|
I quite enjoyed the BBC adaptation of Revolting Rhymes that was on tv just now. Not sure how you can watch it outside the UK.
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 03:51 |
|
|
Neon Noodle posted:Thinking about watching Aladdin today. It's my favorite Disney film but I haven't actually watched it all the way through in years. Do it. If you haven't seen it since VHS or DVD days, definitely put that Blu-Ray player to use, it's almost like watching a whole new movie. Tuxedo Catfish posted:I looked them up before making the post. "I don't fit in here, I wanna do things" is not what I'm talking about. How Far I'll Go is less about not fitting in and more about responsibility fighting against freedom. She fits in fine, and can in fact be a good leader and live a good life and be satisfied with it, and she knows this, but it still feels wrong. SatansBestBuddy fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Dec 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
The music from Moana not breaking into the mainstream is also probably because Moana isn't the world-shattering phenomenon that Frozen was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
SatansBestBuddy posted:How Far I'll Go is less about not fitting in and more about responsibility fighting against freedom. She fits in fine, and can in fact be a good leader and live a good life and be satisfied with it, and she knows this, but it still feels wrong. She's a born traveler in a settled people, I'd call that not fitting in. Either way, though, it doesn't really change my analysis. It's the difference between a character expressing the fact that she has a fairly conventional fantasy that doesn't quite mesh with the paradise she was raised in vs. a character who was genuinely repressed breaking free and living her fantasy then and there. How Far I'll Go is ironically a better message (at least in context, I could quibble about this but it's a whole other conversation and not really about "why is it popular" any more) and it's not set up to be knocked down by the overall theme of the movie it's in like Let It Go, but it's nowhere near as cathartic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:She's a born traveler in a settled people, I'd call that not fitting in. reminder that the ultimate vindication of Moana's wanderlust is that nomadism turns out to be more traditional (and thus more valid) than settling in one place. It's a reactionary story about the vital importance of adhering as closely as possible to a fixed Golden Age which any deviance from represents decay, with the whole arc about Maui's hook cementing the point. Samuel Clemens posted:The new Jungle Book made all the villains more threatening than their 1967 counterparts. Kaa went from comic relief to genuinely unnerving temptress, and Louie has a physical presence to him that doesn't show up in any other adaptation. Shere Khan being more of a savage fits right in with that. The others were definitely a lot more menacing but Khan just comes off as this angry, thuggish idiot, like his entire threat is that he can take on any jungle critter in a straight one-on-one fight but he's also got the subtlety of a sack of hammers, whereas there's the implied threat that the 67 Khan might also be smarter than Mowgli, or at least a more effective social manipulator. Even when Mowgli burns the whole drat jungle down there's never really any possibility CGI Khan's going to turn the rest of the animals against him. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Dec 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
The final vindication of Moana's wanderlust comes in the song I Am Moana where her capability as a voyager and her responsibility as saviour of her people are reconciled with each other. She's still conflicted up until that point. She and her father both knew about the boats and the ancestry stuff, but it doesn't actually make a difference except in ensuring she doesn't give up immediately. Fangz fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Dec 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:The others were definitely a lot more menacing but Khan just comes off as this angry, thuggish idiot, like his entire threat is that he can take on any jungle critter in a straight one-on-one fight but he's also got the subtlety of a sack of hammers, whereas there's the implied threat that the 67 Khan might also be smarter than Mowgli, or at least a more effective social manipulator. Even when Mowgli burns the whole drat jungle down there's never really any possibility CGI Khan's going to turn the rest of the animals against him. I actually like this about the 2016 Jungle Book. Shere Khan is right about Mowgli, and he's defeated because Mowgli is ultimately a more terrifying and effective force of destruction than he is -- and not because of his intelligence, but because he has opposable thumbs and isn't afraid of fire. Mowgli isn't the brutish Shere Khan's antithesis, he's his successor. It's disguised as "but of course we really all trust him, we're his friends" but it's actually a very amoral moment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
It makes all of the difference: her renewed commitment springs from an extended bit about how "we were voyagers", not "but I gotta be me". It's a movie where everything new is explicitly horrible and the greatest good is always achieved by restoring everything to exactly what it once was. Her father has a (justified) phobia of sailing and has devoted his life to keeping the island sustainable, but his mother knows that he's wrong and has rejected the Old Ways that call to all their people at their core. As soon as he gets a reminder of the importance of upholding the traditions he's off on the boat; in a movie where the core of the conflict was that he's enforcing a repressive uniform norm on everyone, rather than that he's rejecting the nature of his ancestry by adopting a settled life deviant from that norm, the film might conclude with him cheerfully waving Moana and her followers off on their adventures to pursue their own ways; but there is only one correct way of the world for the Polynesians, and to break from that status quo invites slow decline and doom. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Dec 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Dr. Bagheera or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Man-Cub
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:The others were definitely a lot more menacing but Khan just comes off as this angry, thuggish idiot, like his entire threat is that he can take on any jungle critter in a straight one-on-one fight but he's also got the subtlety of a sack of hammers, whereas there's the implied threat that the 67 Khan might also be smarter than Mowgli, or at least a more effective social manipulator. Shere Khan's definitely more of a bully in the newest version, but I think you're underselling him a bit. There's a cunning to his violence, and it's most apparent when he throws Akela off the rock. He knows that a straight-up fight with the wolf is risky, so he relies on the element of surprise instead. His intelligence lies precisely in the fact that he eschews any sort of gentlemanly behaviour. There is no code of honour he follows, no principle he wouldn't break in an instant if it gained him an advantage. This raw brutality is what earned him the fear of the other animals, and said fear is what allows him to stay at the top.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
I have absolutely nothing good to say about the live-action Jungle Book, at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
I do! It's pretty 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
I find it interesting that some folks found the villains more threatening in the '16 film. I wouldn't say that either Kaa or Khan were more interesting than their '67 counterparts, but that they merely get more exposition. Kaa's whole purpose is just to deliver this long stream of exposition with really shoddy-looking flashback sequence and some 'trippy' visuals that don't have anything on the moody, bluesy details of Disney's original.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
I hated the use of the songs in LA Jungle Book so much
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
King Louie's design and animation is spectacular, shame about him not being Don Cheadle Oh thats not all positive. The actor for Mowgli was grown out of a testtube to be this role. He is adorable and behind the scenes stuff is great with him reminding people that filming has been like 1/5th of his life
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Pick posted:I have absolutely nothing good to say about the live-action Jungle Book, at all. it's a pretty impressive technical achievement that people keep calling it "live action" with only one live actor and basically no real props in it K. Waste posted:I find it interesting that some folks found the villains more threatening in the '16 film. I wouldn't say that either Kaa or Khan were more interesting than their '67 counterparts, but that they merely get more exposition. Kaa's whole purpose is just to deliver this long stream of exposition with really shoddy-looking flashback sequence and some 'trippy' visuals that don't have anything on the moody, bluesy details of Disney's original. I wouldn't necessarily say they were better, but Kaa and Louie were both giant sinister monsters instead of slapstick comedians, which yes is a lot more menacing. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Dec 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
I agree the songs weren't so great. People praised Bear Necessities but I thought it felt totally discordant. Louie's song too, although I guess at least that added to the sort of weirdness of him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Shiny sucks bad, especially conpared to the rest of the music. Counterpoint: the opening bar of You're Welcome is the worst thing I've heard in any Disney movie in a long while. Good thing the rest of the song makes up for it
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:it's a pretty impressive technical achievement that people keep calling it "live action" with only one live actor and basically no real props in it Just wait until live action Lion King!
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Is Kaa in the '67 Jungle Book supposed to be a caricature of a celebrity or some other specific person, the way King Louis is?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Well the snake in Robin Hood was Terry Thomas, known for playing awful cads in his movies. Maybe Kaa was going for a similar thing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:I'm just spitballing ideas here, but tell me what you think of this: I am imagining every time he gets angry he instead tells a bad joke and goes "wakka wakka  " and I think that would be amazing
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:The music from Moana not breaking into the mainstream is also probably because Moana isn't the world-shattering phenomenon that Frozen was. There's a chicken and egg thing happening here, though. Let It Go is a really strong, classic musical style show-stopper, which audiences always have an appetite and memory for. It's hard to imagine Frozen catching on the way it did if it didn't have ear worm music.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:I find it interesting that some folks found the villains more threatening in the '16 film. I wouldn't say that either Kaa or Khan were more interesting than their '67 counterparts, but that they merely get more exposition. Kaa's whole purpose is just to deliver this long stream of exposition with really shoddy-looking flashback sequence and some 'trippy' visuals that don't have anything on the moody, bluesy details of Disney's original. It's all in the framing. Kaa in the 1967 version is meant to be comic relief, and his interactions with Mowgli are correspondingly bright and humorous. Even the disturbing implications of Trust in Me are mitigated by the visual comedy. By contrast, the interaction between Mowgli and Kaa in the 2016 version has a much more sinister vibe to it thanks to her character design, the moody visuals, and the oppressive soundtrack. You're right that she doesn't actually constitute much of a threat, but the film treats her like one, which makes all the difference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Boxman posted:There's a chicken and egg thing happening here, though. Let It Go is a really strong, classic musical style show-stopper, which audiences always have an appetite and memory for. It's hard to imagine Frozen catching on the way it did if it didn't have ear worm music. Universal had over a loving decade to release Wicked in theaters and they didn't, so Disney took the objective best part of that show (Idina Menzel singing) and put some ice on that poo poo and of course it was popular. And now we're getting a Wicked movie in like, 3 years that will probably have Not-Kristen Chenowith (Dove Cameron) and Not-Idina Menzel (Lea Michele) and it will be as underwhelming as Into The Woods was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Re: Shiny chat, that whole sequence occupies the same place that Oogie Boogie does in The Nightmare Before Christmas where it doesn't have much to do with anything in the main overarching plot and could easily be cut out but the character/song is so much fun that I really don't give a poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Fawf posted:Re: Shiny chat, that whole sequence occupies the same place that Oogie Boogie does in The Nightmare Before Christmas where it doesn't have much to do with anything in the main overarching plot and could easily be cut out but the character/song is so much fun that I really don't give a poo poo i made a post somewhere in CineD about how Oogie Boogie is actually completely necessary for NMBX and now i can't remember where it was; can't have been in this thread since i only have a few pages worth of posts
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
The entire rest of Nightmare Before Christmas was just a poor framing device for Oogie Boogie, the idea of an entire movie with a gambling-loving singing sack of bugs protagonist was just too ahead of its timeDC Murderverse posted:Universal had over a loving decade to release Wicked in theaters and they didn't, so Disney took the objective best part of that show (Idina Menzel singing) and put some ice on that poo poo and of course it was popular. and then they took every other part and made Maleficent A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
but basically he's both metaphorically (and maybe even literally) a manifestation of Jack's selfishness, and he allows Jack's actions to have genuinely horrible consequences without making Jack himself into a literal monster instead of a big goofy skeleton without Oogie Boogie, Nightmare Before Christmas would either be unnecessarily dark (if you roll his character into Jack's) or kind of toothless (if the worst that happens to Santa is he... falls behind schedule and gets mad at Jack for being a dick) Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Also if you make Jack malicious instead of ignorant and insensitive (but still not too malicious) then all you've really accomplished is a completely unnecessary remake of The Grinch Who Stole Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Also if you make Jack malicious instead of ignorant and insensitive (but still not too malicious) then all you've really accomplished is a completely unnecessary remake of The Grinch Who Stole Christmas. You know, that's a really good argument. (Well, both your posts.) I never really thought about it like that before but I think you're right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:You know, that's a really good argument. (Well, both your posts.) I never really thought about it like that before but I think you're right. Thanks! But yeah, I love Nightmare Before Christmas for two reasons: because it's a movie about how good intentions can go wrong if you don't think of others first, and because it's a movie that loves and identifies with the grotesque. Both themes are a tricky balancing act and it's very efficient about realizing each of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
So I got A Girl Gets Imprisoned By a Furry and Develops Stockholm Syndrome: 25th Anniversary Edition for Christmas, which is good, because I do rather enjoy that film. That said, I noticed it came with an offer for four movies for $1 from Disney Movie Club, and... well, I'm wondering if that club's worthwhile? It sounds like signing up gives you a two-year obligation during which you're required to buy four more movies, but that it adds up to be generally a bit cheaper than buying the movies loose. I'm not sure if I want to take this offer up or not... Anyone else try the thing out? How's it working out for you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Shadow Hog posted:So I got A Girl Gets Imprisoned By a Furry and Develops Stockholm Syndrome: 25th Anniversary Edition for Christmas, which is good, because I do rather enjoy that film. That said, I noticed it came with an offer for four movies for $1 from Disney Movie Club, and... well, I'm wondering if that club's worthwhile? It sounds like signing up gives you a two-year obligation during which you're required to buy four more movies, but that it adds up to be generally a bit cheaper than buying the movies loose. I'm not sure if I want to take this offer up or not... Anyone else try the thing out? How's it working out for you? What the gently caress? Columbia Record and Tape Club! A blast from the past! No do not do this sir.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Shadow Hog posted:So I got A Girl Gets Imprisoned By a Furry and Develops Stockholm Syndrome: 25th Anniversary Edition for Christmas, which is good, because I do rather enjoy that film. That said, I noticed it came with an offer for four movies for $1 from Disney Movie Club, and... well, I'm wondering if that club's worthwhile? It sounds like signing up gives you a two-year obligation during which you're required to buy four more movies, but that it adds up to be generally a bit cheaper than buying the movies loose. I'm not sure if I want to take this offer up or not... Anyone else try the thing out? How's it working out for you? I'll counterpoint that dude below you and say if you want to buy a bunch of Disney movies, it's a good deal. They often have deals where if you buy one at full price ($30, generally) you can buy as many more as you want at 60% off. You have to buy the requisite 4 at full price, but they also have a buttload of rare stuff on there too. If you want all the Ghibli movies, or all the Pixar movies, or old lovely DCOMs/live action movies for nostalgia reasons, it's the way to go. I was a member for a year or so, and as long as you remember to refuse the movie they automatically send you each month, it's cool. They also have sales occasionally, and you can pick up new movies right as they're released and have them count toward your requirement. Disney movies rarely go on sale, so it's not like you're missing out on sales elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
To bring it back to Jungle Book talk, i will add that whatever you think of the actual film (personally, it's inoffensive and compentent yet doesn't have that spark that could've make it someone's favorite film) the end credits absolutely justify it's existence. Plus, it features Scarlet Johansson doing an amazing cover of 'Trust In Me'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEgkBetZY-M
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
i hosed a cartoon and his polygons burst against my strong muscle and skin, releasing mcdonalds patented sweet'n'sour sauce
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 10:46
|
|
|
Avshalom posted:i hosed a cartoon and his polygons burst against my strong muscle and skin, releasing mcdonalds patented sweet'n'sour sauce Whenever we decide to close this thread, can we make this the final post?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
It's probably about time, since 2017 is just around the corner. You want to do it, Das Boo?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 03:51 |
|
|
I can later today if no one else wants to. I'm a little delirious at the moment and don't trust myself not to accidentally post a bunch of cat pictures in place of a new thread. I've been taking so many cat pictures, you guys!
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 14:17
|
|