Discussion Forums > The Lounge

Film: Where the wild things are.

<< < (3/4) > >>

fohfoh:

--- Quote from: molbjerg on December 15, 2009, 04:53:05 PM ---
--- Quote from: psyren on December 15, 2009, 01:49:32 PM ---Where the Wild Things Are: Selfish Brats on LSD.

--- End quote ---

I think that overstates the films imagination...

--- End quote ---

Might not. I haven't actually seen it, but judging from what has been said, it's totally different from the original film that was made in... the 80s?

Proin Drakenzol:

--- Quote from: AntiPaladin on December 15, 2009, 12:15:08 AM ---Same with the original Through the Looking Glass that became "Alice in Wonderland." Lewis Carol was a depressed pedophile, yet somehow his stories have become thought of as children's stories (well, i suppose they are, but not in the way people think...)

--- End quote ---


I hate you and hope you die a horrible death.

Alice in Wonderland and Alice Through the Looking Glass are two separate stories set in two, very different worlds. Most movies combine the two under a single title of Alice in Wonderland (generally rather well, imo) but Alice Through the Looking Glass certainly didn't "become" Alice in Wonderland; they are and will always remain two separate stories. Two separate stories of which Wonderland comes first anyway.

And the alleged pedophilia and depression are debated rather than documented fact. It's a "well, this, if you read into it, seems like it might indicate that..." kind of bullshit. You know what? Maybe the giant hookah smoking caterpillar is actually a caterpillar that he saw while smoking hookah and not some inner demon.


On Topic: I haven't really heard one thing or another about the movie before this thread. I liked the book when I was a child, but that doesn't mean much for a movie adaption. I am looking forward to Tim Burton's version of the Alice stories, however.

AntiPaladin:
@molbjerg Sorry, but as a film person, I find that most people who "can't" sit through a film are the wrong people to review it. No professional critic will ever walk out of a film because they realize that, by doing so, you show an obvious bias and don't give the film the benefit of the doubt. Same with any media form. If I posted a review panning an Anime series in which I admit to only watching 4 episodes out of 20, no one will give that review the same credit as one from someone who actually watched all 20 episodes. As for the "Emo" angle, fuck, I'm the worlds most anti-Emo person, and I fail to see how WTWTA is anything Emo. No one spends 30 minutes bitching about how they can't get a gf because all women are evil whores and then admitting they've never been in an actual relationship.

@Proin Aww, love you too, sweetie. Sorry, you're right, I meant to say Adventures in Wonderland became "Alice in Wonderland." My bad. Yeah, sorry, he's an alleged pedo since he was never caught with underage girls, only their semi-nude photos. Oh, and his writings and drawings of them in the nude. And the fact that he felt compelled to convince people that he wasn't a pedo. You're right, totally debatable. After all, completely realistic to think that his family tried to convince others that he was a pedo instead of a womanizer, because even during Victorian times it was so much more acceptable to be interested into 12 year olds than in actual women.

Sorry, after seeing what Tim Burton did with "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and "Sweeney Todd" I'm not holding out much hope for "Alice"

molbjerg:

--- Quote from: AntiPaladin on December 16, 2009, 03:00:29 AM ---@molbjerg Sorry, but as a film person, I find that most people who "can't" sit through a film are the wrong people to review it. No professional critic will ever walk out of a film because they realize that, by doing so, you show an obvious bias and don't give the film the benefit of the doubt. Same with any media form. If I posted a review panning an Anime series in which I admit to only watching 4 episodes out of 20, no one will give that review the same credit as one from someone who actually watched all 20 episodes. As for the "Emo" angle, fuck, I'm the worlds most anti-Emo person, and I fail to see how WTWTA is anything Emo. No one spends 30 minutes bitching about how they can't get a gf because all women are evil whores and then admitting they've never been in an actual relationship.
--- End quote ---

Walking out of a film does not show bias. The very fact that you were willing to pay to sit down and watch the film already shows that you are open to it being a good film, in fact you're hoping for it. If it was my job to watch the film, I'd watch it, but as a member of the audience I didn't see reason to increase my suffering by watching the whole thing.

You didn't see the emo-ness? There's the annoying brat of a bitch who is the main character, who one cannot sympathise of empathise with, you just wish he gets lost and run over to get things over with. And aw boo hoo he's from a broken home, mummies dating and his sister hangs out with her friends, WOE IS THIS POOR LITTLE SHIT. A weak modern backing to create an upset kid which was not needed, and was emotionally milked. All of the wild things had their little emotional problems, AW NOES my friend is friends with someone else and I feel left out, booohoo how are people to cope? Not emo? Seriously? It's Dawnson's Creek with fur.

Scudworth:
I think the problem with this movie was that most of it's target audience are too young to have read the book as a child. It's a pretty old book and I doubt Children are still reading it.
I doubt many people on this forum have read it.
I loved the book as a child, and was disappointed in the movie; However the novelty of seeing these childhood memories brought to life like that was amazing.
Obviously some creative license has to be taken when turning a short book into a full movie, but it's not like the movie sucked enough to ruin my fond memories if the book.
It could have been much worse.
It could have been the third Lord of the rings movie.

Also take into consideration some of the other short Children works and tell me they were better.
Jim Carrey's How the Grinch Stole Christmas or Mike Myers' The Cat in the Hat?
Where the wild things are far surpassed the competition in that regard.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page