Hmm.
I didn't see Garfield; the last movie I saw was LOTR-ROTK, actually, so discount the following set of opinions accordingly.
First, on the subject of Garfield's success: If it wan't a great movie, then its success is
probably a function of its safe, reliable, B- kiddie comedy content. Websnark covered point this elegantly some months ago, and I'll direct you there (
http://www.websnark.com/archives/2005/01/i_seem_to_be_be.html) for more. L&F isn't safe, reliable B- kiddie comedy, it's film noir meets the robotic generation, and that's not for everyone.
Second, on the subject of who to call? Ugh. You artists know as well or better than we poets that there's a 100-1 ratio of artists to art venues. I don't think "calling" any studio is terribly useful. But I'm reminded of film festivals like Cannes, where even established directors deliver finished products in hope of positioning them to "be discovered" by distributors who will be impressed with their own cleverness and recognizing a good movie through the highly trained skill of watching it.
Which brings me to point three: I love the idea of an L&F movie. And I think there's a market for it. And I think the current model that applies is: create a teaser, bait the hook with it, and land some production money with it. I'm thinking of a teaser in that moving camera, still animation style of the old Marvel Comics show that used to run in the afternoons on local TV channels (
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0122826/); there's a lot of reasons for this, but the biggest is that our adventures here at L&F are EXTREMELY character-driven, and establishing character rapport through voicework would go a long way to selling the idea. And Matt's excellent still artwork has enough energy, I think, to carry off the format for a short film. And it's a cheap way to experiment, and try it all out.
Or not. What are some other options?