|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:That's what I thought too, but yeah, comics-blind audience. Have you seen that ginormous image with the whole Disney duck genealogy? Those relationships are plenty hosed as it is.
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:No one cares about comics, either. They're a low form of art. I pray you don't ever go to Europe and scream these posts at the top of your lungs. They WORSHIP the Ducks over there, more then superheroes, some cities have actually run revelations from the comics as top stories.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
effectual posted:I wonder if the Bloom County xmas special holds up. I know The Snowman does, I loved that one. A Wish for Wings that Work, to be specific. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that pretty much the only Bloom County/Outland cartoon ever made? I haven't seen it in a number of years but I don't remember it being that bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Pixeltendo posted:I pray you don't ever go to Europe and scream these posts at the top of your lungs. In fairness, Don Rosa's duck comics are pretty great. Here is Scrooge flexing a floating casino in half.   The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck is a good compilation, if anyone's interested in where to start.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
I always loved the giant from The Brave Little Tailor as the Ghost of Christmas Present. His inability to pronounce pistachios made 5 year old me roar with laughter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Hahaha, according to Wikipedia, Daisy/Isabelle was renamed Goldie in the Finnish dub.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Argue posted:They could use Glittering Goldie you Disney scrubs Except the importance of scrooge's first love is that she doesn't care about money. You prob know that and just wanted to namedrop goldie though (her name's a bit too on the nose anyway).
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 19:33
|
|
She predates Christmas Carol by like 3 decades and they even have a similar backstory.
|
raditts posted:Have you seen that ginormous image with the whole Disney duck genealogy? Those relationships are plenty hosed as it is. Duck relationships are pretty hosed up IRL, so it's par for the course. Larryb posted:A Wish for Wings that Work, to be specific. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that pretty much the only Bloom County/Outland cartoon ever made? I haven't seen it in a number of years but I don't remember it being that bad. Berkeley Breathed basically hates it, because he felt the humor didn't translate well and various things just didn't come together as intended. He also wanted Opus to be voiced by Sterling Holloway, which didn't happen. There's also a subtle naughty subliminal joke at about 30 seconds in, too. Laughmyselfto posted:Leave it to goons to nerd rage about people wrongly enjoying things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Tartarus Sauce posted:Berkeley Breathed basically hates it, because he felt the humor didn't translate well and various things just didn't come together as intended. I wonder how Breathed felt about the film "Mars Needs Moms." That film is absolutely terrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Inveigle posted:I wonder how Breathed felt about the film "Mars Needs Moms." That film is absolutely terrible. I gather that he was less than pleased with it. Also: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/06/entertainment/la-ca-mars-moms-20110306 Tartarus Sauce fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Dec 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Dude didn't like Where the Wild Things Are? < >
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Kojiro posted:In fairness, Don Rosa's duck comics are pretty great. Here is Scrooge flexing a floating casino in half. This scene gave me goosebumps back in the day. The whole compilation is great, expecially if you've read Barks' stuff before. effectual posted:Except the importance of scrooge's Fixed that for you. Renoistic fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Dec 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Pick posted:Dude didn't like Where the Wild Things Are? <
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
I thought the effects were really well done, but I didn't think the movie was that great otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
I felt the movie just really unnecessarily complicate things in order to fill it's running time - it really should've been done as a short.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:I mean, a ton of people didn't like that movie Then they didn't get what it was doing. Sendak thought it got the idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Pick posted:Then they didn't get what it was doing. Sendak thought it got the idea. It's been mentioned a lot, but there's a big gap between "this wasn't what I expected" and "this was bad", and a lot of people don't understand that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Wild Things is a movie that depressed adult children of divorce ate up but actual kids and parents found either boring or too scary, its reputation and commercial failure are completely understandable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Hm, never knew this existed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI8ySKzySpg Youtube has a couple clips from Mickey's xmas up, also this cool making-of that I'm watching right now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7FWRkqVMC8 Also I spotted John Lassiter in the credits (along with other big names).
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 07:21
|
|
Pick posted:Then they didn't get what it was doing. Sendak thought it got the idea. I mean, it's totally possible to understand a movie and just not like it, though?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
My sense is that how people reacted to Where the Wild Things Are often had a lot to do with their own experiences and emotions while growing up, and how they've processed those things in retrospect. One friend of mine who had an abusive upbringing hated the movie and thought it was weird, indie-pretentious, and aggressively depressing; people I know with average or happy childhoods tended to find it intriguing, profound, or bittersweet; and the ones whose parents divorced or died when they were little tended to connect with it around those themes. Gender also appears to shape how people react to the whole dirt-clod-fight scene, I've noticed. Certainly, if you go in expecting a fun, whimsical fantasy romp, and aren't prepared to don your Jungian and Eriksonian hats, you'll probably come out confused, underwhelmed, or disappointed. I also think it's more a movie for adults than for children, honestly. I've yet to meet a kid who saw it and genuinely enjoyed it. Tartarus Sauce fucked around with this message at 08:15 on Dec 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Wild Things is a movie that depressed adult children of divorce ate up but actual kids and parents found either boring or too scary, its reputation and commercial failure are completely understandable. I forgot what movie is being discussed and thought you were referring to the Denise Richards wet shirt movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
Tartarus Sauce posted:I also think it's more a movie for adults than for children, honestly. I've yet to meet a kid who saw it and genuinely enjoyed it. I haven't seen the movie, but I agree that none of the pre-publicity really made it look like a movie aimed at small children, whatever the nature of the source material. It definitely sold itself as a thoughtful film ABOUT childhood for people who have come out the other side.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
Kinda a derail from animation talk, but The Babadook is a pretty good adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are, but from the perspective of Max's mother. To rail this back to animation, here's the 1973 animation of Where the Wild Things Are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT0n77loOCg I grew up on this as part of a video collection of adaptations of Maurice Sendak's stories. I tried finding the whole video, but no luck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Pick posted:Then they didn't get what it was doing. Sendak thought it got the idea. Did you really just pull the "well you just didn't get it" card Tartarus Sauce posted:people I know with average or happy childhoods tended to find it intriguing, profound, or bittersweet; and the ones whose parents divorced or died when they were little tended to connect with it around those themes. I dunno, I had a pretty sweet childhood and my parents also divorced, and the movie didn't really speak to me at all. It might have also helped that I never read the original book so I also didn't have any attachment to it prior. I mean it was alright I guess but I found it pretty forgettable. With the exception of the effects of course, the way they did the faces with awesome. They could so easily have just been mah mah mah mah puppet mouths but they went the extra mile and it pays off
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
I was ambivalent to the "Wild Things" book as a child and thought the movie was stupid. So, there's that viewpoint too. I might go check out "The Babadook" though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Wild Things is a movie that depressed adult children of divorce ate up but actual kids and parents found either boring or too scary, its reputation and commercial failure are completely understandable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
I loved Wild Things but it absolutely was a pretentious art film through and through; it's not for everybody (my childhood home life was happy and divorce-free and I never read the book, if you're curious). It's not an animated film though, so the only other thing I can say about it here is that Macaluso is completely right about the facial animations being super impressive. Well, that and the Andy-Goldsworthy-esque sets were great too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:Did you really just pull the "well you just didn't get it" card Yep. I also strongly object to the idea that thoughtful = pretentious. Kids are great, it was nice to see a film that celebrated real childhood instead of the conventional weird, saccharine and hugely false version.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
You're coming close to talking down to people in this thread. I didn't like, several people didn't like it and all pointed out valid reasons. No matter how good a message or idea is - if you fail to connect to the audience, it is a failure in execution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
That isn't even close to the most vigorous opinion ever posted in this thread. I get that people have a problem with me, but frankly I'd rather have a lively discussion than to worry if the way I phrased liking a movie might make someone else mopey. But just to lay out my frustration more clearly: I've come to think that "pretentious" is the "hipster" of film. It doesn't really have any meaning any more, except as leverage against a certain sensibility in art and film-making. Pick fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Dec 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Sorry, I am being kind of a Christmas bitch. Nevermind  .
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Regardless of your opinion on the final film, the fact that somebpdy gave Spike Jonze $100 million to make a kids movie is a wonderful thing and a net good for movies and the world as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Pick posted:Yep. I agree. I thought the film did a great job of nailing the feelings of childhood that other films gloss over or misrepresent. Everybody loves to depict the wonder, innocence, and joy of childhood, but it takes real cojones to expose the fear, confusion, terrifying rage, and sense of powerlessness that's also typically a major part of childhood. The friend with the bad childhood first said that the movie was too triggering and upsetting for them, and then later added that it was also pretentious, which I think was their way of distancing themselves from it. I also liked how the monsters clearly didn't represent just one idea or one actual person, so it forced me to think about the mix of ideas or combination of people that a given monster represented. Some of the dialogue also reminded me of conversations I've had with real kids, where they're so overcome by the power of an emotion that their way of explaining it seems incoherent, vague, and tangential. Interestingly, Dave Eggers wrote a story based on the script that was published in the New Yorker, and I thought that was pretentious as hell. I also agree that "pretentious" is one of those words that's come to be overused (including by me sometimes), because people variously use it to mean that something pretended to have ideas, and didn't; pretended its ideas were profound, when they weren't; espoused dumb ideas; espoused disagreeable ideas; was overly twee; called attention to itself in an annoying or cloying way; was confusing; seemed overly-impressed with itself; was boring; lacked a sense of humor about itself; and/or made the viewer feel dumb. of Science posted:Regardless of your opinion on the final film, the fact that somebpdy gave Spike Jonze $100 million to make a kids movie is a wonderful thing and a net good for movies and the world as a whole. Oh yes! Can we do that again, please? Tartarus Sauce fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Dec 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
In the end, Dave Eggers sucks most of the time
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
The thing about Where the Wild Things Are is that I think it's a very earnest attempt to adapt a children's book into a nearly two hour experience, and I think you would get a similar result adapting literally any other children's book in a similarly earnest way*. The thing about children books is that they're very economical by design. To extend them into a full picture you have to pad them out. That's what happened with most of the Seuss adaptations, and you end up with a lot of that padding consisting of farts and things that don't necessarily fit the tone of the original work. This isn't always true, and a film like Jumanji or Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs finds great strength in only using the source material as a launchpad. Wild Things is very different from Jumanji and Cloudy in the sense that it's truly trying to adapt the tone of the book. And while it does flesh out the characters like the Seuss adaptions do, it mostly finds value in expanding and exploring the film's themes even further than the book. And the film shows that you end up arriving in some heady and non-kid-friendly places when you start exploring those themes further. And I honestly think that if someone tried to adapt The Cat in the Hat into a two hour film that actually tried to maintain the spirit of the book, it would probably end up in some weird places. Instead the running time of that film is filled with farts. Even How the Grinch Stole Christmas gets really weird. It too fills time with some gross out humor and the worst Jim Carrey mugging, but starts to explore questions of if the Whos are so great after all and the validity of the Grinch's hatred of Christmas. It's definitely a very interesting effort in terms of adaptation at the very least. *Except the Polar Express which also got a very, very tonally close adaptation, but ended up just being really boring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Pick, nobody has a problem with anything you're saying except the assertion that not liking Wild Things means you didn't get it. I got it. It was a very well-made movie, and I appreciate what Jonze was going for. I still didn't like it, because it just didn't click for me, and I think all this stuff about it being "made for adult children of divorce" or whatever is just people trying to articulate why it didn't click for them regardless of its obvious quality.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
I rather enjoyed the 3D animated Dr. Seuss film "Horton Hears a Who." The voice casting and the animation/art were well-done, and I liked the backstory of the Mayor of the Whos. However, I particularly enjoyed the metaphysical aspects of the story (an entire world on a speck of dust) and the concept of teaching people,especially children, to feel empathy for others (even if those people can't be seen). Oh...and I just now realized that the Whoville in the "Horton" book is the same Whoville as in "The Grinch That Stole Christmas."
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
I liked Blue Sky's Horton Hears a Who as well, especially the entire ending sequence where all the Whos are trying to get everyone to hear them on the flower. Them shouting "WE ARE HERE" was done really well, John Powell's score was fantastic. And the art style was perfect. Blue Sky apparently does a good job nailing the very specific looks of certain properties, if Horton and Charlie Brown are any indication.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
Yes, that final sequence where the Whos are shouting to be heard as the fate of the Whos' pink flower becomes more and more uncertain was really well-done and suspenseful. I also enjoyed Carol Burnett as the domineering kangaroo who continues to make accusations irregardless of the evidence (or in this case, the lack of any evidence) of the existence of the Whos, other than Horton's insistence that they are real because he's hard them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 01:01
|
|