The music in Cars was better. The story in Cars was better. The animation in Cars was better. The voice acting in Cars was better. IMO.
I’m afraid an opinion by one person (or even many) doesn’t make a ‘sad truth’. You probably should give it a rewatch, as you’ve said. 
I’m a little confused by your statement ‘warner hasn’t showed up anything yet’. LOTG was a big improvement over Happy Feet, but it didn’t get a Nom this year thanks to the silly quota rule in the Best Animated category.
And is it really an oscar winner company? I thought that would be Pixar. 
Haha, it seems we disagree on something for a change, EJE!
I agree, IV. It may not be as emotionally-vested as Cars, but it had cutting-edge animation, and an Oscar-friendly theme of environmental preseveration. I do think, though, Over The Hedge was pretty good because of its message on suburbanism and working for the common good instead of selfish means. Plus, I personally felt it was more charming than Monster House.
I agree with your opinion on Monster House failling to capture the magic- I don’t really think it merits a sequel, though. I can’t remember the ending, but I think it was pretty tied-up. Happy Feet definitely has closure, right down to the Looney-Tune-style iris-out, but I’m up for another Antarctic adventure. They haven’t released a teaser yet, so we’re not sure if the characters are returning, or whether it will be a different setting, etc.
…
Anyway, my opinion on this is that I was as much a supporter of Cars as Happy Feet in 2006, much like how I was rooting for Avatar and Up in '09 and HTTYD and TS3 in '10. I was kind of annoyed with the environmentalist ending they went with (which is a huge themeatic turnaround from the ‘believe in being different’ message in the beginning), but I’ve grown to accept it as a good moralistic tale for kids. The special effects were amazing, the characters were as charming as the ones in Cars. I even liked the relationship between Mumble and Gloria as much as Lightning and Sally.
I’m not sure why people hate Happy Feet. Is it because they feel uncomfortable with the ‘protect our oceans from overfishing’ moral at the end? Is it because they didn’t like the Mexican stereotypes (which I thought wasn’t very offensive, just tongue-in-cheek)? Is it because it had an average storyline at the expense of its astounding visual effects? (I thought it had pretty good character arcs and a solid script, just missing that ‘extra magic’) Or perhaps a simple case of ‘Pixar elitism’. 
Haha.
This is a taste of my own medicine. This is one of the first times I use the word “truth” to refer to an opinion, so you’re right, I misused it.
I suppose I got as carried away as most people do.
You know what, my sister loves penguins, and a few years ago, when she was maybe 11 or 12, she would watch Happy Feet everyday. It made me want to cry. Luckily, she grew out of the phase.
That film is pretty awful, especially the enviromental message, which was so preachy and poorly handled. I mean, its hard to do topics like that without it being preachy, but at least some films (like, WALL-E 
) can pull that kind of thing off.
But I thought Over The Hedge was a pretty good film tbh. Yeah, tons and tons of popculture rubbish, but it was entertaining. And I still have my OTH tin where I keep my pencils
Yes, and Over the Hedge presented a decent animation, al least when compared to the two previous movies, Shark Tale and Madagascar.
I am not refering to Warner, I am talking about Happy Feet as a franquise in both cases, I mean that they haven’t showed up any material from the film (trailers, posters,etc), as a quote I also found Ga’Hoole much better than Happy Feet
SoA: I have to apologize too for engaging in ‘semantics’. Most people don’t mean what they say, although there are some who don’t think before they say. But you’re certainly not the latter!
definedancing: I suppose Happy Feet did kind of knock the audience over the head with the environmental theme, but then it’s not the first (watch ‘Ferngully: The Last Rainforest’ or any Captain Planet episode). Of course, this doesn’t excuse it from following the mistake of its predecessors, but I don’t think it’s such a bad message to be teaching kids. I would get angry if they said ‘let’s pollute the oceans and overfish to the point of penguin extinction’, so I’m glad they had something to say, if only it was delivered a little heavy-handed.
Over The Hedge was more subtle in its approach, by letting us the viewers observe American suburban sprawl and its encroachment upon wildlife habitats, through the eyes of the native animals. The film was based on a comic strip, which happens to be one of my favourite, again because of its gentle observations and nuanced humour.
And of course, Wall-E does it best by not focusing on the environmental aspect, but rather, as a motif for society’s waste and being unappreciative of natural beauty, by letting us see the consequences of our unbridled actions.
STILL, I enjoyed Happy Feet for the dance numbers and cutting-edge technology in its time. Just my two cents.
It’s a pity that some folks don’t appreciate Cars as much as we do (It was the film that started my love affair with Pixar). Some folks have different tastes, and I’ve learnt it’s no use getting hung up if someone doesn’t share the same view as we do. We can’t change everyone’s mind (although we might try to influence or persuade them).
It seems the post has changed since I responded to it. 
Please advise if you would like me to remove my reply.
Whoopsy-daisy, sorry about my misunderstanding! In that case, Happy Feet is an award-winning film, but as to whether it will be an award-winning franchise, that can only be confirmed if the sequel wins the Oscar next year.
Don’t apologize, I’m the one who usually does that 
TDIT: I totally see what you mean, and of course it is a good message to be giving children. I give them credit for trying because making a message movie without it being preachy must be nigh on impossible.
I did, however, personally find the dance numbers a tad annoying; it was as if it didn’t know whether it was a musical comedy or a enviromental animated drama. Nothing against the singing and dancing and that, but I tend to find it sort-of brings films to an abrupt halt with a huge WTH!? moment. Like, Slumdog Millionaire, for example, and the Shrek films.
For me it’s not Pixar elitism or being uncomfortable with the moral. I just honestly wasn’t impressed and thought it was overrated. The first time I saw it I fell asleep. The second time I wanted to watch the whole thing, I had to fight to keep watching it, I was incredibly bored. To each their own though.
^ Same here.
I completely agree with TDIT. I don’t love HF, but I liked it some. And I won’t call it great, I just personally feel that it was better than Cars. At the Oscars, it’s not about which movie we liked. It was the drama and politics. There’s no way Cars would have won either way.
Well, Monsters, Inc. had much more drama than Shrek. That’s not the only thing they look at.
^That’s true. Shrek is rarely serious. Or, for me, tolerable(please forgive me.) But, that makes sense in that case, because Shrek was sort of about interracial marriage and ignoring looks(both Oscar friendly material.) While MI was more serious, and I liked it better, it didn’t have much Oscar bait. It was(and is) just a great, fun, touching movie. To me, it sounds like a winner. But again, there’s a difference between Oscar preference and Virginia preference.
What’s all this about the Oscars going to only specific films? If they’re dramatic enough? Honestly, there are going to be some bribes and politics, but remember there are 6,000 academy voters from people withen the industry, from all areas of said industry. 6,000 members, not every single one is out against a certain studio or a certain type of film.
No. When I said “politics”, I meant a film’s message, moral path, etc. Not money or friends. Sorry, i should have been more clear. 
Oh. Well there is still a fair amount of politics with the vote, and as for the message I’m sure some people vote based on that, but there’s 6,000 voters, honestly they’re most likely to vote for which movie they like best, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Oh, I agree. I personally think that with a huge majority comes a near factual quality, so the winner usually deserves, even if we disagree with the choice. I just meant that Republicans may prefer films like Wall-E, TS3, and Passion of the Christ, while Democrats might prefer Happy Feet, Avatar, etc. I’m not talking about anyone here, it’s just a generalization. I personally like evry movie I mentioned.
In general, they go for period dramas, serious dramas, anything by the Coen brothers, anything by Sam Mendes, serious romances, biopics, and so on, and they usually dismiss comedies, comic book adaptations, horror films, romcoms, Leonardo DiCaprio, and, the big one, animation
It isn’t really fair. The Oscars shouldn’t be “lets pick the most political, serious film”. It should be about picking the Best Films. Best Picture should define as “Best Film of said year”, but quite often, it doesn’t mean that. I agree with The Kings Speech winning this year, but, for example, in 1998, the dross that was Titanic won over the brilliant LA Confidential. Why? Because it was a serious period drama, everything the Acadamy like. And, of course, 2009, when WALL-E and The Dark Knight got snubbed for Best Picture, despite having 6 and 8 other nominations, because the former was animated and the latter was a comic book film. Dude, they were the best films of that year! And they were snubbed for the God awful The Reader! What I found even more amusing is that Slumdog Millionaire managed to beat both films in the sound catagory!
definedancing: I agree on your opinions! I think it’s because the Academy thinks of themselves as the purveyors of ‘fine art’ and have to set the standard for ‘good taste’. Of course, ‘good taste’ is subjective. Anything involving CGI, hand-drawn animation, or non-English is ‘ghettosized’. Populist movies are given less chance than indy arthouse movies by well-established directors (instead of, say, uknown, struggling, impoverished fist-timers). There have been exceptions, like Lord of the Rings, or Star Wars, or Titanic. But most of the time, it’s the kind of films you’ve never heard of (unless you’re an avid movie goer). Or films with controversial themes, which they seem to equate with making a statement. Sometimes, films which are beautiful and have good storylines but no political statements are wonderful, like Spirited Away, Baraka, Fantasia, etc.
IV, I understand your views. I agree that you meant that films with political or controversial messages stand a higher chance of being recognised by the Academy. I think the reason why Shrek won was because it was a parody of Disney movies. The Academy likes movies which make a biting commentary, whether it be on life, politics, a person, or simply films itself. Monsters Inc was more heartwarming and less condescending, but apparently the Academy didn’t think it was ‘zingy’ enough.
…
Here’s a great spoof I saw from a satirical Australian current-affairs show called ‘The Chasers’. If anyone is offended, bear in mind that they did not set out to make fun of mentally-challenged people, Holocaust survivors, etc. They are making fun of the fact that film producers frequently exploit these themes to make films which are specifically released at the end of the year around ‘Oscars season’ to stand a higher chance of being spotted by the Academy.
The best kind of parodies are those which tell a simple truth, but taken to extremes.