I am kinda surprised Sam and Max havent got an animated movie yet. You think they would do it after how season 1 and 2 are doing. So do u think its for Sam and Max to hit the sliver screen?
No.
1. They aren't as popular as you think
2. I genuinely feel that it would be horrible
3. Just watch the TV series. I hated it, but you might like it.
No.
1. They aren't as popular as you think
2. I genuinely feel that it would be horrible
3. Just watch the TV series. I hated it, but you might like it.
W-who are you? O_o
"Popularity" means nothing before a movie. Most than likely, when audiences go to see a movie, they know nothing about the characters or probably not even the story. Trailers and word-of-mouth are deciding factors if someone wants to watch a certain movie or not. Of course, franchises don't follow this. People will go see a new movie in the series as long as the last one what adequate... ^^; But how many of those are memorable (give or take a few)?
About a movie itself, as long as Steve Purcell is on board, I doubt he would help create an abomination in the Sam and Max universe.
And how can you hate the TV series? Pshhh... :: shrugs off ::
"Popularity" means nothing before a movie. Most than likely, when audiences go to see a movie, they know nothing about the characters or probably not even the story. Trailers and word-of-mouth are deciding factors if someone wants to watch a certain movie or not. Of course, franchises don't follow this. People will go see a new movie in the series as long as the last one what adequate... ^^; But how many of those are memorable (give or take a few)?
About a movie itself, as long as Steve Purcell is on board, I doubt he would help create an abomination in the Sam and Max universe.
And how can you hate the TV series? Pshhh... :: shrugs off ::
1. Who are you is a better question
2. So you mean like Iron Man, Spider-man, X-men, Batman, Superman, The Incredible Hulk, Scooby-Doo, Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Mario, Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Final Fantasy VII & Dragonball? I mean nobody had heard of those series' before they got movies right? RIGHT? Anybody? Bueller?
3. There is no guarantee that he would be involved.
4. I have my opinion of the show... please respect it. All I said was that it wasn't for me. I even recommended it to them.
So you mean like Iron Man, Spider-man, X-men, Batman, Superman, The Incredible Hulk, Scooby-Doo, Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Mario, Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Final Fantasy VII & Dragonball? I mean nobody had heard of those series' before they got movies right? RIGHT? Anybody? Bueller?
*whoosh* There goes the entire point he was making, right over your head!
*whoosh* There goes the entire point he was making, right over your head!
Man, do you have to be such an ass all the time? I mean seriously? Does somebody piss in your Cheerios every morning or something? Switch to Pop Tarts for christsake...
Man, do you have to be such an ass all the time? I mean seriously? Does somebody piss in your Cheerios every morning or something? Switch to Pop Tarts for christsake...
You almost exclusively post on the forums to be negative about something, and you're saying I have a bad attitude?
You almost exclusively post on the forums to be negative about something, and you're saying I have a bad attitude?
Apparently you haven't being paying attention to my posts kiddo. I say when I don't think something is right, but at the same time I give praise when praise is due. The difference is that I don't have my lips applied to Telltales right buttcheek like the majority of the people on here. I tell it like it is. If somebody asks which version of Sam & Max is better, I am going to tell them to steer clear of the wii version (& the reasons that they should) & to get the PC version. The thing is that I do it without making someone feel like crap for asking a question or making a statement. Thats where we are different.
Apparently you haven't being paying attention to my posts kiddo. I say when I don't think something is right, but at the same time I give praise when praise is due. The difference is that I don't have my lips applied to Telltales right buttcheek like the majority of the people on here. I tell it like it is. If somebody asks which version of Sam & Max is better, I am going to tell them to steer clear of the wii version (& the reasons that they should) & to get the PC version. The thing is that I do it without making someone feel like crap for asking a question or making a statement. Thats where we are different.
So you mean like Iron Man, Spider-man, X-men, Batman, Superman, The Incredible Hulk, Scooby-Doo, Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Mario, Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Final Fantasy VII & Dragonball? I mean nobody had heard of those series' before they got movies right? RIGHT? Anybody? Bueller?
isn't meant to be making fun of what he said, regardless of how badly you misinterpreted it?
isn't meant to be making fun of what he said, regardless of how badly you misinterpreted it?
Nope... It is meant to say that those movies were made from well known franchises. See there is a difference between a joke & being a jerk. If I were being a jerk I would rip into him personally (no matter how minor it may be).
"Popularity" means nothing before a movie. Most than likely, when audiences go to see a movie, they know nothing about the characters or probably not even the story
Hmmm... I think my answer was pretty straight forward with what was said... maybe it is you who is misinterpreting these posts.
But whatever. Lets make a deal you stop being an ass to me, & I'll just ignore your posts altogether. It is as simple as that. You don't like what I say? Just ignore it. I mean that is essentially what you are telling me to do right? So why not take your own advice.
His entire point is that it doesn't necessarily matter how popular something is before they make a movie out of it, and you somehow twisted that to mean he's talking about all these wildly popular franchises that were turned into movies.
Obviously something that's popular will have an established base audience already, but the success of a movie is really based more on marketing than the initial popularity of the source material.
For example, if you see a trailer for a film, and it looks awful, you won't go see it. If you see a trailer for a film, and it looks awesome, you will want to go see it, regardless of if you've heard of whatever it's based on (if anything) before.
So yes, I am quite sure that you misunderstood what he meant, as you posted a response completely unrelated to the point he made.
There’s two factors which weigh heavily in favor of a good Sam & Max movie, IMO. For one thing, it doesn’t have to be an adaptation of a specific story. In fact, it doesn’t have to fit within any of the established continuities (such as they are). The filmmakers would only have to ensure the movie works well for both people unfamiliar with Sam & Max and more seasoned fans.
Let’s consider the eventual Bone movie. AFAIK, a film version of the original story is what everyone is hoping for, and that’s what we’re going to get. There’s no guarantee of anything beyond one film, however. There may be a good chance the movie will have to, somehow, condense over 1300 pages of comic into a (probable) 90-120 minute timeframe. It might turn out great as a stand-alone film, but it risks disappointment and division among fans of the original Bone in ways a brand new story probably wouldn’t. Having mulitple films over which to tell the story would alleviate the risk but never totally relieve it.
And Sam & Max? One story (“Bad Day on the Moon”) has been adapted to a different medium. Once. Almost twelve years ago. Variety, ultimately, is Sam & Max’s bread n’ butter.
This leads to the second point, which Shwoo touched upon: The Sam & Max mythos is ludicrously flexible. In a good way. So long as the main leads act like themselves and the overall humor/tone/bizarro quotient is appropriately Sam & Max-ish, you can do almost anything you want with the story proper.
Granted, I’m only referring to hurdles which a potential movie should be able to avoid, rather than assurances of quality through craftmanship. I believe they’re points worth mentioning though. I’m also inclined to see the glass as “half-full” so long as Steve Purcell gets involved (which, with him owning Sam & Max and all, as well as having an admitted idea for the movie’s plot, is 110% likely).
Roberttitus, there was no need to go for the neck. I wasn't "attacking" or "trolling" you. Sure, I don't post often, but if you read most of my posts, I'm a bit of a joker meaning no harm. I'm sorry you misinterpreted my mock offense. ^^;
But Pale Man is right about my point. I take into consideration not current top movies, but in the long run. Who would have known an unknown writer would help create a top grossing romance film (Gone With the Wind)? People seemed to love the strange idea of capturing ghosts and demons for money rolled into a comedy (Ghostbusters). Does watching a handsome Harrison Ford dodge boulders, snakes, and so-on for an item that can melt faces sound fun (Raiders Of The Lost Ark)? Or how about a movie about genetically altered dinosaurs on an isolated island that later run havoc (Jurassic Park)?
I mean there are a lot of movies that were based on things that were ether unknown/new to movie audiences and ended up being popular culture icons (or at least on the Box-Office Top 100 list). Just because something isn't popular now or in a certain media form, doesn't mean it won't be popular if converted into movie. You are underestimating Mr Purcell if he does decide one day that he wants to make a movie. And that is what I'm trying to say.
Now, if you excuse me, I have to collect my $10 from Mr Purcell. XP
Just thinking about it for a minute, Steve works for Pixar. Imagine if Pixar did their first PG-13 movie, and it was Sam and Max. It would be most glorious, and likely highly profitable, given Pixar's reputation and marketing skill.
Roberttitus, there was no need to go for the neck. I wasn't "attacking" or "trolling" you. Sure, I don't post often, but if you read most of my posts, I'm a bit of a joker meaning no harm. I'm sorry you misinterpreted my mock offense. ^^;
I didn't think I was... well at least yours, but I wasn't even talking about you in the trolling comment.
Just thinking about it for a minute, Steve works for Pixar. Imagine if Pixar did their first PG-13 movie, and it was Sam and Max. It would be most glorious, and likely highly profitable, given Pixar's reputation and marketing skill.
The only problem I do have with that is Pixar is good known as a family trademark, just like Disney. And they can't go and put to a PG-13 rated movie the Pixar name without thinking really well about it. In fact, Disney created touchstone pictures for their non-family-friendly movies. Even if Pixar do the movie, the most probably thing is will not have the Pixar name.
After saying that, I'll love a Sam and Max movie. I'll prefer it hand drawn instead of 3D, but I love the idea.
I am kinda surprised Sam and Max havent got an animated movie yet. You think they would do it after how season 1 and 2 are doing. So do u think its for Sam and Max to hit the sliver screen?
I could imagine it... but if whoever makes it screws it up, I'll rip out their kidneys.
The only problem I do have with that is Pixar is good known as a family trademark, just like Disney. And they can't go and put to a PG-13 rated movie the Pixar name without thinking really well about it. In fact, Disney created touchstone pictures for their non-family-friendly movies. Even if Pixar do the movie, the most probably thing is will not have the Pixar name.
After saying that, I'll love a Sam and Max movie. I'll prefer it hand drawn instead of 3D, but I love the idea.
Well, the Pirates of the Caribbean films were made under the Disney name, and they're all PG-13. They were the first PG-13s that they made under the Disney name.
Given that, I wouldn't say it's entirely out of the question for Pixar to crank out a PG-13. They've already hit PG with 'The Incredibles' and 'Up,' too.
Well, the Pirates of the Caribbean films were made under the Disney name, and they're all PG-13. They were the first PG-13s that they made under the Disney name.
Given that, I wouldn't say it's entirely out of the question for Pixar to crank out a PG-13. They've already hit PG with 'The Incredibles' and 'Up,' too.
I would be hesitant to sign any petition about this, largely because the vast majority of movies based on video games have been stinkers. But then again Pixar (who's probably be the folks who'll do it if it happens, considering Steve works with them) don't do many stinkers. (Unfortunately, they don't do many licences, either.)
I would be hesitant to sign any petition about this, largely because the vast majority of movies based on video games have been stinkers. But then again Pixar (who's probably be the folks who'll do it if it happens, considering Steve works with them) don't do many stinkers. (Unfortunately, they don't do many licences, either.)
Luckily, Sam and Max is a comic first and video game second, and most movies based on comics have been decent to amazing
After playing Season One, it seemed clear to me that a movie should share many attributes with the season. Multiple, varied settings, a diverse (but not too diverse) cast of supporting characters, razor-whip humor (obviously), and most of all, a buildup to an epic final act. That was the amazing thing about Season One (forgive me, I've yet to play Season Two). That final chapter with Hugh Bliss and the bizarrely hilarious and simultaneously terrifying revelation of what he truly was all along, coupled with his genuine malice and place of threatening power over our heroes, made the season. It was epic, but still oh-so-perfectly Sam & Max. The movie should emulate this artistry of storytelling, making us laugh while still giving a genuinely adventurous ride.
Season One had a base of Sam & Max's signature humor and irreverence, but was coated with a delicious layer of peril and gripping story. I may sound like I took things too seriously, but especially in the latter half of the season, things got awesomely intense--wouldn't you agree the film should keep something close to the same pace and scope?
And yes, to do really well, it really should be CG. What I mentioned above simply wouldn't work nearly as well in a 2D setting. Imagine Hugh Bliss' inner sanctum in the Blister of Tranquility traditionally animated. It simply doesn't carry the same immersion, the same scope, or the same power and awe. To carry an 1.5-/2-hour story, Sam & Max need to be computer-generated. Especially now, with the competitors it would face for its audience's eyes.
Of course it would be PG-13. Which is why Dreamworks is most likely to pick it up. Pixar, while it would do it the most visual justice, has made it clear that something like Sam & Max simply isn't the type of story they have desire to tell right now. Perhaps in the future, yes, but only once they've exhausted their enthusiasm for poetically brilliant, family-friendly films. Ultimately, Pixar is too reverent of the human spirit to be attached to a project like Sam & Max. But that, of course, has the potential to change.
The future holds a lot for these two! Let's hope we can watch it unfold on the silver screen.
Can we change it a little? I love hand drawn animation, but Pixar cannot change or add their whole extructure just for a movie. Unless Disney Animation studios itself do it. And since now, technically, Pixar owns Disney, I don't see it like something bad.
Can we change it a little? I love hand drawn animation, but Pixar cannot change or add their whole extructure just for a movie. Unless Disney Animation studios itself do it. And since now, technically, Pixar owns Disney, I don't see it like something bad.
Yeah, the line about hand drawn animation makes no sense, since Pixar is entirely designed to make CGI films (and are amazing at doing so).
An animated movie on adult swim would be great.. Sam & Max deserve that darker tone..they aren't for kids
Amen!
The comics were not geared for children,they had wild slapstick violence and adult innuendo...such as Sam advising future felons on how to keep their "manhood" in a federal prison by bashing inmates heads in with a mop handle if they say "hi",max making a gun out of soap swallowed and retrieved from the big scary shower room..hoods with switchblades,terrorists hi-jacking planes with clown masks,Sam running over a motorcycle cop with the DeSoto,people in the backgrounds commiting suicide.
I love the comics and really wish Steve Purcell would remember that many of his fans were around back in the 80's when the first comic book came out.
I still have all my original Sam & Max comics that I bought new back in the day.
To me watering down Sam & Max to make them more marketable is like what happened to the Three Stooges after parents in the 60's complained about how violent they were on TV
Compare the classic Three Stooges to the "new" Three Stooges.
They became shadows of what they were.(and yes,I am aware they were all getting up in years anyway,but Moe had the act toned down to make them more acceptable to parents)
Dont get me wrong,I liked the Sam & Max TV show an even bought the dvds,but it honestly would have been better had there been an adult swim back then and Steve Purcell could have done everything his way and not had to tone it down for kids.
The Nelvana animation was pretty poor too,all the other characters not designed by Steve looked pretty lame,the same as all the other Nelvana shows like Eek the Cat,etc.
Can we change it a little? I love hand drawn animation, but Pixar cannot change or add their whole extructure just for a movie. Unless Disney Animation studios itself do it. And since now, technically, Pixar owns Disney, I don't see it like something bad.
*If* a Sam & Max movie were to be made,I would prefer traditional hand drawn animation as well.
Since it was originally a comic book that style would lend itself naturally to the look and feel of the original art.
CGI hasnt advanced to that point and will never replace a talented artist with a pencil.
There are other animation studios out there besides Disney who could do a fine job too.
Sam & Max are not Disney characters.
I am personally not a big fan of CGI animation,(I thought Cars was o.k) for whatever reason all the character designs (especially humans) are just plain ugly.
Besides I would like to see a return to the classic animation of the past.
We used to make animated films and shorts that were works of art.
Why does everything have to be CGI now?
Comments
1. They aren't as popular as you think
2. I genuinely feel that it would be horrible
3. Just watch the TV series. I hated it, but you might like it.
W-who are you? O_o
"Popularity" means nothing before a movie. Most than likely, when audiences go to see a movie, they know nothing about the characters or probably not even the story. Trailers and word-of-mouth are deciding factors if someone wants to watch a certain movie or not. Of course, franchises don't follow this. People will go see a new movie in the series as long as the last one what adequate... ^^; But how many of those are memorable (give or take a few)?
About a movie itself, as long as Steve Purcell is on board, I doubt he would help create an abomination in the Sam and Max universe.
And how can you hate the TV series? Pshhh... :: shrugs off ::
1. Who are you is a better question
2. So you mean like Iron Man, Spider-man, X-men, Batman, Superman, The Incredible Hulk, Scooby-Doo, Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Mario, Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Final Fantasy VII & Dragonball? I mean nobody had heard of those series' before they got movies right? RIGHT? Anybody? Bueller?
3. There is no guarantee that he would be involved.
4. I have my opinion of the show... please respect it. All I said was that it wasn't for me. I even recommended it to them.
*whoosh* There goes the entire point he was making, right over your head!
Um, he owns the rights to it, so unless he specifically said "Here, make a movie and don't let me have any say in it," he would be involved.
Man, do you have to be such an ass all the time? I mean seriously? Does somebody piss in your Cheerios every morning or something? Switch to Pop Tarts for christsake...
You almost exclusively post on the forums to be negative about something, and you're saying I have a bad attitude?
Apparently you haven't being paying attention to my posts kiddo. I say when I don't think something is right, but at the same time I give praise when praise is due. The difference is that I don't have my lips applied to Telltales right buttcheek like the majority of the people on here. I tell it like it is. If somebody asks which version of Sam & Max is better, I am going to tell them to steer clear of the wii version (& the reasons that they should) & to get the PC version. The thing is that I do it without making someone feel like crap for asking a question or making a statement. Thats where we are different.
So let me get this straight, you saying isn't meant to be making fun of what he said, regardless of how badly you misinterpreted it?
Nope... It is meant to say that those movies were made from well known franchises. See there is a difference between a joke & being a jerk. If I were being a jerk I would rip into him personally (no matter how minor it may be).
Hmmm... I think my answer was pretty straight forward with what was said... maybe it is you who is misinterpreting these posts.
But whatever. Lets make a deal you stop being an ass to me, & I'll just ignore your posts altogether. It is as simple as that. You don't like what I say? Just ignore it. I mean that is essentially what you are telling me to do right? So why not take your own advice.
Love & Thrashes,
Robert Titus
His entire point is that it doesn't necessarily matter how popular something is before they make a movie out of it, and you somehow twisted that to mean he's talking about all these wildly popular franchises that were turned into movies.
Obviously something that's popular will have an established base audience already, but the success of a movie is really based more on marketing than the initial popularity of the source material.
For example, if you see a trailer for a film, and it looks awful, you won't go see it. If you see a trailer for a film, and it looks awesome, you will want to go see it, regardless of if you've heard of whatever it's based on (if anything) before.
So yes, I am quite sure that you misunderstood what he meant, as you posted a response completely unrelated to the point he made.
Yeah, personally, I think a Sam and Max movie would be AWESOME. All I'm saying is that if I won the lottery, I'd personally pay for the movie.
I'm going to as well.... don't feed the trolls y'know.
I just can't see how it would be good. Licensed movies usually suck... I'd like to be pleasantly surprised though.
Very true... I think that is part of the reason that I don't like the cartoon.
I think it would have the potential to be awesome. The premise fits well with any medium.
Let’s consider the eventual Bone movie. AFAIK, a film version of the original story is what everyone is hoping for, and that’s what we’re going to get. There’s no guarantee of anything beyond one film, however. There may be a good chance the movie will have to, somehow, condense over 1300 pages of comic into a (probable) 90-120 minute timeframe. It might turn out great as a stand-alone film, but it risks disappointment and division among fans of the original Bone in ways a brand new story probably wouldn’t. Having mulitple films over which to tell the story would alleviate the risk but never totally relieve it.
And Sam & Max? One story (“Bad Day on the Moon”) has been adapted to a different medium. Once. Almost twelve years ago. Variety, ultimately, is Sam & Max’s bread n’ butter.
This leads to the second point, which Shwoo touched upon: The Sam & Max mythos is ludicrously flexible. In a good way. So long as the main leads act like themselves and the overall humor/tone/bizarro quotient is appropriately Sam & Max-ish, you can do almost anything you want with the story proper.
Granted, I’m only referring to hurdles which a potential movie should be able to avoid, rather than assurances of quality through craftmanship. I believe they’re points worth mentioning though. I’m also inclined to see the glass as “half-full” so long as Steve Purcell gets involved (which, with him owning Sam & Max and all, as well as having an admitted idea for the movie’s plot, is 110% likely).
But Pale Man is right about my point. I take into consideration not current top movies, but in the long run. Who would have known an unknown writer would help create a top grossing romance film (Gone With the Wind)? People seemed to love the strange idea of capturing ghosts and demons for money rolled into a comedy (Ghostbusters). Does watching a handsome Harrison Ford dodge boulders, snakes, and so-on for an item that can melt faces sound fun (Raiders Of The Lost Ark)? Or how about a movie about genetically altered dinosaurs on an isolated island that later run havoc (Jurassic Park)?
I mean there are a lot of movies that were based on things that were ether unknown/new to movie audiences and ended up being popular culture icons (or at least on the Box-Office Top 100 list). Just because something isn't popular now or in a certain media form, doesn't mean it won't be popular if converted into movie. You are underestimating Mr Purcell if he does decide one day that he wants to make a movie. And that is what I'm trying to say.
Now, if you excuse me, I have to collect my $10 from Mr Purcell. XP
I can't see why he wouldn't be. He's pretty adamant (and smart) in keeping and controlling his licenses.
Shh! People aren't suppose to know! XD ::laughs::
I didn't think I was... well at least yours, but I wasn't even talking about you in the trolling comment.
The only problem I do have with that is Pixar is good known as a family trademark, just like Disney. And they can't go and put to a PG-13 rated movie the Pixar name without thinking really well about it. In fact, Disney created touchstone pictures for their non-family-friendly movies. Even if Pixar do the movie, the most probably thing is will not have the Pixar name.
After saying that, I'll love a Sam and Max movie. I'll prefer it hand drawn instead of 3D, but I love the idea.
I could imagine it... but if whoever makes it screws it up, I'll rip out their kidneys.
Well, the Pirates of the Caribbean films were made under the Disney name, and they're all PG-13. They were the first PG-13s that they made under the Disney name.
Given that, I wouldn't say it's entirely out of the question for Pixar to crank out a PG-13. They've already hit PG with 'The Incredibles' and 'Up,' too.
Nah, I totally forgot :P
Who wants to start a petition?
I would agree to Pixar movie, anything above or below that, no. It wouldn't work.
yeah. Couldn't imagine a 7-year-old playing it. Actually, maybe I can... But Adult Swim? No.
Kid: Mommy, do you wanna rub my unicorn?
Mom: JOHNNY! WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY?!!!
Kid: It's what the nice dog and bunny said!
or maybe
Kid: Mommy, what does 'stone cold fox' mean?
Luckily, Sam and Max is a comic first and video game second, and most movies based on comics have been decent to amazing
Season One had a base of Sam & Max's signature humor and irreverence, but was coated with a delicious layer of peril and gripping story. I may sound like I took things too seriously, but especially in the latter half of the season, things got awesomely intense--wouldn't you agree the film should keep something close to the same pace and scope?
And yes, to do really well, it really should be CG. What I mentioned above simply wouldn't work nearly as well in a 2D setting. Imagine Hugh Bliss' inner sanctum in the Blister of Tranquility traditionally animated. It simply doesn't carry the same immersion, the same scope, or the same power and awe. To carry an 1.5-/2-hour story, Sam & Max need to be computer-generated. Especially now, with the competitors it would face for its audience's eyes.
Of course it would be PG-13. Which is why Dreamworks is most likely to pick it up. Pixar, while it would do it the most visual justice, has made it clear that something like Sam & Max simply isn't the type of story they have desire to tell right now. Perhaps in the future, yes, but only once they've exhausted their enthusiasm for poetically brilliant, family-friendly films. Ultimately, Pixar is too reverent of the human spirit to be attached to a project like Sam & Max. But that, of course, has the potential to change.
The future holds a lot for these two! Let's hope we can watch it unfold on the silver screen.
http://www.petitiononline.com/cd4f46f/petition.html
Sign it so we can have a movie!
Can we change it a little? I love hand drawn animation, but Pixar cannot change or add their whole extructure just for a movie. Unless Disney Animation studios itself do it. And since now, technically, Pixar owns Disney, I don't see it like something bad.
Signed!
Yeah, the line about hand drawn animation makes no sense, since Pixar is entirely designed to make CGI films (and are amazing at doing so).
http://www.petitiononline.com/cd4f46f/petition.html
Amen!
The comics were not geared for children,they had wild slapstick violence and adult innuendo...such as Sam advising future felons on how to keep their "manhood" in a federal prison by bashing inmates heads in with a mop handle if they say "hi",max making a gun out of soap swallowed and retrieved from the big scary shower room..hoods with switchblades,terrorists hi-jacking planes with clown masks,Sam running over a motorcycle cop with the DeSoto,people in the backgrounds commiting suicide.
I love the comics and really wish Steve Purcell would remember that many of his fans were around back in the 80's when the first comic book came out.
I still have all my original Sam & Max comics that I bought new back in the day.
To me watering down Sam & Max to make them more marketable is like what happened to the Three Stooges after parents in the 60's complained about how violent they were on TV
Compare the classic Three Stooges to the "new" Three Stooges.
They became shadows of what they were.(and yes,I am aware they were all getting up in years anyway,but Moe had the act toned down to make them more acceptable to parents)
Dont get me wrong,I liked the Sam & Max TV show an even bought the dvds,but it honestly would have been better had there been an adult swim back then and Steve Purcell could have done everything his way and not had to tone it down for kids.
The Nelvana animation was pretty poor too,all the other characters not designed by Steve looked pretty lame,the same as all the other Nelvana shows like Eek the Cat,etc.
*If* a Sam & Max movie were to be made,I would prefer traditional hand drawn animation as well.
Since it was originally a comic book that style would lend itself naturally to the look and feel of the original art.
CGI hasnt advanced to that point and will never replace a talented artist with a pencil.
There are other animation studios out there besides Disney who could do a fine job too.
Sam & Max are not Disney characters.
I am personally not a big fan of CGI animation,(I thought Cars was o.k) for whatever reason all the character designs (especially humans) are just plain ugly.
Besides I would like to see a return to the classic animation of the past.
We used to make animated films and shorts that were works of art.
Why does everything have to be CGI now?