“Yogi Bear” trailer #2 “Yogi Bear” trailer #2
Feature Film

“Yogi Bear” trailer #2

And you thought it couldn’t get worse…

  • Yogi Berra

    My only thing is that I hope that kids will now watch the old episodes of Yogi Bear when this piece of crap gets released. I hope.

    • Scarabim

      Why would you hope that? The cartoon wasn’t very good to begin with. I doubt it’s aged well.

      • Spencer

        The old ones are better than this bullcrap.

      • Stephan

        I dunno. The old ones were pretty aggresively bad. Well drawn though.

      • Here’s the thing: From what I’ve seen this actually DOES look like a fairly competent live-action take on one of the old Hanna-Barbera Yogi cartoons. And I actually liked a lot of those. BUT, keep in mind: Those cartoons were 6 minutes long. THIS… oy.

      • Rooniman

        The old cartoons were never bad. They just had a low budget.

      • John English

        The old ones are classics! This…well hopefully its not as bad as it looks like it might be.

  • Couldn’t watch it all the way through, had to stop at the dancing part. I was reminded of that bit in Don Hertzfeldt “Rejected” with the bleeding eyes…

  • Chris Sobieniak

    Just noticed Yogi’s sporting five fingers, we’re doomed!

  • “Meet” Yogi?

  • Jesus, God no please make it stop… Think of my happy place, THINK OF MY HAPPY PLACE!

  • Gobo

    I will say this: bizarrely, the voices are perfect. I still can’t believe that’s Justin Timberlake.

    • I was thinking exactly the same. They’ve nailed the voices which is a bit of a shock especially considering Booboo is being played by Timberlake.

      Either way this is no better or worse than the Chipmunks films and all those other revivals like this in recent memeory. TBH I think the Smurfs film may be even worse.

      • Tee

        Justin Timberlake continues to impress. Not only is the voice perfect, but the acting seems to work too. I wonder if this was “sweetened” or pitched to make it more Boo Boo- like?

      • BJ Wanlund

        I’m being optimistic about the Yogi Bear movie, perhaps even overly so.

        I have to say, however, that they actually are NAILING the characters, not just in voice, but in mannerisms and in how the characters act and behave.

        Honestly, if you’re going to reboot the Yogi Bear franchise, at least give it the respect it deserves. And, much as it pains me to say it, I think Warner Brothers actually NAILED it on this front.

        I actually have hope for future H-B rereleases from WB, because they really understand that people will go because of the name, not because of how many bodily function jokes they can pack in.

        The GODAWFUL Marmaduke movie from THIS YEAR is what NOT to do with a known licensed property. What they did is they used the name of the infamous comic strip featuring Marmaduke and made Beverly Hills Great Dane, except with more bodily function jokes than Shrek. I’m still very bitter and very mad that Marmaduke wasn’t treated with the respect that the property deserves.

        Same with Alvin & The Chipmunks. While yes, Alvin and his friends DO use the popular songs of the day, they did not do right by the legions of Alvin fans by redesigning the Chipmunks AND the Chipettes to be more “hip” and more “now” instead of keeping their costume designs constant. I’m sure the real-life Dave Seville is rolling in his grave right now.

        If we can derive anything from this “controversy” (and I put it in quotes because it’s basically longtime Yogi fans feeling like they got ripped off and pushed aside for the buck$$$). I’m a Yogi fan myself, but I have to say, the mannerisms, the acting, and the voices are, if not spot-on, really, REALLY close if looking at it from the perspective of someone who’s known of and about Yogi for years and is not bringing anything negative to the table.


      • Chris Sobieniak

        In some way, I guess we should be thankful the film is at least about two bears causing mischief in a national park, and there’s a ranger who tries his best to lick the problem, and the bears talk and that’s about it. It’s nothing like what happened in Marmaduke or perhaps Underdog where film is simply using the name and not acknowledge the original source material it was based on.

    • Spencer

      Justin good. Akkroyd is trying too hard.

  • Wayne

    That fur looks so dirt-filled.

  • Gee, once again I’ll say that I thought this looks and sounds pretty good. I grew up with Yogi Bear too (I was born in 1963) and this pretty much lines up with my memories of the show, except that now the characters are rendered in detailed 3D graphics.

    I, for one, am impressed by what I’ve seen so far. I honestly don’t quite understand the hostility towards what’s been shown in the preview. Is it that the characters are rendered in 3D now? Is it that they should have remained in 2D? Should they not have bothered mixing live action and animation? Are Yogi and BooBoo out of character? Should the film-makers not have bothered and left you all with your fond, childhood memories?

    Honestly, I’m stumped.


    • I think the main problem is that this looks like another ‘film by numbers’ (insert dance number here, cue moralistic message etc) using a character with a history (marketing department?) when ANY character could be used…. couple that with the design which is pretty tired, creepy and misguided in my opinion. Compare this to mosters inc where they made actually monsters attractive. With Yogi there is nothing to gained by his uncute appearance and this can only be attributed by some clueless management. The ‘real’ claws and dirty foot pads are an example of attention to the wrong details.

      It would appear that with each new release of this sort the designers are told to remove more charm than they can attach…
      it doesn’t bother me either way as i am banned from the local cinema after knocking my pipe out of the usherette’s hip and eating my saurkraut in an unconventional fashion

    • Bill

      My problem is their attempt at realism on a flat Saturday Morning Cartoon, making him 3D? Fine, real fur, mouth, and eyes? Just go stop motion you idiots! Its more real because you use real stuff!

      Then theres the fact that Yogi, Booboo, and Smith were created for Saturday morning short, putting them on big screen with some cliche story might not work with them.

    • Scarabim

      I have little love for 2D characters being translated into 3D, but that’s not the issue here. It’s that the trailer is so groaningly awful, that the animation is singularly unconvincing (the bears don’t look like they’re part of the environment, but pasted on; they have no “presence”, to put it in actor parlance), and that a sub-par cartoon from the Fifties is getting the big screen treatment at all. Why make movies about BAD characters? Yeah, yeah, the Chipmunks – look: the original Alvin show was loads funnier than Yogi Bear ever was, and anyway, the chipmunks have a natural kids’ appeal, with their high-voiced fuzziness and all. Not so Yogi. Or even Boo Boo. Who’s next, Hokey Wolf and Ding-a-Ling? Quick Draw McGraw? Oh that’d be something – a bipedal talking horse interacting with cowboys and REAL horses. Sheesh. What a horrifying image. I wish I hadn’t gone there, and I hope to hell movie producers follow suit.

      • Dave

        Oh, I don’t know. A computer-animated horse/man hybrid smashing people over the head with a guitar (KABONGGGGGGG!) actually sounds pretty fun.

    • Gobo

      I’m with you, Pierre. Besides looking pretty great visually and sounding eerily like the original, it doesn’t feel far off from the original cartoon. Do folks really have fond memories of the *cough* brilliant writing of the original show?

      • John A

        Some of the writing was brilliant.The first few yers of Yogi Bear were written by former Warners writers Warren Foster and Mike Maltese. Their contributions to Hanna and Barbera’s early TV work is one of the few reasons we remember these characters at all.

  • holyduck

    It is my vow to put off seeing ANY footage of the Yogi Bear film as possible, and so far, I have succeeded. Stills are okay, which is why I can view this post.

  • Mr. James

    I guess some of my beef with is with the little details in the characters. I mean does Yogi’s tie REALLY need to have a pattern on it? Why not just make it out of a solid green material. Why go to the trouble of putting a pattern on it? Seems like it was extra fluff to make it seem “more real” when in reality he’s a cartoon that never SHOULD have been made into a 3D character.

    On a positive note I am impressed by the voices.

  • oddly enough, this is FAR better than i imagined. At least they’re stealing picnic baskets…? And the voices are ok, I was expecting yogi to be voiced by ice T… But I think I hold other things to the lens of how painful the rocky and bullwinkle movie was for me [though at least that had some drawing in it].

    Now please excuse me while I cry out my childhood.

  • Wow, Dan Ackroyd’s Yogi sounds a lot better than it did in the last trailer. Yogi and Booboo seem to actually have pretty accurate voices despite the casting choices. That was my biggest problem with the movie, along with the designs. The whole “Meet Yogi” bit really bugs me, for obvious reasons, but on the whole this is looking a bit better than it was before. At least it’s a fun memorable character, which automatically makes it more enjoyable than most cookie-cutter 3D movies.

  • Bob

    Why do all of these films have a puerile, crippling, rancid rock score?

    That asked, it seems no more wretched than other films of this kidney.

  • Mark

    Awful trailer.

    But anyone who thinks the original “yogi bear” was anything but “by the numbers” is fooling themselves. It was a very run of the mill show, with occasionally some nice artwork in it. But it was still very run of the mill. Every episode is the same thing.
    I grew up with the show, and enjoyed it as a kid. But kids today grew up with the Gary Coleman cartoon show and have fond memories of THAT.

    In either case, it doesn’t make them great.

    And it certainly doesn’t make me want to see this movie.

    Where was the animation done? India? I doubt it. Doesn’t look that good.

  • uncle wayne

    I was born in ’53, and was (& am) an AVID fan of these films. To make Yogi an out-and-out Dangerfield impersonation (rather than the real thing) is disdainful! I may think twice to watch it….even when it comes on FREE tv!!!

    • Tee

      To be fair, he was an Art Carney as Ed Norton impersonation to begin with. Hat and all.

  • killskerry

    Theres really no need to say how bad this is at this point. I mean we all watched the same trailer. I agree with many of you that a huge part of the explicit…awfulness of this movie is due to the way they decided to market it. But really its no different then the way they market..oh..just about EVERY kids movie you can think of. The hip edgy approach.

    I do want to say that I thought Yogi was a more believable Character when he flew the Spruce Goose, was cloned by aliens,raced a rocket ship in space and celebrated Christmas with Santa and Casper the Friendly Ghost. At least in those movies/tv specials he actually looked like he belonged in his environment, no matter how ridiculous the story premise was. Here he is simply existing in Jellystone park and he looks…off like a weird hologram that isn’t there at all.

    I hope someday they do another movie/tv special all animated version with Justin Timberlake as the voice of Booboo because that is about the only good thing that came out of this big sloppy mess.

    Man…He flew the HELL out of that Spruce Goose.

  • Sam

    I don’t think this is as bad as everyone think. I thought Yogi is kind of cute here with Boo Boo.

  • Diego

    I can’t help thinking that the beef that CB has with this film is personal. I agree that it is yet another formulaic, overly detailed CG adaptation of a cartoon that relies entirely on nostalgia to attract audiences. My question is… why pick on this particular movie so much when there is so much other crap being made out there that follows the same rules. Transformers, for one, made me want to take Michael Bay and fold him up into the shape of a VW beetle. What saddens me about today is that, because these movies are getting so expensive to make, the risk-taking has dropped to a minimum and nostalgia seems to be the silver bullet that saves any piece of crap movie that would otherwise flop. I celebrate studios like Pixar that are constantly coming up with new characters and stories. I say, leave the old characters alone. They’ve served their purpose. Let’s move on.

  • udx


    …..I don’t get it. And this is coming from someone who have seen the original Yogi Bear. Also, my biggest disappointment? Lack of Cindy Bear.

    • Chris Sobieniak

      Certainly would’ve helped (not sure if I want to see a CGI Cindy myself, but if they’ve already worked wonders on the other two bears, who’s to say they couldn’t stop there.

  • that little bit at the end abotu boo boo not wanting yogi to jump over him made me giggle….

    Im honestly, and oddly, not having as much of a problem with yogi and boo boo visually anymore. I guess if they have to be cartoon characters put unnaturally into a real setting, this is the way to go. and alot of the animation aint bad – like when yogi adjusts his hat before saying “im so smart, it hurts!”

    BIG problem im having is – both these trailers are pretty much showing that SAME SCENES. just different scenarios of yogi and boo boo talking and doing certain things and weve only seen like 2 minutes of ranger smith or other people. There is no other hint of yogi interacting with other people! what is this movie about??

    this means that either 1) there’s awesome stuff ahead and they are saving it for the show or 2) this movie really has no story or substance and we have seen the best parts.
    kinda sucks, cause with a good fun story and some funny writing, i dont see why this couldnt be a funny movie

  • @ udx:

    If this is sucessful, more than likely she’ll show up in the sequel……

  • I guess it would’ve been too much to ask if there wasn’t a single flatulence joke in the movie, but you know how much them kids love fartin’ bears.

  • Hi my dad is getting me write this comment because I am so excited for this movie. I think it looks really funny and awesome and I love when Yogi’s mouth goes to the side expression. Oh yeah my dad has old Yogi comics and dvds he let’s me read and watch and this is even better I think. I’m 10 years old. :)

  • Haters are gonna hate. This looks closer to the source material than anyone expected it would. Good luck with the film.

  • Katella Gate

    As for the trailer itself, even though it is mostly the same material as in the earlier version, the editing is much better and it hangs together in a way you think you’ve seen something… rather than just random “best of” clips.

    Honestly, however, the only moment in the whole thing that came close to having some spark was the very last back-and-forth: “And I’m gonna jump over BooBoo” “No you’re not.”

    Just in those few lines, they weren’t the same, tired HB Sock puppets that bark lines at each other in mock repartee. For just that moment, it seemed that Yogi and BooBoo were really old friends, with feelings and sore spots.

    An then the moment passed and we got the Logo with the “rock” underscore.

  • Spencer

    Maybe if someone starts a boycott we can send a larger message to the studios about continuously making terrible animated films and blaspheming against our childhood heroes.

    Somebody end the madness.

  • FP

    Looks like it’s aiming for an audience which ain’t me.
    The YOGI trailers look unpleasant, so I’ll miss the movie.
    ALVIN was almost tolerable for about fifteen minutes. I couldn’t make it through the SCOOBY live-action versions, either.

  • They used the same clips again and added new ones. Only complete morons would disgunish the two trailers (though, sadly that makes me a “moron”). But still, super-complete morons would obbess over what was new on the second trailer and which edited-for-trailer shot(s) from the previous trailer moved to this time.

    If Hollywood really wants to make a bad cartoon-to-live-action movie, have Paramount Pictures remake a feature-length exentsion of some old Paramount cartoon that the general public hasn’t heard of, or was least-posted on YouTube but survives with original titles (especially a cartoon originally filmed in color), even if it’s not lost. Maybe a rarely seen Noveltoon, either pre-’50, 1962-1967 or not in “The Complete Harveytoons”. Then people won’t fuss about it. And with little publicity like no news media reports and no Cartoon Brew posts or limited trailers/release, it may be so underrated that when the AMPAS (“The Academy”) gets a lot of votes for that film after the ballot screening, it would surely win an Oscar. That way, when the publicity comes later, the lesson learned is that obscurity is all the good ideas. Then, they pay the millions to restore it, releasing it in some cheap way other than a DVD boxset- like legal downloading sites (iTunes) or with ad revune using Hulu.

    • Chris Sobieniak

      Hmmm, now why would “Chew Chew Baby” or “Finnegan’s Flea” sound interesting to adapt as a feature-length feature right now? :-)

      • “Finnegan’s Flea” IS in the Complete Harveytoons. I don’t have it on DVD, but it’s the DVD-quality ’95 “Harveytoon Show” print that’s lurking on YouTube.

  • Earl

    Man, a lot of people have tin ears, which I guess works well for the voice-cloning industry, but…

    1) Yogi Bear was not an impersonation of Art Carney. Yes, it was based on Carney, but it doesn’t really sound like him. The original was voiced by Daws Butler and if you want to hear his actual Carney impersonation, see one of “The Honeymouser” cartoons he did for Warner Bros. You’ll see that Carney and Yogi are very different.

    2) Ackroyd sounds nothing like Yogi Bear. He doesn’t have the timber or especially the rhythms of the character. Even his reading on “Smarter that the av-er-age bear” is wrong. In the end, obviously the producers didn’t care. The people like me that liked the cartoons won’t see this movie for the most part and then there are those who think Ackroyd sounds exactly like the original (as witnessed by comments above), so they’re not bothered by it.

    I think these movies get made because Hollywood is completely out of ideas. I don’t understand who the intended audience is. If it’s nostalgia, then why change it to the point of “ruining” it for those with fond memories. And if it’s intended for a new audience, why not just come up with something new? Because it’s easier to sell an existing property that already has some recognition than to start from scratch. Of course, as someone pointed out above, Pixar doesn’t seem to have any trouble selling audiences new characters. So, it’s just lazy on the parts of these other studios.

    • The Gee

      I don’t know if you or many or any one will see this, butJust so that you might know, Earl: I agree with most of what you’ve written here. I just take issue that they should feel the need to invest in nostalgia if the alternative is ruining a good property.

      Nostalgia will most likely get you a niche audience. That works for some mediums, like the Web, but not for a high budget feature. It can go far but usually only goes so far in grabbing a new audience. Maybe you or some one else could come up with recent examples in animation where that played off of nostalgia and exceeded expectations but I’m not sure I can. Maybe the mostly live action hybrid “Enchanted”? But, didn’t that riff on an entire genre of animated films?

      The Grinch movie? And, not having seen either of these I’m not sure how much they were faithful to the source material (Grinch), or respectful to previous works (Enchanted’s broad brush).

      One last thing: there’s a dang good chance that this Yogi Bear movie will have stuff for adults. There’s likely a recognition that parents will take their kids to see it. But, I do think it is too much to expect some classy Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon humor that kids will enjoy and adults will enjoy and totally get.

      It doesn’t have to be that smart to get a broad audience and unfortunately it probably needs to keep it dumb enough to get a broad audience. Hence, fart jokes or getting hit in the nads (though, I prefer to think that HB animal characters, most cartoon characters actually, don’t have nads. Especially the ones which don’t wear pants.)

  • Eh, this only reminds me how I grew up as a kid thinking the live action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990) was the best movie ever, and then watching it again in college years later made me cringe.

    Yes, yes I am a youngin’. Don’t judge!

  • akira

    wow, i can’t believe there are people here defending this atrocity. i’m guessing the yogi bear film crew frequents cartoon brew? and it’s not just the 3d re-imagining that stinks, but Ranger Smith is even worse… man i wish John K’s respectful and hilarious resurrection of the character was available on dvd, to wash this trailer out of my memory… good luck warner bros, on getting some of those alvin and the chipmunks dollars…. (it’s been a while since dan ackroid has headlined a film)

  • uncle wayne

    Hey, there, it’s Yogi SCARE!

  • The Gee

    It is still hard to believe that so many want this movie to be made for their approval, for their enjoyment. If you want to preserve Yogi and Boo Boo and Ranger Whomever, by the rights to the characters and then have a blast.

    But, to really expect that animated feature film should be made so some 50-60 year old enjoys it or someone’s childhood memories are not “ruined” …..please….why do you bother to defend your fake childhood memories? Or, should I say, your childhood memories of fake things?

    • Yeah, I can’t believe those people who want a movie based on a childhood icon to actually have some level of quality. Ingrates.

      • The Gee

        Believe me, you’ll see what I mean when the cartoon in question is something you thought was crappy or undeservedly popular or just plain bad. When that lame thing from your childhood becomes adapted, you’ll know what I mean.

        Until then….no one is going to ingratiate anyone except the quite younger target audience with just plain ol’ entertainment. Not high art or something to covet or fetish, just entertainment. Learn to deal with it because that is how it is.

        Believe me, if this were handdrawn in full (oy!) or a limited approach and it was made for either TV or the big screen the movie wouldn’t be any more worth watching. What makes you believe that any modern day treatment would lead to something spectacular? All you would have is another “safe” “family friendly” movie. But, nothing special.

    • Earl

      What the hell does that even mean? Are you calling them “fake” because they’re fictional? Is that what you’re trying to say? Or are you just trying to be insulting because YOU don’t like the original cartoons? Why can’t these movies have broad appeal? Why does everyone think they are strictly aimed at children? It seems to me that this is one of the whole raison d’etre of Cartoon Brew… to remind the world that animation can appeal to everyone and is not just meant for children. If, in the end, this movie does only entertain the tykes, then they’ve blown it. Even Sesame Street, which is definitely aimed at pre-school, works on two levels. Why couldn’t a Yogi Bear movie be able to do that, too?

      Okay, enough questions.

      • The Gee

        So many questions…

        1) I’m tired of people stating that their childhood memories have been “violated” somehow. As if memories of staring at a tv screen are somehow precious and just as important as anything else.
        I’ve forgotten more of the crap I’ve watched and read and listened to than I remember. But, let me tell ya: re-discovering something you forgot you watched isn’t even close to being as satisfying as re-discovering something you made or something you did.

        If I remember correctly, the writer Douglas Coupland coined a phrase for those memories that people refer to, the ones based on watching TV, etc. I’m sure it is online, too. Somewhere on the internet.

        I just care less about defending art which exists. Don’t care if it is blatantly commercial art or subservient art or outsider art or successful or practically unknown. Art that has stood the test of time, whether anyone likes it or not, deserves some respect. This is especially true given almost every aspect of cartoons is commercial work, with a long shelf-life.

        This movie doesn’t replace any previous incarnation of any Yogi Bear cartoon or comic or whatever. The Flintstones movie, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Caspar, Speed Racer …. just fill in the blank with what ever movie is considered bad and a horrible adaptation of the charming original.

        Well, I think all of the early HB cartoons looked pretty dang sweet, some of them, including Yogi Bear’s early cartoons, were just good fun cartoons. And, they still hold up.

        The thing I that I don’t love the cartoons so much that I want to hate something new. Nor, do I want to hold up this as being superior to that old or new thing.

        Adults can be too dang petty. Yes, you should be able to enjoy what you work on (if it is possible to do so) and yes you as an adult audience member should be able to enjoy something like this Yogi Bear movie. But, man, in expressing themselves online, some folks come across as being waaay too clingy, close-minded, childish and not a dang bit celebratory when it comes to cartoon adaptations like this.

        I’m just saying this new movie matters so much less than the anguished seem to realize.
        As for the type of movie animators work on:
        I don’t work in 3D CGI stuff but I’d hope those who do have ample opportunities. I’m sure they will in this hunt for making hybrid movies like this one. (And, aren’t all of these flicks just the 21st century equivalent of Disney flicks like the Shaggy DA and Herbie the Love Bug? The difference being an established cartoon property is the lead)

        Oh yeah. As a person who makes stuff, yeah it is cool when a cartoon or art can be made on two levels like that. But, that isn’t a hard rule. the cartoons could be made for adults first and foremost or for kids first and foremost. There is no rule saying it should be a lot of double entendres with things that go over kids heads. So don’t say that everything needs to be like that.

  • I must say, the voice for Boo-Boo is perfect. That, and the “Jump over Boo-Boo” thing at the end are the only bright spots in the trailer that I can see. The gags are all old and tired, some of them (like the train gag where Yogi is apparently weightless) don’t translate well to CG apparently, and the comedic timing frankly stinks.

    It really says something when they can’t infuse some sort of feeling into Yogi’s signature lines (“Smarter than the average bear”, “Pick-a-nic basket”, etc.), and it ain’t something good.

    Pass on this one, that’s for sure.

  • Alissa

    Voices good, creepy pedobear-esque Yogi BAD. His eyes will steal your soul as a companion sanck to his pic-a-nic baskets.

  • Stephan

    This is the Social Network, right?

  • Stephan

    “Hey, what do you want to do when you grow up?” “I dunno. Get mad at children’s movies.”

    • Chris Sobieniak

      I knew that day would come so soon for me!

  • Ken Layton

    This trailer looks incredibly bad. This will be one movie I will never want to watch!

  • Cyber Fox

    Let’s it’s better than that of film furfuffles like Underdog and The Avengers

  • Matt Sullivan

    There’s no need to complain, because YOGI BEAR ( the cartoon ) SUCKS!

    It’s ugly design, ugly animation, lame humor, and it was GARBAGE in my opinion. Te movie looks like a more expensive version of the same crap.

    So y’all have nothing to worry about, oh, and btw…


    • Alissa

      Why should ten year olds be expected to like crap then? Avatar the Last Airbender was supposed to be marketed at seven year olds, why can’t theatrical productions put the same effort and care into their work?

  • Dave

    Jerry why post this? Are you advertising the movie?

    I clicked on the link on the side of Cartoon brew about “Aardman shoots world’s smallest animation with smartphone camera and microscope”. I found that to be a fascinating read and video.

    Why not put that as a top story instead of posting about depressing CGI remakes?

  • Blake

    Why is everyone dishing out hate on the Yogi Bear cartoon. It’s amazing , I feel sad.

    I wanna see this movie , they have the characters spot on. It’s made for kids I mean it’s gonna look terribly cheesy and the approach is gonna be redonkulus. I know this and Tron come out the weekend of my birthday , so I for one will have a fun time.

    • Yeah, I have to forfeit all future negative remarks against this Yogi movie myself because I am totally geeking out for Tron…XD Haha!

  • Nah, Jerry, I think it can get a lot worse than this.

  • Andrew Kieswetter

    I think Ackroyd and Timberlake(!) have really caught Yogi and Boo-Boo in the voices. I may still see it.

  • Gummo

    Okay, this looks a lot better than the first trailer — the voices are right, even a lot of the gags are right.

    But the design is still weird; are audiences really clamoring for live-action 3D cartoons? Is that what Hollywood’s focus groups are telling them? Wouldn’t a 2D animated version be cheaper, quicker and more attractive than this elaborate 3D computer stuff?

    • Alissa

      I think Hollywood is banking on magpie syndrome. They’re hoping the audience will be so distracted by ‘teh shiny cg omg its so real!!111’ that they won’t notice the creepy redesign and plot that’s even lamer than the original shorts.

  • I love the original TV cartoons. Unless the new movie looks like those (it doesn’t), I’m not going to like it. I miss Daws Butler. I don’t like the farting gags. 3-D won’t make farting gags funnier.

  • Chris

    ‘BOOM’ “Ahh! I’m okay!!”

    I don’t know Yogi, you seem different.

  • There are two type of comment on this blog, the whining hard done by professionals (93%) and the masters of satire (7%) who point out that it is pointless to point out the problems in our business (“these films are for kids so why do you care?”). The jury is still out as to the merit of either camp.

  • Here’s the thing… from what I’ve seen, this actually does look like a fairly competent live-action take on one of the old Hanna-Barbera Yogi Cartoons. And I actually liked a lot of those. BUT, keep in mind: Those cartoons were 6 minutes long. THIS… oy.

  • Marc Baker

    As much as I despise Timberlake, he actually sound pretty good as BooBoo voice. Same thing with Dan Akaroyd as Yogi. Despite this, I’m still not that interested in seeing this.

  • Pedro Nakama

    I’m glad they’re making him the thief Yogi. In the 70’s he became an environmentalist and it really sucked.

  • Rooniman

    I’m still surprised that Timberlake can do a good BooBoo impression, and I’m still not surprised that Aykroyd sucks at doing Yogi.

    • Dan Aykroyd sounds like Bill Fagerbakke trying too hard with post-“The SpongeBob Squarepants Movie”, post-hiatus era Patrick Star. Dan could do better if he didn’t stop sounding Daws Butler-goofy like he’s supposed to or just simply doing it in his regular voice (I heard him introducing the Yogi Bear trailers in some of the many YouTube posts of them, and when he said “Yogi Bear” in the intro, he did much better than some of the clips we peeked at in the trailers).

      Timberlake’s Boo-Boo, sounds ironically perfect considering the voice is clear for 5.1. Dolby Digital, DTS, and Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio soundtracks rather than the analog phonograph mono RCA Sound Sytem soundtracks that all of the original “Yogi Bear” cartoon episodes Don Messick’s Boo-Boo were recorded on. So if you’re complaing of Boo-Boo’s voice, you just want to zombify record technology by having other music players dead and the phonograph could take over.

      But secretly, these trailers make me smile, but my “Animation Angel” says not to go in my cartoon-knowlege concience.

  • This is just an expanded version of the first trailer, but it is an improvement.

    Again, I’m impressed by Justin Timberlake’s Boo Boo. Nobody will ever replace Don Messick, and normally I’d rather they gave the part to a voice actor with more experience doing the voice. But here they’ve done something right…gotten a “name drop” celebrity who tries (and succeeds) at doing the original voice as closely as possible.

    Aykroyd’s Yogi still doesn’t sound like the original, but it’s close. I blame the voice directors and dialogue writers for this. Aykroyd is doing an impression of Daws Butler, but he’s not ACTING like the CHARACTER. The original Yogi voice had a lot of rhythm to it…he placed long, slow emphasis on some lines, and almost scat-sung others. He often spoke in rhyme, sort of beatnik-style, in a way very rap-like.

    The main thing that bothers me isn’t the voices though. It’s the idea that it HAS to look like every other live action/CGI hybrid out there. Why do we have to see EVERY detail on the bears, when they were originally designed with flat, expressive features and simple colors? Yogi had no scruff or useless detail at all…he was streamlined.

    Also, why do the human characters HAVE to be live-action? If they want to use CGI, why not animate THEM, too? It’s jarring to see them mixed together, just as it was in the “Scooby Doo” movie and “Garfield”.

    There seems to be an obsession in Hollywood movies with trying to make cartoon characters realistic. People love cartoons because they’re NOT realistic.

  • I think Yogi’s voice sound better in this new trailer and Boo Boo doesn’t sound as perfect as before.

    The comedy in the old cartoon may be aimed to children and wasn’t full of high brow or deep messages, but here most of the jokes seem pretty silly. Also, simple cartoon gags work always better in a real cartoon. If you use life action it always looks like they are trying too far.

    Yogi Bear cartoons weren’t the most fantastic thing ever but I’m surprised so many people don’t like them. They had nice characters with funny personalities and they were well drawn. Those are the most important aspects in a cartoon, the fact that they have limited animation is not so relevant.