“Yogi Bear” talkback

“Yogi Bear” gives cheap hackwork a bad name”Michael Phillips, LA TIMES

“This mostly live-action film is a bland 21st-century family comedy without a single moment that captures the wit, energy or sophistication of the original, which by now dates back more than 50 years.”Mike Hale, NY TIMES

“Dumber than the average cartoon adaptation. Yogi Bear is a big boo-boo!”Claudia Puig, USA TODAY

The critics have had their way with Yogi Bear and we’ll miss bashing this film ourselves. So here, one last time, we open the commentary to those brave souls who actually screened this cinematic travesty. C’mon – someone reading this blog must have seen it. Tell us who you are – and what you thought.


  • David

    WOW. . . THAT was CRAP!!!

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

    Slightly modified from a comment on an earlier thread:

    “We’ll miss bashing this film ourselves.” Most of the bashing has been about the ugly CGI models or the use of celebrities.

    The elephant in the room is neither of these. It’s a preachy, illogical story that revolves around Mary Sue original characters and is cloying—and condescending—for no reason (a fuzzy Ranger Smith romance, played straight, brings in what part of what demographic, exactly?). Even from the most cynical money-minded perspective, it doesn’t make sense.

    “Children love a little naughtiness, especially when a rascal like Yogi is the star. But Yogi Bear plays everything coy and cute.” (Hollywood Reporter)

    “Bland… without a single moment that captures the wit, energy or sophistication of the original [1960s Yogi].” (The New York Times)

    “Terribly naïve, written not just for children but from the mindset of one [...] The ‘Chipmunks’ movies had grown-ups that acted like real grown-ups – or were at least allowed to operate in shades of gray – while “Yogi Bear” knows no gray area.” (Bullz-Eye Reviews)

    In other words, “Yogi Bear” could be hand-drawn, look like Yowp-era H-B, and include no celebrities—and it would still flop, because what really plagues it is what plagued “Cats and Dogs,” “The Quest for Camelot,” “The King and I,” and “Looney Tunes: Back in Action”: a story told stupidly, with naïvely wholesome leads playing clichés straight, because it’s—you know, for kids, and that’s how WB Family middle management demands you play to kids.

    Scathing reviews haven’t changed this, but that’s no surprise in a company that seems to enjoy pissing on critics. What’s more interesting is that actual strings of flops—i. e. severe money loss—hasn’t changed WB Family’s attitude either.

    The fish stinks from the head. Someone’s ego is too powerful, and that’s a problem much bigger than Yogi. What backroom deals are being cut?

    “We can make more money with a flop than with a hit…” —The Producers

    • dbenson

      An added irony: WB’s biggest moneymaker of the past decade has been the Harry Potter series, marked by careful plotting, intelligent storytelling, excellent casting and an assumption that kids can handle complicated issues — PLUS executive trust of the material (contractually enforced by the author).

      I suspect many studio suits simply will themselves into believing success or failure is dependent on their own “value added” (sheep-brained decisions based on focus groups and the last big hit) rather than on the work or instincts of “creatives.” To admit otherwise is to concede they’re wildly overpaid hangers-on.

      • John A

        I’m sure that the Harry Potter series would suffer the same horrific fate of all the other WB Family casualties, were it not for the fact that J.K. Rowling’s contract gives her final approval on just about everything connected to the movies.

  • Trevor

    Makes me sad not many people will get to see the awesome Rabid Rider short because the reviews will keep audiences away.

    YES, I WORKED ON THIS SHORT FILM AND I’M POSTING FROM WORK RIGHT NOW FULL DISCLOSURE EVERYONE I DONT MEAN TO MANIPULATE YOU ALL WITH MY CARTOON BREW COMMENT

    • santa

      Such is the reason why I will never see the new Road Runner cartoons in theaters. They’re attached to crappy films. Nevermind each of them runs half of the length of the originals!

  • Darkblade

    I snucked into seeing this movie, and I left the first 5 minutes of it. Downright pathetic. I rather watch John K’s yogi bear compared to this crap.

    • Isaac

      Hey now, no need to do anything rash.

  • Roland Denby

    I thought we had hit the bottom of the proverbial barrel when John K brought his 2nd grade mentality to Yogi and Boo Boo, reducing them to butt sniffing nipple squeezing imbeciles. But this film is even smellier that that stinkbomb, and that’s a hard feat indeed. I will never understand why producers rape evergreen properties like this. It joins the ranks of suck drek as “Underdog,” “Scooby-Doo,” and “Rocky & Bullwinkle.”

    • Cyber Fox

      to be fair

      Underdog is a complete bastardization of the cartoon
      Scooby-Doo 1 & 2 are made just to push Scooby-Doo merchandise out of WB’s inventory

      while “The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle” plays good omage to the cartoon as best as it could right down to the acknowledgment of it’s sad fate on TV

    • http://exclusive-cheese.deviantart.com Taco Wiz

      If you people diss John K’s cartoons one more time because of his opinions…

      • Adam

        No one’s dissing his opinions. They’re dissing his handiwork.

  • uncle wayne

    John K’s is farrrrrrrrrrrrrr closer to the “reality” than this, lemme TELL ya!!!

  • Ed South

    Yogi Bear is not anywhere near as bad as everyone here has already written it off as. It’s a silly, harmless, wholesome 80-some minutes of modern movie making. It is not crude, it is not vulgar. It’s not filled with pop culture references, and half-baked parodies of other movies. The plot stays true to the spirit of an old Yogi Bear cartoon. The characters are one dimensional and silly, because after all – it is based on a cartoon. It is also a simple storyline, that is easy to follow and allows the movie to move along at a brisk pace. Yogi and Boo-Boo are true to their characters, and the film makers avoided lazy stunts like having Yogi and Boo Boo fend for themselves in the big city (yes, I’m talking to you Smurfs!) The bears also look like slightly realistic versions of their cartoon-selves. They aren’t done in an overly realistic way like Alvin and the Chimpmunks are.

    Dan Aykroid and J.T. do perfectly fine jobs with their voice overs. As fine a job as any cartoon voice actor would have done dupicating the iconic roles.

    Yogi Bear is filled with gentle laughs. It won’t make you fall on the floor laughing hystericaly, but it does provide solid smiles throughout. There is a constant attempt to keep the film funny, something most comedy films nowadays do not accomplish.

    As a huge, life-long Yogi Bear fan I thought the movie was very enjoyable and very well done. It does not take a giant bear poop on the beloved cartoon from the 60′s (as everyone here assumes it does,) it takes the formula and shines it up for today’s kids. My son, who has seen and enjoyed his fair share of classic H-B animation, laughed and giggled throughout the whole movie…as did I!

    Now go ahead everbody….rip me a new one…

    • http://inconstruction Mr. Goofer

      Poor Yogi and BooBoo; they’ve been morphed into furry robots to please the newest young kids of 2010.Oooooo HHHMMM, let me see, I believe I was, in fact, a young kid when Yogi Bear first appeared, and I loved it!
      But it now needs to be polshed and shined up? Why?
      Newsflash: There was absolutely NOTHING wrong with the original. It was not “2D”; it was YOGI and we loved him. This mechanical fake is a cyber-phoney, a charlatan, an imposter. Wake up you guys, teach your children history correctly. The “newest” is NOT the “best” by definition. HHmmm, the Black-eyed Peas, then, are superior to Sly & the Family Stone?? HAR-HAR
      P Diddy is superior to Stevie Wonder?? Choke! Shrek is superior to Fantasia?? Don’t make me barf.

    • http://www.elliotelliotelliot.com Elliot Cowan

      When you write something like this “The characters are one dimensional and silly, because after all – it is based on a cartoon”, you do yourself no favors if trying to curry favor with animators…

    • Steve Gattuso

      I will simply post the following excerpt from a review to counter:

      “The best that can be said is that it’s a ‘cute’ and ‘harmless’ kids’ movie, as long as you ignore the moment when Yogi tells the lovestruck Mr. Ranger that the best way to woo a mate is to urinate on her.”

      Full review here:

      http://www.gomemphis.com/news/2010/dec/17/dumber-than-av-e-rage/

    • Carrington

      “The characters are one dimensional and silly, because after all – it is based on a cartoon.”

      Wow. Way to minimize the excellent storytelling and characterization work of dozens of the people who look at this site.

      • the Gee

        While that dismissive comment rankles me, too, there are people in the industry have a similar view of cartoons. For instance, a Disney feature isn’t something as silly as an old WB short. The WB short, with its humor, is a cartoon. The Disney feature is capital A animation.

        That said, despite the fact that it might be bad(or not great) and a lot of people may not watch it in the theaters, the movie still may be liked by a lot of people. That is just the way it goes. I don’t think there is a reason to come down on those people who might like it. If it entertaining to them, then that’s good.

        I realize a lot of people are concerned that one bad and successful flick, like the Chipmunks, might spawn the worst stuff to see, to work on, etc. But, if people like them, then accept that, folks.

        There’s tons of cartoons I can’t stand which people love, I’ve learned to bite my tongue and if I comment I try not to be a jerk about it.

        Personally, I do question why the film had to be a hybrid. I’d rather see two guys in bears suits in a live action flick or with greenscreened cartoon BGs. Even if it is bad, especially if it were bad, I’d probably find some redeeming quality to it.

    • Ed South

      As an adult who enjoys a steady stream of cartoons, I certainly did not mean to be dismissive or offensive by using the phrase “silly and one dimensional.” What I should have said, or what I meant to say was “not complicated.” And to me, silly is a compliment. I meant the humor is gentle and pure. There are few things on this planet I enjoy more than The Flintstones and Yogi Bear. I certainly meant no disrespect to anyone in the animation field, especially anyone lucky enough to ever have a creative hand in lives of the citizens of Bedrock or Jellystone Park.

  • djjuice5

    why is that WB in televison animation can curbstomp everyone in the game like they did in the 90′s but when it comes to theatrical fetaures, they are complete garbage? I think David summed up my thoughts perfectly. “fun for the whole family” haha. I wouldn’t let my dog watch this shit.

  • Hulk

    What I don’t understand is why the original Yogi Bear cartoon is being lauded as a classic and this movie is being seen as destroying said classic. I’ll say it before and I’ll say it again: The original Yogi cartoon was a MAJOR step down in quality from the cartoons that were being made only a few years before it and I think it was seen that way by people who paid attention to and cared about animation. It was not as well drawn, written or directed and certainly not animated as well as anything Joe and Bill did on ‘Tom and Jerry’. Not even close. I wasn’t alive yet for the original airings as I was a kid in the 80′s but even I knew that Looney Tunes, Popeye, Tom and Jerry and the original Woody Woodpeckers were head and shoulders above anything Hanna Barbera produced later. It was blatantly obvious because they showed them back to back on TV then. I could always watch any of the afore mentioned 40′s era classics any time. They never got old. Yogi, the Flintstones and the Jetsons only held my attention for a few mintues before the bad animation and insipid writing got too boring and I had to turn it off.
    So what exactly is the complaint here? How have they soiled this “Animated Classic”? Is it that Yogi is now CG instead of Crappy Limited Animation? That it’s “not well written”? Neither were the original cartoons guys. Sorry. You can disagree if you like. You’re entitled to your opinion but let me just say this: As a kid I didn’t get inspired by Yogi Bear to one day have a career in animation. I was however inspired and still am – by the 40′s classics. If they had given this kind of treatment to Bugs, Daffy or Popeye, then I’d be right there with you. This Yogi movie frankly is a polished turd- which is more than I can say for the original cartoon which was just a turd.

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

      I didn’t defend Yogi’s classic status. Frankly, the only time I think Yogi achieved his potential was in early comic books, where poor animation and pacing didn’t hinder him.

      That said, the movie doesn’t even seem to have done right by what little the cartoons accomplished. See Dan Brady, below: many Yogi plot elements didn’t make it in because—quite clearly—the filmmakers didn’t know about them. Yogi exists to steal picnic baskets only, just like Mickey exists to feed Pluto, Popeye exists to eat spinach, and Daffy exists to fight Bugs and Speedy Gonzales. (Sorry.) Characters are reduced to whatever formulas a suit has picked up from a rough memory of the most easily available material—even if that’s the worst material.

      Arguments over Yogi’s status—and over the look of the CGI models—are (IMHO, of course) distractions from the most important issue here: Warner Family suits willfully losing large amounts of money, not on Yogi but in general. What’s in it for them?

      • http://www.ailhadoceu.com.br Ceu D’Ellia

        Mickey exists to feed Pluto?

      • John A

        So why does Pluto exist? Has anyone ever answered that one?

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

        Ceu: Being facetious. I meant—in the minds of those who don’t know any better.

    • Gerard de Souza

      Yes the original YOgi Bear was not fully animated as what H&B did a few years previous but have you actually sat down and watched them recently? I have and found that they are better than what I remember as a child. Great writing. Stories range from charming to whimsical to laugh-out-loud funny. Much personnel involved came out of the theatrical cartoon era into the demanding daunting low budget era of television and made it work. It takes a knowledge of full animation to limit movement successfully. One has to appreciate the ecomonmic backdrop in which these early HB cartoons were made.

      Haven’t seen the movie so can’t comment and I refuse to review reviews and trailers.

    • Doodyville101

      Hulk, I respect your opinion. However, keep in mind that, when you’re a kid (especially a kid in the ’60′s, which I was), you don’t think (or even care) about how well (or not) the animation was done or how good (or bad) the writing is or who voiced what character. All you care about is that you love this character – and it leaves an indelible mark on your life as something that was fun and made you smile. If that character has become an icon in your life, of course you’re going to be a purist about it. I’m guilty of that with several TV characters that have influenced my life.

      That being said, I plan on going to see the Yogi movie with an open mind. I understand that what worked 50 years ago does not work today (there are two exceptions that I can think of, if they were given a chance and done right). IMO, I think the Yogi animation that H-B put out was far superior to what they would put out in the ’70′s, but not as good as the original Jonny Quest, which – to me – was H-B’s greatest work.

    • Alison

      I personally found the original Yogi Bear cartoons to be boring and not live up to their story potential, but at least they had great design, great voices, and cute characters, something this movie definitely lacks.

  • Dan Brady

    I’m a big big BIG Yogi Bear fan and I have to agree with Ed South. I went to the movie thinking it would stink, and instead had a good time. I did laugh a few times and really enjoyed Justin Timberlake’s interpretation of Boo Boo.

    There were a few visual homages to the cartoons, such as the shot of cars streaming through the great Jellystone Park entrance gate.

    There were a lot of disappointments. Aykroyd’s voice was way off, and the writers forgot that Yogi talks in short rhymes. But mainly, the characterizarion of Yogi Bear was all wrong. He’s not a long-winded bumbler/inventor–he’s just a free spirit, a non-conformist.

    The look of Yogi was also strange. I happen to enjoy camping at the Jellystone Park Camp-Resorts, and I think the Yogi costumes that are worn in the parks were closer to the ‘real’ Yogi Bear.

    The movie also kind of missed the close relationship of the Ranger and Boo Boo. And I sure wish the soundtrack had included a few of the great original stock music cuts

    Ranger Smith in the movie seemed to be the ‘newer’ redesigned Ranger Smith of the later cartoons (nicer, more tolerant) as opposed to the original, hard-nosed weary one. Wouldn’t Kevin Spacey had been a good choice for that?

    It would have been nice if the plot of a few of the shorts had been woven into the movie–such as Yogi dealing with a bratty kid or diaper-clad baby wandering into trouble!

    Nevertheless, I think Hanna and Barbera would be happy that people are still enjoying their creations decades after they were originally introduced.

    So check out the movie, it’s not as bad as you think, especially if you are a big Yogi fan. Just go and have fun.

    • http://! Gerard de Souza

      There’s a franchise of Jellystone parks?

      • Chris Sobieniak

        I went to one as a kid!

      • the Gee

        Yeah. They are camping sites across the states that are affiliated with some company. I think the company is called KOA or something.

      • Chris Sobieniak

        I think so too. Noticed even they’re bothering to promote this flick too on their site…
        http://www.campjellystone.com/

      • the Gee

        actually, I was wrong. A different company owns them and the sites are franchise, to boot.

        I actually grew up near one. But, I only visited it in the offseason. (there were plenty of other places to camp without having to pay to do it.) After looking at the site I’m wondering what I missed out on as a kid. If they have people in costumes who live there, BooOOIIIIInNNNGGGG! If that is the case, as a kid I would have loved that. As an adult, that both creeps me out and makes me feel sorry for the employees.

        Gerard, if you read this, there are some in Canada. There just aren’t any in your neck of the woods. However, there are plenty of locations so if you decide to plan your vacation, you got additional options. ha ha.

  • Nelson Hughes

    A New York film critic(which also bashed the film) said that Warner Bros. rushed into making this film, because the company was about to loose the rights to the character.So does this mean that Time Warner no longer owns the H-B library anymore?

    • http://www.cartoonresearch.com Jerry Beck

      Warner Bros. owns the Hanna Barbera library and there is absolutely no truth to the claim they are about to lose the rights.

      • http://www.ailhadoceu.com.br Ceu D’Ellia

        But maybe they are accumulating bad karma.

      • Rebecca

        There is no way that they are losing the H-B library, because that is pretty much ALL they show on Boomerang!! I would love it if they played some Looney Tunes for once, instead of “The New Three Stooges” and “Jabberjaw.” Now that is something that needs to be investigated. The last time I saw Looney Tunes on broadcast TV was as a New Year’s marathon last year, and they didn’t even play “Duck Amuck”!

  • kelipipo

    I know admitting this exposes me as a total douche, but I often go see movies ironically. It’s just a psychological problem I have – I’m working on it.

    So “Yogi Bear” was on my list from pretty early on. I was expecting the only good thing about it to be Andrew Daly. The story is negligible, of course, and Anna Faris doesn’t get to give any indication of how funny she can be (see “Smiley Face”) — but I found myself honestly chuckling at regular intervals. Mostly thanks to voice work, Daly, and a few moments when the movie acknowledged that they were indulging in convoluted jackassery (the McGuffin turtle etc).
    I’m not saying that anybody needs to see this movie, but it was better than I expected. And it wasn’t taking itself the least bit seriously.

    Nothing special to say about the animation, but I actually like the cg character designs of Yogi and Boo-Boo. I have to say they made me feel like a kid again. I just threw my brain away and went “AWWWWWW, Boo-Boo. Hug Boo-Boo.” (…Sorry.)

    Errr, I didn’t care for the Rabid Rider short. *ducks*
    Especially the semi-realistic effects, smoke and dust and stuff, look jarring AND boring and everyday.
    Needless to say (and yet here I go), both the short and the movie had too many scenes that were only there in order to “give it a reason to be in 3D”. Writing like this wore out its welcome years ago. However, children in the theatre seemed to love it whenever something was thrown in the audience’s face, so what do I know.

  • Greg Chenoweth

    Well, I went to an advanced screening Tuesday night of the new Yogi Bear movie and I loved it. It is a very funny film with lots of laugh-out-loud moments. I took my 11 year old son with me and he enjoyed it just as much as I did. As we were leaving the cinema, we were both going back and forth over all the lines from the movie. I think the animators did a great job with Yogi and Boo Boo. Dan Ackroyd did a good job with Yogi and Justin Timberlake was fantastic as Boo Boo. Speaking of the little buddy, in the commercials Boo Boo seems a little smarmy but in the film he is the same ol’ Boo Boo that we all know and love. The story line is pretty weak but the antics of Yogi and Boo Boo help make up for it.

    As a matter of fact, the weakest part is the human actors. Yogi and Boo Boo were always dead on perfect and funny during their scenes. However, Tom Cavanagh is weak as Ranger Smith. Instead of chasing after Yogi and getting all upset at Yogi’s antics, Tom took the opposite approach: Yogi will be Yogi and there’s nothing I can do about it. Anna Faris is a good love interest for Ranger Smith. The first twenty minutes of the film, when they are setting up the plot, is the slowest part of the film because it is mostly Cavanagh, Faris and the villain, Mr. Mayor. Once the set up is done, though, it is pure antics and hilarity throughout the rest of the film.

    I am very biased because I have been a big Huck and Yogi fan all of my life and it is great to see an H-B character in a big budget film that works. After the film, I turned to the guy next to me (not my son) and said, “What did you think?” His reaction was the same as mine that it was a great film and a terrific Yogi Bear movie. Everyone in the theater were laughing uproariously at the film and gave the film a huge applause at the end, so it wasn’t just me.

    I loathe the three TV films from the 80′s (Yogi’s Great Escape, Yogi Bear/Spruce Goose and Yogi/Space Bears). They were awful. Yogi’s First Christmas is a just a step above these three but not by much. However, this film is probably the best Yogi Bear showing since “Hey There, It’s Yogi Bear” and this is no exaggeration. I enjoyed every minute and my hat is off to Warner Brothers Pictures for making a terrific Yogi Bear movie.

  • Frank Ziegler

    This sad trend will continue as long as the Hollywood machine keeps people with new ideas outside it’s gates. They’ve run out of ideas on the inside and have to resort to remaking their existing film libraries or producing cgi versions of old 2d cartoons.

  • Darkblade

    I think the rumor around WB losing the rights to the characters of Hanna-Barbara may have been false. Besides that I am pretty much on the same level on the live-action scooby doo movies, those were just made to cash in on Scooby-doo. Hanna-Barbara themselves hated Scooby for a good reason too, and it lead to a whole lead of knock-offs.

    On the terms on Hanna-Barbara, it doesnt help the fact that Tom and Jerry are getting the live-action treatment as well. It would make their first movie look good. Warner bros doesnt even care for their own cartoon characters, they just want cash. Speaking of cash. Anyone know how much this piece of dud has made?

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

      it was cheap by today’s standards, that’s for sure.

  • Alissa

    Two eleven years olds and a ten year old declared beyond a shadow of a doubt that the movie was pathetic.

    The complaining got so bad that we left within a few minutes and went home to watch How to Train Your Dragon again on dvd. Then we watched old Loony Tunes. Both offerings pleased them.

  • Demetre

    Hanna and Barbera must be rolling in their gold plated graves on top of stacks of hundred dollar bills.

  • Gray64

    I think the main fault with this film is not that it has attempted to update a ’60′s cartoon, or that it renders traditionally hand-drawn animated characters into 3D, but that it’s taken a character and situation that were explicitly designed to support short-subjects and tried to stretch that into a feature (and that’s it’s script is unimaginative and bland with little understanding for whatever charm the original had, but that’s already been said). Can you imagine if someone tried to make a feature length Road Runner movie? I don;t say it couldn’t be done effectively, because with enough love and imagination anything is possible, but it would be extremely difficult to get right because, in many ways, these characters ARE their scenarios.

  • AJ

    My problem with the presence of this film is not that it exsists and is “bismirching the origional”In my opinion hanna barbera’s only good cartoon was Tom and Jerry my problem is this generic style of comedy writing that writers over in hollywood just settled upon it seems like every joke is a fill in the blank with charecter and context they fill the sheet in with a rushed scrwal hand it in to the excecutive then they bugger off to the pub. I know this film is for children it stars a talking bear I just think that children deserve better writing then what is currently being given to them.

  • the Gee

    A couple of things:

    In the movie, do they ever explain why Yogi and BooBoo are wearing ties and why Yogi has a hat on?

    I’m seriously curious. The animation for the movie is so detailed and freakreal, to coin a questionable word, that suddenly it make no sense that they are wearing any clothing whatsoever.

    In the original cartoon, it sorta defined their characters if you thought about it. But, the characterization in other ways was already well-defined. As for the neckties/collars, I know about the benefit it there was just a want to animate the head or dialogue.

    But, with movie’s CG looking so freakreal…the choices make less sense.

    Secondly, the theatrical MGM Tom and Jerry was their best series. The budget and the runtime allowed for it to be the best. If TV had scaled to meet what HB needed to make better quality animation then that would have been wild. I would think it would have meant fewer episodes per season but man imagine how cool that would have been. Things would be totally different nowadays….

    Lastly, someone, invariably brought up John K’s cartoon shot at the bears. It was a parody. Officially sanctioned, which was really cool The thing is, you really can’t expect much more than what they made. If they made more he would totally have to drop the parody and be somewhat more faithful the original. I’m not even sure if such a thing would be possible for him at this point. Besides, I doubt he would want to work on it if he couldn’t put his definitive mark on it. Oh well, end speculation…..for the sake of the children!

    • kelipipo

      The movie takes the accessories for granted. At one point Boo-Boo apologises for his bowtie being pre-tied instead of a proper one, which was one of the lines that disarmed me. But hey, they also never address that two bears talk, waterski etc. Every human character reacted as if bears talking was as common as a can of Coke. (The same approach that the old show had, but the fact that the humans were real this time did add its own kind of amusement.)

      I dunno about freak realism — if you compare CG Yogi & Boo-Boo first to a real bear and then to the 2D originals, I still think the CG versions resemble the latter far more than they resemble a live bear. So I didn’t spare any more thought to the weirdness of their attire than I used to while watching the cartoons.

  • Andy Rose

    This reminds me of what David Cross said in response to the criticism that he was in “Alvin and the Chipmunks” even though it’s the kind of movie he’d never watch himself:

    “The reason I haven’t seen the movie is because I am not eight years old. I am an adult and don’t see children’s movies.”

    This version of “Yogi Bear” is a kids’ movie. So if you don’t like it, you aren’t proving it was bad. You are proving you aren’t a kid.

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

      you mean a kid of today.

      because this movie screwed up our inner childhoods!

    • Rebecca

      Does this mean David Cross hasn’t seen Megamind?!

    • Alissa

      It’s a bad kid’s movie. Children said it was bad therefore it’s a bad kid’s movie.

      Heck, I bet most children only went to see this movie because their parents had nostalgia goggles on and dragged them to the theater.

  • Damon

    When are filmmakers going to wise up and adapt these Hannah Barbera cartoons the right way…..by using the same background.

  • Aj

    You know it could actually be worse. They could have made an adaption of Yo yogi bear.

  • Doug

    The original Yogi cartoons were little more than time fillers for me during my early adolescence — a rip-off of Art Carney doing Ed Norton, with a one-note plot premise (stealing picnic baskets). They were only occasionally funny, and even less occasionally mildly clever. But hey, I was twelve. What did I care? At least they were better than Pow Wow the Indian Boy.

    That having been said, I have no great desire to see the movie; from what I’ve seen of it, I can’t imagine it being an improvement, if it’s even as good.

  • Dave

    My eyes! The goggles, they do nothing! (Simpsons Reference) Horrible art.

  • Baruch Weiss

    Indeed this was a big boo boo. I thought it would be good, but I was wrong. I ABSOLUTELY HATED THIS ADAPTION, IT WAS SO STUPID!! The plot was short and seemed similar to other movies. I hope they don’t screw up the Jetsons in 2012.

  • http://aalong64.blogspot.com Aaron Long

    People will hate me for this, but I really enjoyed this movie, in a non-ironic way. Here’s my full review:

    http://aalong64.blogspot.com/2010/12/yogi-bear-was-pretty-good.html

  • Darkblader

    Spill.com gave this movie a matinee
    http://my.spill.com/profiles/blogs/yogi-bear-audio-review

    Which is surprising, I was expecting them to dislike it.