"Winnie the Pooh" Official Trailer - is it enough?

Send Winnie the Pooh back to his roots. I get it. But in 2D? His TV show is in 3D. Is this enough? Sure it worked 40 years ago, but is this really enough by today's standards? I think 2D animated films in general can work if the story is right, but the last times where I saw that work were Mulan and Tarzan, over a decade ago (with "Lilo & Stitch" and "Princess and the Frog" to smaller extents). It's a big risk, and I just don't think this is enough. Sure they are throwing in some 3D effects (like the honey and the pot), but is that enough to get today's audience into the theater?

My recommendation (after this does okay but not great in the box office) would be to try again, but do it all in 3D and try to capture the look and feel of how the characters would look in a semi-realistic version of their world. Rather than make them rubbery like the TV show, give them real lighting and texture, with real fur, colors, and lighting/shadows (in realistic environments). And then throw in effects like the transformation from plush to real characters and you could really begin to take it some places visually (and not just relying on the great story, although that is also essential). I think that's the only way to make a hit Winnie the Pooh animated film.

A similar alternative is to go toward "Alvin and the Chipmunks" by shooting the woods and Christopher Robin in live action but to do all the animals in CG (also done successfully with Scooby Doo and now with Smurfs, but Garfield should be a lesson on how not to do it).

Personally, I would prefer the first option, which would be the more Pixar-like approach to it.

Feel free to drop thoughts if you have them.

- The Emperor