Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What's the deal with Fox and these Scrat "shorts?"

This is topic What's the deal with Fox and these Scrat "shorts?" in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006580

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-18-2011, 08:48 PM:

Is it just me, or are others annoyed that Fox is taking bits out of the upcoming Ice Age movie, disguising them as "shorts" and attaching them to their family flicks?

I was thinking the "Continental Crack-Up" thing was an independent short until it was attached to at least 2 different movies. Now with "Alvin 3" we have "Continental Crack-Up Part 2" which has some of the other Ice Age characters and is clearly just a lift from the upcoming film. A scene from the "short" is even featured on the teaser one-sheet.

They're not shorts, they're trailers. They ought to be labeled as such and separate from the feature. If Fox wants to make shorts like Disney and WB do, they should make real shorts and not these disguised trailers.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-18-2011, 09:16 PM:

I think they have done this with the previous movies as well. And the Scrat bits have always been more or less independent of the movie's plot.

Given how the average trailer gives away the entire story of a movie, I'm not really concerned about these "shorts".

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-19-2011, 04:21 AM:

Ruin a movie that filmmakers worked a year or two of their lives on....you think that bothers these people? They would sell their grandmother into the sex slave trade if they thought they could get a good advance and a bump in percentage on her.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-19-2011, 11:43 AM:

They should make some Scrat shorts that are not included in the subsequent movie. The way they're doing it, anyone who's seen the "trailers" will feel a slight bit ripped off since the bits are lifted wholesale from the movie.

You can argue that ALL trailers are lifted from the finished movie, but not three or four minutes of continuous footage.

The other problem is, they are seriously running out of humorous Scrat ideas. This newest one is the least enjoyable of them all, I think.

Chuck Jones, Treg Brown and Michael Maltese had more imagination in their little fingers than these guys do.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-19-2011, 02:10 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
The other problem is, they are seriously running out of humorous Scrat ideas. This newest one is the least enjoyable of them all, I think

No disagreement there. The whole continental crack-up thing amounts to about 6 minutes of Scrat screaming and trying to get the damn acorn. In my opinion, it actually hurts the movie's potential because I have no interest in seeing it again.

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 12-25-2011, 11:05 AM:

Well, it's one thing to put it on a short movie like "Chipwrecked." But what were they thinking including it on a 2 hour movie like "We Bought a Zoo?"

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-14-2012, 05:51 PM:

It seems that Fox is now going to attach the Scrat short to everything they release between now and July 13. It was on Star Wars last week and they have it on This Means War this week.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-14-2012, 07:53 PM:

That's just ridiculous. They're treating it like a real short, but it's a freaking TRAILER which means it shouldn't be attached to the movie file.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-14-2012, 10:38 PM:

Will Fox re-encode the DCPs for future repertory bookings??? After all, it can't be removed from the feature.

Posted by Jock Blakley (Member # 6552) on 02-14-2012, 10:49 PM:

Hah, I'll believe that when I see it. Paramount send out the Grease sing-a-long DCP with a "GREASE SING-A-LONG NOT PLAYING IN YOUR TOWN?" ad at the head *AND* tail of the feature.

(anybody care to explain to me the point of advertising a particular feature by attaching the trailer to the feature in question?)

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-14-2012, 11:00 PM:

... major overkill ...

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-14-2012, 11:24 PM:

Was it PART of the feature DCP file, or was it simply included on the drive as a separate trailer?

Your post makes me think it was actually attached, but that is just such a stupid idea I refuse to believe Paramount actually did that, hence my request for a clarification.

Posted by Jock Blakley (Member # 6552) on 02-15-2012, 06:57 AM:

Oh you're more than right to want to clarify that... but what I said is what I meant to say: the ad for the film is the first sixteen seconds of the FEATURE DCP.

It is then REPEATED at the END of the same feature DCP, after the credits and Paramount logo.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 02-25-2012, 02:37 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Chuck Jones, Treg Brown and Michael Maltese had more imagination in their little fingers than these guys do.

AMEN.

I love me some squirrel based humor. How about some Rocky and Bullwinkle shorts while we're at it?

There is also a simple solution to this problem. Edit the CPL so the entry point on the first reel is beyond the short and then repack the PKL [Wink]

(Probably not a good idea in practice)

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-27-2012, 11:14 AM:

If I had a clue how to do that, I would.

I also don't like (on the Star Wars movie) how there is only about a half-second between the end of Scrat and the 20th logo.