Whocrazieryouorme: Being Right or Making Money

by Jamie Frevele | 10:51 am, December 23rd, 2010

Back in 1988, an amazing movie featuring human interaction with animated characters was released. It was called “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” and it signaled a shift in my childhood perspective on animated characters. As a child who had gone through a phase of adamant refusal to watch anything that wasn’t animated, “Roger Rabbit” was my first real exposure to an acknowledgement of animated characters in a live-action world. And it was fascinating. The ‘Toons were like another race of linguistically developed, perhaps further evolved humanoid creatures that these people lived alongside with little consequence. (Unless a ‘Toon killed your brother.) But they were still cartoons. They weren’t flesh and blood people, they were Ink ‘n’ Paint.

So, my beef with the influx of 3D animation/live action movies is this: Are we supposed to think these characters are real now? Seriously? When we see characters like Garfield, Marmaduke, the Chipmunks, Yogi Bear, etc. interacting with humans, animated to look like they were born of this world, organic, living creatures that look freakishly unlike other animals of their species (is Yogi an av-er-age bear in this world, or is an average bear an average bear? or is Yogi the only one like that? WHY? What happened?), how is it that the humans with whom they interact don’t question it?

It’s bad enough that so many action movies that use excessive CGI are practically cartoons themselves. (Like this, this, and this.) It’s cool-looking, but it’s so blatantly fake. We’re watching actors reacting to nothing, and we wonder why so many of these movies suck. (Okay, “Avatar” doesn’t suck. But it’s a cartoon.) I’ve taken acting classes, and acting is reacting. To actual things that are really happening to you. Actors reacting to a ball on a pole are not acting – they’re playing make-believe. With sticks. (Fact: Bob Hoskins actually rehearsed on-set with Charles Fleischer, the voice of Roger Rabbit, who wore a bunny suit. I swear, I remember seeing this. I really hope I’m right.)

Okay, science fiction is a good exception. And there is certainly good CGI that serves the story, making the impossible come to life. But cartoons are cartoons. Either make the entire thing a cartoon and stop asking people to believe that cartoons are real, or acknowledge that cartoons are not real. Look at a movie like “Enchanted,” which started out as a typical Disney animated movie and then turned into real life. And then it was weird to people that Amy Adams kept acting like she was animated. They didn’t make Patrick Dempsey pretend to be in love with a drawing. And they didn’t make him instantly accept that he had to be in love with a cartoon character. Good job, Disney. Well played. All or nothing. This was the right way to do this.

But this is nonsense.

You might as well make this movie:

Or this one, since no one liked the first “Popeye” movie attempt:

Is this what you want to happen, America? Dave Coulier, would this paycheck really be worth it?

Maybe I’m being an overlogical downer about this. Sure, it’s easy money for actors and producers because of “the children,” and maybe I need to lighten up about things that are meant to be silly, mindless entertainment. And it’s not as if I’m being forced to see these movies. But if I see them try to make a live action/CGI “Oliver & Company,” I officially give up on life. Some things are just…sacred. And they’ve already made “Cats & Dogs” – twice – and that’s a whole other problem.

Or maybe chainsawsuit has it right:

Best case scenario: the Volt is being sold at cost. The reality: it's being sold at a big loss and the taxpayers that have been footing the bill via the bailout and now via a tax abatement that will cost taxpayers some $42 billion over the next few years and that the media isn't reporting (Detroit News spews Obama propoganda: Feds to recoup $36 billion in bailout money, fail to mention GM receiving $45 billion tax furlough). Evidence that the Volt is being sold at a loss comes on page 4:

Q: How many batteries does the Volt have? What would be the cost to replace them? -- reader Michael Douglas

A: The Volt has one battery pack, assembled in Brownstown Township. It's 5.5 feet long, shaped like a T, and weighs 435 pounds. That battery contains 288 cells. The flat, laminated, 5-by-7-inch cells each weighs a little less than a pound, according to Prabhakar Patil, CEO of Troy-based Compact Power. The cells currently come from LG Chem in South Korea, but Compact Power, an LG Chem subsidiary, will start making them in Holland, Mich., in 2012.

Peterson declined to provide the current cost of the battery. For now, all you need to know is that GM will foot the cost of repairing or replacing the battery during the time covered by the transferable warranty. Once drivers start nearing the end of the warranty, GM expects the battery to cost less than it does today, Peterson said, as the technology becomes more common.

We can glean some information on the cost from a prior post of mine back in September: Stimulus: Granholm, Obama celebrate giving $368+ million to MI plant to produce $33,000 car batteries. The key snippet:

Costs are high. The government has estimated that a battery with a 100-mile range costs about $33,000, ...

If that's the government estimate, you know the costs are even higher. Try $45,000. The Volt gets about half that mileage, but we can't just cut the cost in half because 1) the control system has to be there regardless of size, and 2) an active vapor-compression refrigeration system is still going to be operating because of the tremendous heat generated by the batteries when discharging. So for the Volt, the battery cost with supporting subsystems will be around $30,000. As a point of reference, GM is selling the non-hybrid version of the Volt - the Chevy Cruze - at $16,000. That's right - the batteries in the Volt costs twice the entire non-hybrid vehicle. From that, one could estimate that the true cost of producing the Volt is $46,000. Add a profit margin and the Volt should be selling for $50,000, not $41,000. You could buy three Chevy Cruzes for that plus some luxury options on each.

The Volt is being subsidized at least twice by the federal government taxpayer: once at the front end (production - possibly as much as $9,000) and once at the back end ($7,500 purchase tax credit). Only in the world of government is this considered a winner.

Previously:

Sen Carl Levin (D-MI): Chevy Volt (that hasn't sold a single unit, fills up on coal and the feds have to pay you $7,500 to buy one) proves "doubters" wrong

PJM Article: Chevy Volt, Nissan Leaf Actually Get Only 23, 25 MPG

Good grief: COAL-powered 2011 Chevrolet Volt named Green Car of the Year

Nobel Peace Prize given to Obama's expensive, coal-guzzling car that the government has to pay you $7,500 to buy and hasn't sold one unit yet on open market

Detroit Free Press clueless that the Chevy Volt is a hybrid

Video of Granholm: Criticizing the Chevy Volt is un-American!

Top auto supplier CEO: Government too focused on electric vehicles, "ignoring" other technologies

Video: 'The Truth About Cars' Editor Edward Niedermeyer on why the Chevy Volt is a $41,000 electric lemon

That $41,000 price tag for the Chevy Volt? Could be $61,000

Robert Gibbs: Hey - I bet Rush Limbaugh doesn't drive one of those awesome GM F-150s

Granholm to Congress: Put battery incentives in energy bill because it will do for jobs nationally what it did for jobs in Michigan

Obama comes to Michigan, touts money he's giving to KOREAN battery plant to create jobs at $504,667 each

Irony: Michigan touts electric cars for economic growth, but denies permits for power plants to charge them

Detroit News: Buyers won't recoup extra cost of electric vehicles, but electric vehicles will save Michigan's economy or something

Confirmed: Chevy Volt 230 mpg claim is bs

Side-splitting headline of the day: GM touts Volt with 230 mpg city rating (by using Enron accounting methods)

Another Plug-In Hybrid False Mileage/Energy Savings Claim

Government report: electric cars won’t reduce carbon emissions and likely create more

UNTRUE! - Enron Accounting on the 100 mpg Hummer H3

DetNews: 12 projects expected to create 2,900 jobs

bench craft company scam

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Being Right or Making Money

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me