crood-promo crood-promo
Feature Film

New CROODS trailer – #2

Dreamworks’ The Croods will hit U.S. theaters March 22nd, 2013. Here’s the latest look. What do you think?

  • Matthew Koh

    Do you find out that the film is really ‘symbolic’?
    Well I do.

    • Pedro Nakama

      Yes. The Croods lose their home just like many have. When they apply for a new loan the bankers just punch them around while the financial world is crumbling around them. Yeah, I saw it too.

  • Blues

    The idea of a prehistoric family road trip is totally intriguing! However there’s something very unnerving about the facial designs/animations for these characters in a kind of uncanny valley sort of way. Could be that the voices just don’t match the designs.

    Still, it’s worth the price of admission just to be able to experience Chris Sanders’ magical bestiary.

    • wever

      The designs are obviously trying to mimic how neanderthals looked like then, but of course, they were, by our standards, pretty ugly to begin with.

      • Sarah J

        I don’t think they’re supposed to be Neanderthals. Neanderthals had a thicker body structure, a more prominent brow, and lived in Europe, not near jungles. Maybe I’m overthinking it.

        • ExF

          You are over thinking it.

          They are Neanderthals, the Guy character is Cro Magnon which is why he … looks like a reg person for the most part.

          • Put a neanderthal in a suit and tie and put him or her on a bus and the most folks would wonder is what country he/she was from…

          • Sarah J

            Pff. If they’re supposed to be Neanderthals, the character designers should’ve done a better job at making them look like Neanderthals.

      • Knuckle dragging & no knowledge of fire? Not many Anthropology dropouts working for Dreamworks ;)

  • Zekumi

    Looks good to me! Trailer has a few funny moments, it would be the first time I’ve watched a movie about cave people, and it doesn’t seem to be a rip off a of a Disney concept.
    Although I will say the elder daughter looks rather like an uglier, dirty version of Merida.

  • Nic

    This movie looks absolutely beautiful. Very excited :)!

  • Sarah J

    Huh. Interestingly enough, I actually like this trailer better. Which is weird because most of time I prefer the “serious” trailers over the more comedic, goofy ones. Probably like this trailer better because there are some really funny jokes without it completely overtaking other parts of the plot. It does a good job of telling me what the movie’s about and shows that there’s something at stake, and that the movie is more than just a journey to safety for the characters but also an opportunity for them to learn about new things.

    Granted, I think some of the character designs on the humans could be better, particularly the faces, though I imagine it would be tough to do cavemen characters who look rugged and dirty while still having a nice design. The animals are pretty creative. And personally, I love seeing movies with prehistoric or prehistoric-esque settings, so I’m probably looking forward to this movie more than I normally would be.

    • Sarah J

      Though to add on to my comments about character design, I DO like how the main girl doesn’t look all dainty like most female protagonists. (including animated ones) Variety is always nice, and I like being able to tell characters apart.

      • I think thier work on Princess Fionna’s Ogre form really helped them think outside the box to figure out how to add appeal without making the female a supermodel.

    • Bobobo

      The character designs look kinda interesting, although not everyone likes this style. I heard that Carter Goodrich did some of the character designs for this movie.

      • Sarah J

        Eh, yeah. I’m not too big on the character designs but I can’t exactly say WHY.

    • Sarah J

      Okay, thinking about it more and reading other people’s comments… I think the problem is just that the character designs in the concept art were not the types that translate well to a CGI cartoon. In the traditionally drawn concept art, the character designs looked really nice.

  • Mac

    The creatures look really cool, but the ‘specialness’ of the visual worlds within so many American animated features is spoiled by the characters sounding and behaving like lame American sitcom characters (with added ‘tude). This time it’s cave people, but whether it’s Ancient China, Gods of Ancient Greece, British wildlife in the English countryside or European fairytale characters, it’s usually the same thing.

    • You have a point there, but the old addage “write what you know” applies here, and if you’re an American, the mentality that many Americans take for granted (i.e. freedom is a good in itself, family tradition should take a backseat when a person’s individuality, talents and aspirations are being hindered) is going to be something you draw from without even noticing it.

  • To be honest the first trailer did nothing to pique my interest in this movie, but this one has.

  • ExF

    Loving this new trailer!
    Humor also seems on point most of the time.

  • Trent

    The thumbnail for the trailer is terrifying, I almost didn’t click it…

    • Matthew Koh

      Dude, never judge a book by it’s cover.

      • M. Danby

        Yes, but often the cover perfectly summarizes the book. Case in point..

        Ugh.. I won’t be financing this movie at the box office.

    • J

      I know, I love it because of this. She isn’t the average Disney princess whatsoever, but she still manages to be adorable, even in being imperfect. I love it!

  • Aaron B.

    Visually, this should be pretty exquisite. I don’t know if I’m feelin’ the transparent sub-stories about girl-finds-boy-during-family-road-trip and so forth… but I suppose that’s low-hanging fruit.

  • Federico Etchegaray

    I hope this turns out like “How to train your dragon” did, a welcomed surprise.

  • jim

    Does not look good. Ugly characters

    • Doug

      Yeah, ugly. No appeal to me. The look of the main female is like the Shrek princess (can’t recall her name, like that matters).

      Story is more blah blah blah.

  • Mike

    I think I would like this better if I didn’t get such an ‘Ice Age’ vibe from the setting, characters and humor. Granted, this puppy easily beats those for visuals, but just from what I’ve seen here I’d say they have better character designs and animation.

    At any rate, I’ll surely be keeping an eye on this one.

  • I quite like the look at feel of it, I just wish the voice acting was more inspired. As someone else already mentioned, why do we have to have the same old LA douche bag accents in every animated picture, regardless of the context? Nicky Cage is so flat. What happened to voices that looked like they matched the persona’s of the characters?

    • Tim

      Agreed. Neanderthals, like Vikings, should have Scottish accents.

    • Jeff Epp

      COULDN’T AGREE MORE. nick cage (notice the small letters) is the worst, he has no vocal cadence whatsoever. Although, I see the connection of an acting Neanderthal to play a Neanderthal. Bummer it had to be him, as I’m sure the Geico caveman could use some work….Missing some of those unique voices they had in the 40s, & 50s.

  • Matt Sullivan

    Looks great! Still not sure about Nic Cage’s voice, but if you’re gonna pick someone to be crazy, I suppose it works.

  • Joseph

    Hmm some of the facial animation looks a bit odd, and the lighting looks a bit off in places, but it seems like a fun movie.

  • Dave

    Am I the only one who thinks the character models are awful? The faces have no construction, they look like CG blobs. There is no eye direction and the characters are incredibly unappealing. It looks like a bad student film.

    BGs and environments are nice though.

    • If you’d read the comments above, I’m sure you’d realize that you aren’t “the only one who thinks the character models are awful”

  • davo

    Hmm, dysfunctional prehistoric family unit goes on journey because of impending global disaster, well at least i have seen that film 4 times already!
    Angsty teenage redhead daughter escaping parents by climbing up cliff face…not seen that one either.
    Comedy moment where a group of small, cute (possibly dangerous) local animals surround our protagonists and hilarity ensues as a means of communication needs to be figured out because, strangely, they don’t also speak American-English.

    Forgive me for being pessimistic, but for $150m and x amount of years in development, i hope for a bit better.

    The most appealing aspect to this film were Chris Sanders’ character designs, which don’t really seem to be present. Even the sabre-tooth design seems to have been watered down. Just because they’re cavemen doesn’t mean they can’t be appealing to look at at. Disney have been making some really appealing characters recently, Dreamworks are lagging behind.

    Oh, and Nic Cage….

    • wever

      Funny you mention that. Chris Sander is a REPLACEMENT director. It would make perfect sense that his designs only had a small influence on the final version.

  • Glowworm

    Okay, I got some chuckles out of this trailer–in particular the tiny sloth like creature going “Dun Dun Dun!” I’m still unsure about whether this is something I want to see or not.

    Then again, I was that same way with “How to Train Your Dragon” until my boyfriend who saw it and loved it, took me to fall in love with it as well.

  • I watched this a few times, and I’m thinking that the problem with the look of the human characters for me is that they aren’t quite ugly, they aren’t pretty… They are in that inbetween space… I get the feeling that if these were 2d animated characters they would have more appeal, but the flatness of the girls face in particular where it turns to the side of the face, feels weird as well as her shoulder width… The rest of it is absolutely stunning…

    • Sarah J

      Ah, I think that’s what it is! The concept art we saw looked great, but I guess this is an example of the character designs not translating well to 3D CGI.

    • maybelle

      Pretty sure it’s the lighting. Those gray shadows make everyone look just sort of dirty. When you’ve got more human-like characters, if the flesh isn’t somewhat radiant and translucent (there’s a reason why people would make wax figures of celebrities in earlier centuries), it really shows. Easier to make a nice 2d design feel off putting in cg.

  • Dustin

    Do they really need to enunciate like it’s the 21st century? The effects (lighting in particular) blow me away. The voice acting and character design make me cringe.

  • Definitely doesn’t look anything like brave. Didn’t really think it would. If anything it has a Ice Age type feel to it from this trailer. Though from the trailer I get a wittier more artistic feel to it. I’m very excited to see this movie and definitely not expecting it to be anything like how to train your dragon. (Because I will be let down)

  • Sarah J

    I just remembered, The Croods will be the first DreamWorks film in a few years that isn’t a sequel or adaptation. (the last original one was MegaMind in 2010) That’s really where a big part of my interest in this film comes from, while I’ll almost certainly shell out money to go see the next How To Train Your Dragon or Kung Fu Panda sequel, it is very nice to see an animated movie that isn’t an adaptation or sequel of anything. Feels like those are becoming a bit rarer lately.

    • wever

      Rise of the Guardians.

      • Mike

        ….is an adaptation of a William Joyce book series.

  • Polecat

    Well, looks more scientificallly accurate than “Ice Age”, I’ll give it that. (First came the mammoths, then the dinosaurs? What gives?)

    The girl’s voice sounds familiar. Anybody know who she is?

    • wever

      Emma Stone from Superbad, Easy A, The Amazing Spider-Man. and The Help.

      • Polecat

        No kidding! Well, at least it’s got that going for it.

  • Somehow I sense that Granny eventually pulls everyone’s fat out of the fire.

  • Jackson

    So relentlessly unappealing on many levels. I know it’s just a trailer, but honestly, it’s hard to tell who they’re trying to sell this to. I’m sure kids will like it as much as they do Rise of the Guardians, though.

  • damnit, here’s a film that’s a mashup of brave, ice-age 3, and ice-age 4. Eeep=merida. The grandmum is sid’s grandmum from ice-age. End of the world, ice age. So cliche and disappointing. :(

    • Sarah J

      I’m not really getting why everyone thinks that Eep is a rip-off of Merida. The whole “rebellious teenage girl who wants adventure” thing is a commonly used trope. If Eep takes up archery and has to deal with her parents trying to force her to marry someone, then I’ll understand the comparisons.

  • Benjamin Arthur

    I think this will be that kind of forgettable family fare that dreamworks excels at. I wish they spent more time on character development and less time on cute, joke ridden scenes that are appealing but are ultimately meaningless. So much is predictable and safe and rehashed from other movies. She’s a rebel, but will ultimately have to make a choice, the father hates his mother-in-law, is bumbling but will turn out to have some wisdom he imparts to his daughter in a short emotional scene just before the insane chase sequences that will move the plot along to its ultimate conclusion. I always hope movies like this exceed my expectations in the theater, and I would love dreamworks to continue to surprise me like they did with Dragons, but the sheer amount of jokes and goofy moments in this trailer undermine my interest in the overall story.

    • M. Danby

      I agreed with you right up until you extolled ‘How To Train Your Dragon.’ I forced myself to watch that movie, end-to-end, and I can’t for the life of me fathom how anybody finds that movie anything other than abysmal. The character design was awful, the story trite, and overall art design lackluster. Just what the heck is it that you Dragon lovers love so much about that stinker of a movie?!?

  • Andrew Kieswetter

    It looks great. I’m wishing that Dreamworks doesn’t give away everything in the trailers. Let there be a few things we won’t discover until we actually see the movie.

  • Tredlow

    Huh, Dreamworks is increasingly becoming more interesting each movie these days. Wonder how long before they jump into another sequel-hole?

  • Alina Quiñones

    I like this trailer waaaay better than the first one. After this trailer, I’m more inclined to watching this movie.

    I hate the character designs, but then again, I feel like if they made them any other way, people would STILL be complaining. The world they’re in seems pretty fun, though!

  • Mic

    DreamWorks is producing more interesting films!!! Pixar, are you hearing this?

    • wever

      Pixar produces TWO duds out of the OTHER 9 CONSISTENTLY SUCCESSFUL movies in a row, and they’re suddenly bad?

      • It’s the culture we live in. Nathan Barley is alive and well

      • M. Danby

        It’s not just two duds, I’d say at least three now. On top of those three duds, it’s accelerating evolution of the studio away from creating art toward milking past successes.

        I would also argue that if strip away the technological magic of Pixar and focus on the stories of their films, that all but maybe five of them are actually pretty bad.

    • Bud

      Uh…no. Prince of Egypt, Eldorado, Sinbad, that horse cartoon, bee movie, shark tale, puss and boots, over the hedge–none of which made their money back and are ugly.

      • Sarah J

        What are you talking about? I know very well that The Prince of Egypt and Puss in Boots were quite successful, Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron (the horse movie) making less but still being successful (which I imagine had less to do with the visuals and more to do with it being much quieter and less comedic than most theater-released animated films. A lot of parents prefer to take their kids to movies that are louder and bouncier and more colorful). Over the Hedge (granted, it didn’t have a huge budget in the first place) was fairly successful. Sinbad wasn’t a huge hit but it made a little profit. The only movie you listed that lost money was The Road to El Dorado, and that probably had less to do with visuals and more to do with the movie being kind of boring. (though maybe it could’ve used better marketing as well. The film does seem to have a bit of a cult following, though)

        Just as well, I think the whole “DREAMWORKS VS. PIXAR” thing is a little… Dumb. There’s nothing wrong with comparing them, but just because I think Pixar is good doesn’t mean I think Dreamworks is bad, and just because I love some Dreamworks movies doesn’t mean I think Pixar is bad. Both studios have strong films, and I like that both studios like to take risks, though I admit that one thing Pixar has over Dreamworks is that they’re more CONSISTENTLY good. Most Pixar movies are good to great, (with only one truly bad movies) while Dreamworks has a lot of movies in the mediocre range with only a few to truly call great. (though they don’t have many movies that are outright terrible, I can give ’em that)

      • Sarah J

        It seems I forgot to mention Bee Movie, which was also successful. Though I will agree that that movie was pretty ugly along with being bad, still, it disproves your assertion that ugly movies always or often lose money. Box office gross is not always an indicator of quality. Shark Tale, probably the worst DreamWorks movie, did well at the box office.

        • Bud

          The cost vs. net returns of those films mentioned above render them money losers. The very high production quality of those films isn’t in question. The box office figures and costs are just facts.

        • Polecat

          That’s funny, I thought Shark Tale came and went like a comet. But maybe I’m misremembering.

  • I’ll watch this, if only for the falling elephant in the distance (poor guy).

    • Glowworm

      That damn elephant–or mammoth made me laugh so hard. I still think it was the noise it made.

  • Joa

    Still not liking it

    • M. Danby

      In all fairness, I would watch that movie but I would have to be well compensated for my time. I’m thinking that I’d watch it if the studio paid me $20.

  • They’ve done something here. I thought this looked so much better than the first trailer. The falling elephant won me entirely

  • Mr. James

    This trailer won me over as far as going to the theatre to see it. I was on the fence after the teaser trailer was released but this one pushed into a seat and stole my ticket money. The sloth character (is his name belt?) gave me a true laugh.
    People have been mentioning the voices and I completely agree with the sentiment that they’re just off. Particularly Cage’s voice. One of the first things that I wish they had tested with the voice actors was to put some funky prosthetic teeth in their mouth and let them try and read some lines. The characters’ features look funky and harsh and in all of their mouths are messed up dental work. I think all actors would agree that the more prosthetics/costumes you place on them the more they can get into their characters. So, a sterile recording booth with little more than a few artists’ renderings of the character they’re portraying doesn’t give them much to work with. I’m not faulting the actors in this regard but the individuals that directed/handled their voice recordings.
    Anyone else agree?

    • wever

      Honestly, an entire cast of cavemen speaking like Elmer Fudd with his mouth stuck in a toilet paper tube would be hilarious, and would certainly be more risky than normal voices.

  • Fox Heres

    Nick Cage + caveman = Nick Cave?

    • axolotl

      I’d like to see Nick Cave as the dad, hee hee. He’s got the right voice…and eyebrows…

  • HB

    With each new piece of publicity I’ve grown less and less interested in seeing this. The designs are trying too hard to be realistic, while being stylized at the same time. The dirt on their faces and the fur of their clothing is way too detailed and rendered. The trailer is full of predictable and boring jokes and story, and the voices are awful. That sloth is just the cherry on top of the poop sundae.

    I wonder what Dean Deblois is working on?

  • Ryan

    I would have to agree. The visuals look good/interesting, but the voice casting sounds really disappointing. Nicolas Cage was once so funny, but now he just sounds bored and like he’s phoning things in. Too bad. When he was in “Honeymoon in Vegas” and “Raising Arizona,” he was so good!

    • Polecat

      I could be wrong, but I think I heard that he’s having financial problems.

  • Cartoonnetwork

    I love Chris Sanders’ concepts and I loved Lilo and Stitch for its story , the animation, colors and the look of Stitch. I’ve never been a huge fan of the way he designs humans, though. I like his drawings because they are different, and his line and sense of coloring is fantastic but the human faces have never been too appealing to me at first watch. Then, with the animation and the personality, the characters become more likeable.

    Lilo is cute, but I didn’t get that so much from the desing but mostly for the animation and personality, while Stitch is a fantastic character design, which also happens to be well animated and have a fun personality.

    If you add CGI to the mix the human characters look even more weird. The humans in How To Train Your Dragon looked odd in the still pictures, but they were more interesting in motion. Still a little distracting, but mostly good.

    I think it will happen the same thing here.

    And well, I generally think this movie will be entertaining. The personalities of the characters, the moral of the story or the jokes doesn’t look extremely original, but the world , except for some Avatar resemblances, look different and the plot, while simmilar to the Ice Age franchise, looks more adventurous and plot-focused. It should be fun and maybe even great. I’m not anticipating it with excitement but I’m pretty interested in it.

    And yeah, I also think there should be some animated pictures in which the voices-and vocabulary- were more adequate to the time depicted in them. It’s something life action movies usually do but animation rarely does. Maybe it’s not so important if you’re trying to make a comedy, though.

  • Nick Name

    Looks like cute fluff. Nothing especially new or original, but pretty colors and nice animation.

  • Nick Nerdlinger

    Okay, I laughed out loud at the “shoes” gag. Might be fun for some “Ice Age”-level family entertainment.

  • J

    I feel like a lot of people in here are letting past, unrelated disappointments colour their view of something from a reputed director and creative studio. As of right now, purely in a statistical way, the odds this will be good are greater than it being bad.

    I think the unique character designs are fresh and much more welcome than the same flawless unrelatable doll-like characters many other films have. With the style this film is going for, the characters seem to fit in just fine, with just enough contrast to sell the idea that they’re not from around there.

    There have been a lot of announced movies I’ve been wary of, so seeing a new IP that isn’t a sequel, isn’t based on a book, and is from someone I trust to make a heartfelt story and a studio I trust to make beautiful animation(especially after the fantastic acting that stood out in RotG, and HTTYD), I’m really optimistic. Cheer up guys!

    • Kyle Maloney

      The designs aren’t bad because they deviate from the norm, their bad, imo, because Chris Sanders distinct style is barely present at all. It looks completely toned down from his hand drawn design of the same characters.

  • I love that giant scary kitten, let’s get that guy a development deal.

  • I really like the characters and the design…I did NOT like the trailer

  • Seeso 2D

    Character design as bad as Shrek… don’t like it.