the director of Shrek 2'. That can't be good.

2. 'Features the voices of James McAvoy and Emily Blunt'. Oh, crap! More celebrity voices! They hype is over, people! Not more people will come to see your movie just because a celebrity does the voice of an animated character. Bring back the professional voice actors, please!

3. Inanimate objects only come to life when humans are out of sight. This story has been done before. It's called Toy Story.

4. Looks like a cheap Sony picture.

5. Lame pop culture reference that has been done before. Indeed, in Shrek 2. From the same director.

6. "If you believe in destinty..." I don't. (Sorry, Disney Duster! Hope you're not too upset!)

7. 3D?! Again? You're killing it, folks. Too much is too much.

8. Just referring to Shakespeare won't make your movie any more 'adult'.

[Sotiris]

New Trailer (UK)

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0UBbGu6h1Vs?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0UBbGu6h1Vs?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[disneyboy20022]

Ozzy Osbourne as a Deer and this movie has music from Elton John

[blackcauldron85]

I love it!!!! That was really funny. It seems like just a really fun movie!

[Wonderlicious]

It doesn't look like it's gonna be a Disney (well, Touchstone) release in the UK then...

[yukitora]

Some general thoughts:

1. 'From the director of Shrek 2'. That can't be good.

2. 'Features the voices of James McAvoy and Emily Blunt'. Oh, crap! More celebrity voices! They hype is over, people! Not more people will come to see your movie just because a celebrity does the voice of an animated character. Bring back the professional voice actors, please!

3. Inanimate objects only come to life when humans are out of sight. This story has been done before. It's called Toy Story.

4. Looks like a cheap Sony picture.

5. Lame pop culture reference that has been done before. Indeed, in Shrek 2. From the same director.

6. "If you believe in destinty..." I don't. (Sorry, Disney Duster! Hope you're not too upset!)

7. 3D?! Again? You're killing it, folks. Too much is too much.

8. Just referring to Shakespeare won't make your movie any more 'adult'.

1. Shrek 2 was an incredibly successful and generally well received film by the masses. I for one, loved it!

2. Those two celebrities have very limited fanbases and I doubt they will draw in a huge crowd. For that matter, I don't even think any celebrity voice-over brings in huge audience. Look at the Ghilbi dubs, they always have a-list movie stars and yet they aren't advertised as such. I don't know where you get this idea of 'hype' from.

3. What wrong? Not every film has to be original. That's like saying "a princess movie about a girl who meets a prince? Hello, it's called Snow White!"

4. Not everything can look as beautiful as tangled <3 but its funny because they are porcelain characters warrant stiff animation.

5. Lame pop culture references? Have you seen a Disney film?

6. no comment.

7. Of course they're going to release it in 3D, it's the standard (especially for animated features). They are trying to make as much money as possible, what's wrong with that?

8. The story has always been based on Shakespeare. They didn't just "refer" to Shakespeare, it's always been vital to the storyline. They are simply being open about it.

[DisneyJedi]

While this movie is starting to look more interesting little by little, I'll still be waiting for Disney's own take on Romeo & Juliet, which will hopefully be a little more like the original Shakespeare play.