Awful “Yogi Bear” poster 3.0

Is there enough hate left for a third poster of Yogi Bear?

(via Shockya.com)


  • Dgafusunuman

    Looks pretty OK, except for the mouth in the O in the logo… I would make the pose a bit more extreme though. Have Boo Boo hanging out a bit further on Yogi’s arm. Oh and Boo Boo would be a bit scared since he’s hanging on for dear life. And Yogi’s expression should be stronger too! Stretch those jaw muscles!

  • owlathome

    Strange that 3D is mentioned, yet everything looks so flat! All of the food seems to be in exactly the same plane with no depth, looks like pasted-in clip-art food. A strange contrast to the overly-detailed water and droplets.

  • http://www.miaumau.blogspot.com Sandra

    Add a pneumatic drill and this could be my own personal hell…

  • http://www.illegibleme.com Andrew T. Smith

    The mouth in that O makes it look suspiciously like a fleshlight.

  • Patrick Collins

    I do love this site, but must admit feeling a little tired at the constant flow of vitriol at studio projects. Yes, this is an inept looking project, but hey- so what. It took me a long time to realise this, but the fact is that if the artwork doesn’t appeal at this level, then probably you don’t fall into the demographic of people this project was greenlit to exploit. That should be something to be happy about. We may question the taste of the film makers, and may wish someone who shares our sense of quality had made this, but we should concede that anyone who would share our sense of taste probably wouldn’t touch a project like this in the first place.

    I would also like to remind you that all the original Yogi stuff still exists and still bears all the hallmarks of their creators skills as film makers. Some love them, some don’t- but the fact remains that they are not going to cease to exist just because this does. I say ignore it. We are adults and have a choice as to where we spend our cash.

  • http://www.spiteyourface.com Tony Mines

    I agree with Patrick above. But there’s a side note here about the (weird) developing trend towards pro-furry marketing in mainstream films.
    Yogi’s design simultaneously points to him being a real forest animal, and a guy in a costume. And everything in this composition points towards that dongle thingy at the front of the boat, positioned after lengthy meanderings no doubt, over the realistically textured void that demands the presence of an anatomically correct, um, dongle.
    Same for BooBoo’s ear over his creepy absentee ass.

    It’s not just me, right? This whole project seems to be about negotiating, to within an inch of confrontation, that these guys are bears and that they shit in the woods. Which shouldn’t really even be a thing.

  • http://mrscriblam.tumblr.com/ mrscriblam

    nice cut and paste stock photos of food yogi

  • http://pierrefontaine.webs.com Pierre

    Ooohhhh yes….and look at all the phallic shapes in the poster! The sausages! The banana! The huge oar and it’s strange, strategic position!

    Geez guys, either this has become one big joke to dump on this film for no good reason or you’re all in need of some severe psychological help.

    I’m not defending the film per se, but to tear it down based on some short clips in a trailer and every piece of promotional art is silly to me. As Patrick says above, you’re not the demographic the film is aiming at. It’s relying on the fact that the parent recognizes the property and wants their child to share in that excitement, and that the child wants to see something fun for a couple of hours. Plain and simple, and the poster accomplishes both of these goals.

    Pierre

    • http://zeteos.blogspot.com/ a peanut shaped ghost klan member

      ‘to tear it down based on some short clips in a trailer and every piece of promotional art is silly’

      what should the opinions be based on?

  • http://www.frankpanucci.com Frank Panucci

    If the original NATIONAL LAMPOON magazine from the 1970s was still around, this is the kind of poster it would produce as parody.

  • Rooniman

    Aint that a big mess of clutter.

  • pete driscoll

    It seems like the animation world already hates the film before it has even come out. Jeez, it does look awful though..

  • Greg Chenoweth

    The website mentioned on the movie poster has a british web address: yogibearmovie.co.uk. I’m assuming that this poster is for the British audience instead of the American crowd.

  • Mark McD

    Does remind of the poster for another movie showing its protagonists rafting down a river.
    No, not “Deliverance:”
    http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51sZRwT%2B%2BdL._SS500_.jpg

    Wait… there IS a river YB and BB are rafting down, isn’t it? They’re not rafting UP A HILL, are they?

    Wow, they sure spent a lot of time rendering drops of water. Did they spend any time thinking about how off those black lips on Yogi are?

  • Gobo

    I still like the one with Yogi snuggled up behind Boo Boo with the tagline, “Great things come in bears.”

  • Scarabim

    I always thought the Hanna-Barbera cartoons, ESPECIALLY Yogi Bear, sucked, and thus I have no desire to expose my children to them in ANY form. This CGI redo of a lame cartoon falls into the “wrong-sounding Muppets” category to me. DO NOT WANT.

  • Mr. Crankypants

    I love how we all think this is crap, yet John K.’s grotesque and tasteless “re-imagining” of these beloved characters is genius.

    • http://rutherferdpaws.blogspot.com Luke Brown

      At the very least, John K has an understanding of what made the characters functional in design and appeal. And I guaruntee you that his episode are animated better, and are more entertaining than this. And I didn’t even like Ren and Stimpy.

      • http://elblogderg.blogspot.com Roberto

        I have the opposite opinion. I think Ren and Stimpy were the greatest animated series in recent history but I didn’t find John K’s Yogi Bear that entertaining. But it wasn’t his more tasteless stuff either. There were some good parts. I still think it was more like a funny parody of some sort, rather than an actual depiction of the characters, though. Sometimes John K. makes it look like it was some sort of “official” and canonic version of Yogi, which it wasn’t.

        Anyway almost any full animated version is better than a CGI/life action film. In this kind of films the human acting is always horrible and the animated characters designs are uglier and less efficient than the original ones. The scripts are usually pretty lousy too but maybe they could get a pass in a whole animated film. They always add some terrible fart or crap gags here and there, though. I watched Scooby Doo’s first movie and Alvin and the Chipmunks 1 and if they had been fully animated and without the crap/fart gags they could have got a pass. They’ll have never been brilliant, but maybe watchable.

        What I mean is that , script-wise, these things usually don’t go into the adult, underground, almost out of character stuff John K. would go to, and they sometimes get some characters right (as bad as this looks, Yogi and Boo Boo act “in character” in most of the trailers) but the execution of the jokes and the aesthetics of John K.’s stuff is still a lot more amusing to watch.

        The worst part to me is usually the human actors. Maybe Ranger Smith will act like the original character in the story of this movie, but the actor still doesn’t look like him, his voice doesn’t sound very similar and his acting doesn’t suggest his personality at all. And for some reason in these movies the human actors use to act even more exaggerated than the animated ones, and not in a funny way like John Goodman or , heck, even Dan Aykroyd do. Yeah, I know Goodman was in The Flinstones, maybe that’s why that one was kind of acceptable (not good, but at least less offensive than others).

      • Funkybat

        I agree that The first Flintstones live action film was probably the best of the overall horrible “genre” of live action adaptations of cartoons. I am a life-long Scooby-Doo fan, but I can’t watch more than a few minutes of the theatrical movies before changing the channel. I doubt I will be able to bring myself to go see this Yogi film.

        I also do wonder why the performances of the “live” characters in films with CG cartoons as stars always seem even worse than the CG character’s acting. Is it because the directors don’t want the humans upstaging the CG actors? Sometimes it is just painful, and I mean “direct-to-video-threequel-of-an-already-bad-original-movie” painful.

  • diego

    I support Cartoon Brew in its war against the ugliness and lack of taste on contemporary times. This shit is not going to change by itself. Unless there’s some counterpart for what mainstream media’s says about it.

  • http://los-utopicos.blogspot.com allari

    Where is Sister Wendy when you need her to tear this poster apart?

  • http://thelift.kohrtoons.com Robert Kohr

    You know it wouldn’t be all that bad if this poster was relevant to the look of the film in that it was all animated.

  • Alissa

    Strange, for all their talk of CG Yogi! Realistic Water!, he and Booboo look strangely… disjointed for lack of a better word. They shading on their bodies is all over the place, Yogi’s tie appears ironed into that position and all the food really does look like clip art.

    Not to mention how cluttered and chaotic the composition is. Any art teacher would fail a student for turning in work this poorly thought out really.

    …They still look like soulless monstrosities to me, and I’ve only seen maybe two old Yogi bear shorts.

  • Keith Paynter

    No sir, I don’t like it!

  • Maxie
    • diego

      WOW

  • http://elblogderg.blogspot.com Roberto

    I agree with Robert Kohr. The poster is not so awful per se. There are too many things there but other than that I kinda like the coloring. And even with these kind of designs I could even find it a little more watchable if it was all animated.

  • http://www.aaronpickens.com Aaron

    Although the movie doesn’t look too good, Yogi and Boo Boo do seem to fit in the environment more when the clips are shown in stereoscopic 3D, but seem out of place and weird like this poster.

  • Demetre

    AGHH! My eyes are bleeding!!

  • http://Mr.FunsBlog Floyd Norman

    While it’s true Warner Bros. has the right to make all the lousy movies they want, we’re not going to stand by and say it’s okay for executives to crap in the woods.

  • http://strangespanner.blogspot.com/ Lazarus lupin

    I can’t call it awful because judging from the trailer it does what a poster should do which is convey what the film is.

    In this case, “crap.”

    • http://rutherferdpaws.blogspot.com Luke Brown

      You don’t need to, I will for you.

      Gosh, this poster is atrocious!

      See how easy that was?

  • http://www.artsucks.com Cojo

    Yuck….

  • http://thatssokraven.livejournal.com/ Kelly Tindall

    If you squint, it looks like Yogi’s left arm is mutating into some sort of horrible Lovecraft thing. In that regard, this poster gets a big mutant horrible thumbs-up from me.

  • Steve Gattuso

    Why are people falling all over themselves trying to white knight for this piece of offal?

    “You’re not the intended audience.”

    When you say that, why do you believe that kids are really that stupid? They’re not. They don’t have to have a two hour dialogue on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but they can be better than this. They can certainly LOOK better than this.

    I grew up in the 70′s. Man, the SatAM stuff back then was crap. And I KNEW it was crap, despite being a kid. I knew it because I’d seen better on TV and movie screens from Disney, Warner Bros, and other places. To say that kids can’t discern the difference between this tripe and something on the level of a “Toy Story” movie is disingenuous at best, and outright insulting at worst.

    “I do love this site, but must admit feeling a little tired at the constant flow of vitriol at studio projects.”

    Yes, because “How To Train Your Dragon,” “Toy Story 3,” “Megamind,” and “Despicable Me,” all of which received favorable treatment here, are actually the products of small troupes of elves living in yurts somewhere in the mountains of Estonia.

    Crap is crap. Whether that crap comes from major studios or indy operations is unimportant. If the majors produce the most films, then it’s reasonable to say that they produce the most crap. It’s not bias, it’s percentages.

    “I’m not defending the film per se, but to tear it down based on some short clips in a trailer and every piece of promotional art is silly to me. ”

    What is the purpose of marketing? To sell you what they have. The trailers and posters are meant to be good examples of what you will see and hear, as well as how everyone acts and moves. That this is the best they could do for the movie means that they’ve got some pretty sad material on their hands.

    (Unless this is all a diversion, because the REAL movie will actually be hand animated by Pixar & Dreamworks’ finest talent in a secret chamber under a volcano base in Mexico!)

    Examples of publicity that make you WANT to see a film: “TRON: Legacy.” If you’re a fan of the original movie, then saw those trailers or posters and didn’t get excited, you are far more jaded than Jerry & Amid will ever be. The trailers for “Despicable Me” made me interested enough to give the film a chance. And up until a week before release, when I saw the trailer for the first time, I couldn’t tell you “Inception” from indigestion. But I went. Why? Because the trailers didn’t look like the the film was going to suck wind.

    “I would also like to remind you that all the original Yogi stuff still exists and still bears all the hallmarks of their creators skills as film makers.”

    But nobody unfamiliar with it is going to seek it out because the only exposure they have is this cruddy piece of snail snot. “You wanna watch these old Yogi Bear shorts?” “Nah, that movie was lousy!” Who knows, if the film makes some money there might be a bit of interest in the old stuff. I wouldn’t make any bets on it.

    “But there’s a side note here about the (weird) developing trend towards pro-furry marketing in mainstream films.”

    Because if it has funny animals in it, it HAS to be for furries? Dude, I _am_ a furry, and while there’s a few folks in our fandom that think as you suggest, they are treated by the bulk of us the same way Star Trek fans treat someone who reports to jury duty in a Starfleet uniform. :facepalm:

    (This is not to say there will be no Rule 34 on this thing. But you’re going to get that with just about anything mass media that you care to name. Yeah, even Glen Beck. Deal with it.)

    There have been plenty of times when an article here hasn’t made sense being here, like the discussion of that blogger’s critique of the Ottawa fest, but holding a studio’s feet to the fire for producing animated drivel (or drivel based on previously animated creations) is right in the sweet spot for what this place is all about.

    • James E. Parten

      It has been implied that today’s kids do not have the opportunities that Tony or I or Chuckles had to compare what is running on TV with the better stuff that ran before.

      It does not have to be that way.

      Chuckles visits his boss’s family every Friday, and comes armed to the teeth with video of all the oldies-and-goodies in the animation field. He has introduced these kids (and some of their relatives) to classic Disney, Warner Bros., M-G-M, and other animation.

      Of late, these kids have become quite fond of the best of the old “Mighty Mouse” shorts that Chuckles has shown them. Last week, he ran them (at their own request) “Goons From The Moon”, then led from that into a Popeye cartoon, “Rocket to Mars”. The kids were mightily impressed. This changed their minds about the one-eyed spinach eater, whom that had thought of as “only for babies” before.

      Show them the good stuff, and even today’s kids will be able to distinguish it from the swill.

    • Andyman

      Gee, thanks for the insight. No one ever thought of that before.

  • AJ

    Why do pic-nic baskets contain so much food in yogi bear?
    Also is it just me or does yogi’s left upper arm look something like a lump or a marble in a bag.
    Finnaly I know this is a cartoon(?) but, why are they going upwards on rapids?

  • http://ramapithblog.blogspot.com David Gerstein

    As long as we’re burning up time discussing the Yogi movie—anyone notice how the previews tell us nothing about the greater story of the movie? You’d think it was just 90 minutes of stealing food. Why is it in Warner Marketing’s interest to make the movie seem that simple? Amazingly, it’s not because they’re dumb.

    Jump over to the official website, and you see that the otherwise-unmentioned plot is about the Mayor shutting down Jellystone Park to sell the land. “That means families will no longer be able to experience the natural beauty of the outdoors.” Sure, it means trouble for Yogi too, but the preachy side of the message comes first, so we can presume it’s all over the story. This is supposed to appeal to kids how, exactly? (Never mind whether it’s remotely realistic that a mayor could shut down a national park.)

    While we catfight here about the look and sound of the character models, we’re obscuring the fact that Warner Bros. Pictures saw fit to saddle this movie with a plot that has Marketing running scared. Knowing exactly as much (or as little) as any of us outsiders do, I’ll speculate that better character designs and voices wouldn’t do much to help.

    Look beyond Yogi’s black CGI lips and you’ll see internal political turmoil at Warner. Frankly, that’s the far more interesting side of this story.

  • http://www.classicparamountcartoons.blogspot.com ParamountCartoons

    man, it’s getting closer. I decided to skip “Megamind” when my sibling sees it, so I probably don’t want to see ‘farting’ “Yogi Bear”. Man, those “Whorner Brothers”, can they leave our favorite properties alone?

    And oh, by the way, the idea I mentioned in the Pepe Le Pew post that I talked about is already sent to a producer and is pending as either being greenlit or rejected, or to use as a film camp concept. I’m aiming to hope that it will be a real Hollywood production, but I’m sometimes not counting on it. And if it takes too much time given the life I have, I have some backup ideas or usages of the original idea.

  • http://rutherferdpaws.blogspot.com Luke Brown

    Heh, that’s funny, you imply that this film will be fun.

    And yes, we can tear this film apart if we want to. If I’ve seen nothing appealing about it now, what makes me think that any aspect of this film will be the least bit entertaining?

  • http://www.accidentalcentaurs.com John Lotshaw

    “Is there enough hate left for a third poster of Yogi Bear? ”

    I think so. Lemme look around and see what I can scrounge up.

    • Funkybat

      When it comes to these kinds of atrocious movies, hatred is a “renewable resource.”

  • Charles

    This 3D animation schlock never ends. LOL You gotta love it! And this too shall pass…but not soon enough.

  • Martin Juneau

    Did they have a limit to showed pictures in 3D? It’s not as fun or fascinating than before. And i don’t want to see a 90-minutes movie with ugly bear suits who try to be official cartoons characters. Sadly, it comes it’s a official poster even as a terrible one.

  • Damon

    The more I see from this film the more I will stay away.

  • Andyman

    I’ll see this. It’s going to be light-years better than “Hey There, It’s Yogi Bear”

  • http://highlyrecommended.blogspot.com Satorical

    It’s a zero-sum game. Pouring dollars into drivel means something good goes begging.

    So yeah, I’ll muster up as much hate for unadulterated pap as needed.

  • Mick Collins

    I’m in full agreement with Roberto’s comment on 11/5 that the scripts for these things are usually pretty lousy, and like Roberto there’s a lot of bad animation I would be willing to let slide if the writing were better. I’m fairly certain the script for this movie will be terrible, and THAT is the reason I won’t be seeing this film.