Would you going to seen THIS?

This seems to be unbelievable to think that the movie audience can demanded another Garfield theatrical movie, especially after two live-action efforts that were destined as failures by critics and box-office. But today's the day! The 2024s CGI animated movie with the voice of Chris Pratt (He seems to be anywhere, don't you?) arrived in our theaters and already, by looking of trailers, it seems to be another waste of time from a franchise that tried so hard to be still appealing and cool to people. But, the comic-strip have stop to be original or funny about over thirty years ago. And adapting a comic-strip series to screen is not easy feat. Think to any series that were adapted from one way to another and you'll going to say the same thing than me!

But Garfield is a character that I still have a fondness that date of my childhood years. Because he was everywhere and that was actually popular, fun and watchable back in the day. The lazy cat character was great enough to be adapted onto twelve TV Prime-time specials and a long-running series consisting of three shorts per half-hour, including one featuring U.S. Acres, with animal characters living on the farm. And like says Mark Evanier recently, Jim Davis was a cartoonist man who knows to made the right choice, have trust to anyone who agreed to work with him and he make sure that any piecemal of merchandising of his creations stays on-model. Because others franchises from everything, from Hanna-Barbera to Disney didn't looked often right, especially by the pre-1970s. But in this, he missed another right opportunity to make the comic-strip relevant to modern-day audience. And that is maybe worser than the two live-action movies with the same name.

Despite to be now a Viacom property, the newer animated film was released by Columbia Pictures, a Sony property. Can't it be more logical if Paramount was the studio producer of this? Like when Fox still owned the Garfield TV rights in the mid-00s when those disastrous movies were released?

And sadly, it's another terrible example of why most mainstream animated features continue to be disliked by movies critics, by the same violent mishaps and toilet humor that has worn its welcome for a longtime now. The movie posters describe the horrific 'Tude pose over and over again (See the image above) on a very uncomfortable way. I swear you, I seen more crass humor and violence in cartoons and comics than I can even look of any live-action shows for Prime-Time. No mention that cynicism is still overpresent in the industry.

But looking of the very dismal reviews about this film, (Mediafilm claims it at '6' for poor! Good thing.) it's been the reason why a very few of movies adapted from comics still keep to be seen in every Holidays. Because they were great films. All the animated Asterix, Lucky Luke and the fewer ones featuring Tintin still live on the hype when the older Peanuts and Garfield stuffs were gone for over a decade. That used to be an annual tradition by keeping it relevant to modern audience. But even Télé-Québec have a real problem of consistencies by be entirely "woke" and that they ran almost every junks they want without ask us why. Like it does happening with VRAK, if the broadcasters and announcers are the only individuals who constantly watch their line-up, it's never good. If you seek for shows about debates or a litterary one, it's nowhere to be found here and it's dismal. Instead, you have immature Influencers who try to teach you about sex that even the worst Porn movies from Bleu Nuit would never pick it from any minute.