Babe: The Forgotten Gold Standard of Talking Animal Movies?

by

Recently, I’ve been trying to share my favorite childhood films with my daughter, and after a few disappointing 90s kid movies, the memory of a classic talking pig from my past resurfaced. Contrary to what you might think, it’s not Gordy I’m referring to, but rather Babe – the little pig who excelled as a sheep herder. It turns out that this old animal movie still stands strong, and in my opinion, does a better job with speaking animals than most modern films today.

In my view, I concur with many critics who thought “Mufasa: The Lion King” was an excellent prequel. On the other hand, I find the voice acting in “Babe” to be superior. Now, this isn’t a critique of Disney’s character voices; they do a good job. However, I believe that when it comes to animals talking, a minimalistic approach often yields better results.

Babe Nailed The Way To Do Talking Animals In Movies

As a movie critic, I was curious about how the animals in “Babe” managed to talk on screen. Thankfully, the internet never disappoints when it comes to answers! A fascinating behind-the-scenes video unveiled that the special effects team employed techniques similar to those used today, including Computer-Generated Imagery (CGI), animatronics, and face tracking. These tools helped animate the animal faces, making it look like they were speaking in scenes where they weren’t. Although not as advanced as current methods, it certainly beats the old trick of smearing peanut butter on a horse’s mouth!

In my critique, I’d express it like this: “I found the movie remarkably effective, and I attribute much of its success to Babe not overly relying on technology. Instead, they seem to have favored a more organic approach, even going so far as to utilize genuine animal expressions in the film. For instance, if an animal naturally showed its tongue in a certain way, they’d capture that moment and incorporate it into the script. In today’s digital age, I imagine we could manipulate virtually any facial expression on an animal, but this classic film opted for a more authentic approach, waiting for those perfect moments to make the animation feel more genuine.

Additionally, I appreciate that “Babe” isn’t self-conscious about borrowing from the “Homeward Bound” script, as there are instances in the movie where animals seem to be speaking, yet their mouths don’t appear to move due to their busy animal antics. In other words, it’s refreshing that they don’t try to make it look too realistic, and a nod to three of the most iconic pets in Hollywood for paving the way for this style in the ’90s.

Technology Has Progressed To Make This Technology Better, But There Was No Need

The reimagined version of The Lion King received harsh criticism from reviewers, who believed that the live-action adaptation fell short in creating a film as emotionally resonant as the original animated production. While it’s true that the animal characters appear realistic and well-done, it’s challenging to disregard Simba’s seemingly emotionless gaze following his father’s tragic death at the hands of a stampede.

To be fair to the remake, I don’t believe current technology can create a CGI lion as expressive as one drawn in animation. However, I would contend that Simba’s lack of emotion in that particular scene makes his digital appearance feel overly processed, to the extent that it appears unrealistic and not like a genuine lion on screen.

As a movie buff, I found the unique approach taken by “Babe” to be particularly captivating. Instead of relying heavily on computer-generated imagery, it brought animals to life by animating their eyes and mouths – a decision that, whether intentional or not, seemed to counteract the unsettling feeling known as the “uncanny valley.” This creative choice allowed me to suspend my disbelief more easily, concentrating instead on the exceptional vocal performances, especially that of the late and talented Christine Cavanaugh.

It’s hard for me to assert definitively which method is better, as it largely depends on personal perspective. However, it’s possible some might argue that today’s technology is superior, while I may be biased due to my fondness for the movie “Babe.” Nevertheless, this affection stems from the film’s powerful message that individuals shouldn’t conform to societal expectations and can find their own path in life.

I Prefer To Have My Animals Still Look Like Animals, Even If Their Mouth Isn’t Always Moving

It seems clear that authenticity of the animal performers is crucial when discussing films like “Babe” and others without tragic canine endings. While I acknowledge that there are instances where animatronics from Jim Henson’s Creature Shop are employed, it’s important to note that not every scene featuring these creatures involved real, living animals.

In comparison to modern CGI from 2025, the animatronics from the ’90s seem more convincing to my human mind. To me, the sheep in Babe appear more realistic than the Na’vi in Avatar, and this isn’t due to my understanding that the latter are fictional. Despite advancements in computer-generated technology over the years, I don’t believe we’ve reached a point where I can accept a talking animal as genuine.

If you share my sentiments, I strongly recommend rewatching the movie “Babe” on Peacock. It’s fascinating to see how well it still stands up. I can’t help but wonder if films like this would be produced today, but I hope I’m proven wrong. What we truly need is a modern-day version of “Babe“, something that will captivate the current generation of children just as much as pigs did for me when I was their age.

It’s worth noting that the movie “Babe” is available on Peacock. Additionally, viewers can enjoy it on Tubi, given they don’t mind watching with advertisements or for free. I thoroughly enjoyed watching it with my daughter, and I believe I’ve managed to persuade her to explore more films from my era now that she realizes not all of them are dull.

Read More

2025-04-20 18:09