Sign in to follow this  
sewhite2000

A Wrinkle in Time

52 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, EricJ said:

I actually blogged on this at one point--
Because actors now ask for Points and salary instead of grosses, the big money for stars is Character Representation.  Meaning, that in the final poster, every actor with an agent to say so demands that they be featured in the final marketing poster, which is why every poster now looks like a class picture.  (Also why, for a big summer blockbuster, why we get six or seven lobby posters with one of the main characters EACH--It's their Award For Participating.)

As for why some are bigger than others, I made the comparison to the old days of medieval European religious art:
Before the Italians had discovered 3D perspective, the size of the flat 2D characters depicted was a symbolic representation of their social importance we were meant to be aware of:  The ginormous saint would always be just slightly bigger than the king/patron, who was bigger than the normal-size priests, who were twice the size of their churches, out of which little teeny peasants would be exiting, and so on.

Unknown.jpeg

As for why some actors in the poster happen to be closer (bigger) than the minor new ones in back (smaller), I merely quoted Grover's observation of "Near....Fa-a-a-a-ar!!"   :lol:

Grover is a genius.

In the novel, the three children are the main characters and are in every scene. Well, Meg is alone in a small handful of scenes. The three "Mrs." characters serve as their spiritual guides and only show up sporadically, usually to offer cryptic advice that only makes sense later, if at all. I don't recall any of them ever actively participating in the "rescue mission", per se. They're never there when danger is around. But of course they're played by well-established adult actors, so they get "big heads". The father is the center of the quest, so he's symbolically well-positioned, but he's pretty much an afterthought in the book. I don't think he appears until the final 50 pages, maybe. But again, big-name star playing him, so ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

I actually liked John Carter, as well. There are a few on that flop list that I liked.

I talked about John Carter in another thread. I saw it in the theater, and I liked it well enough. But I said in that thread there probably hadn't been any new John Carter material in any form since the Marvel comic adaptation was canceled in 1978 or so. Since there' probably wasn't any name recognition or "Q-factor" among any viewer under 50, I don't even know why they thought they should revive the franchise, other than they just had the ERB rights, so what the hell? I noticed they also did a new Tarzan not long after. But they might as well have just created a new science fiction hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, sewhite2000 said:

Fair enough! Wasn't complaining. Just noting.

I don't know anything about your childhood book - - but it sounded interesting.

I'm afraid when I was 10 or 11, I was reading David Copperfield and Oliver Twist. And both of those were very good movies.

My favorite childhood book was Black Beauty-- and there wasn't any controversy about what kind of people would play the parts because all of the leading characters were horses.

What little I've seen about your book, however it looks like they're trying to update it to make it more accessible to a diverse Society.

But you do have to remember that whenever a book is adapted to a film there are going to have to be changes that are just automatically done for the sake of Cinema.

David O. Selznick was quite famous for his  adaptations from Literature Like David Copperfield - - and then from the popular romantic fiction of Gone With the Wind - - which we can hardly call literature.

David was fanatical about trying to shoot nearly every scene, although he had to leave a lot of GWTW out--like Scarlett O'Hara's first son.

When Selznick brought Hitchcock to do Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca, they had quite a fight. Hitch wanted to make it Cinema and Selznick wanted to just do a photo play of the book. In the end Hitch won a lot because he wouldn't do any work until Selznick left the set.

So your objections about the adaptation are quite normal and expected.  Selznick believed That if you veer too far from the book The readers would be disappointed, while Hitchcock felt as though the book was simply the departure for the Cinematic Adventure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sewhite2000 said:

I talked about John Carter in another thread. I saw it in the theater, and I liked it well enough. But I said in that thread there probably hadn't been any new John Carter material in any form since the Marvel comic adaptation was canceled in 1978 or so. Since there' probably wasn't any name recognition or "Q-factor" among any viewer under 50, I don't even know why they thought they should revive the franchise, other than they just had the ERB rights, so what the hell? I noticed they also did a new Tarzan not long after. But they might as well have just created a new science fiction hero.

"The Legend of Tarzan" (2016) which is not Disney, a very good movie. That one liner from Samuel Jackson regarding being "submissive" to the ape left me in hysterical laughing.:lol:

maxresdefault.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is more or less a response to what Princess of Tap was saying:

They have indeed "multiculturalized" a novel that contained only white characters (on Earth, anyway). I would like to stress I don't have any issue with those kinds of casting decisions. Used to be white actors took a lot of the minority roles! So, now the pendulum has swung the other way. Not that minorities are now playing white people! But roles that have been long-established as white are occasionally being rewritten as other races. It happened with the latest version of Annie with both Annie and Daddy Warbucks. There has been buzz that Idris Elba is going to be the new James Bond. I don't know if that will happen, but they already made Moneypenny a black woman. There are a number of others, but I'm just not thinking of them right now.

Anyway, yes, I'm old, and I've read many books and seen many movies and seen many movies that were adapted from books, and sometimes I've read both the book and seen the film adaptation!  I'm well aware the film adaptations almost always take their liberties. I'm more of a movie watcher than fiction book reader (easily 90 per cent of my reading material for the last 20 years has been nonfiction), so if it's a book from the last generation or so, I'm very unlikely to have read it. But yes, people who do read the book first seem to almost always favor it to the movie. 

I had a very distinct vision of A Wrinkle in Time in my my head as a child, more earthy, dark and mysterious than this very bright, splashy, Vegas stage outfit version this movie appears to give us. It's rather unsettling to me. I'm not even certain if I'll see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jakeem said:

The film's director is Ava DuVernay, who has become the first black female director in history to shoot a picture with a $100 million budget. Guess she wanted to make sure the money was well placed.

Image result for ava duvernay

I just heard on the PBS NewsHour that Ava's next film will be all about the Central Park Five-- I wonder who will play the president?

And Some people seem to think her current film is controversial. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, sewhite2000 said:

I talked about John Carter in another thread. I saw it in the theater, and I liked it well enough. But I said in that thread there probably hadn't been any new John Carter material in any form since the Marvel comic adaptation was canceled in 1978 or so. Since there' probably wasn't any name recognition or "Q-factor" among any viewer under 50, I don't even know why they thought they should revive the franchise, other than they just had the ERB rights, so what the hell? I noticed they also did a new Tarzan not long after. But they might as well have just created a new science fiction hero.

At the time, most of the complaints about Disney's John Carter joked about Rich Ross's mishandling of the marketing:
Originally, they were planning to go with classic-book credit and use Burroughs' "A Princess of Mars" title--But then certain bad CGI movies for the studio had just made "Mars" a bad-luck word to put in the title (which is why "John Carter of Mars" doesn't appear until the end-credit title), and then analysts scrambling to look for an explanation why "Princess & the Frog" hadn't done well hit on the idea that the icky P-word must have scared boys away.  Prompting jokes that Disney was forced to title their scifi epic "A ____ of ____"

Then, you had the ugly eye-grating poster, and two bad trailers, one of which made viewers think it was "Prince of Persia", and the other that made them think it was "Attack of the Clones".  When YouTubers took to their Final Cut software and had to create "The Trailer We Should Have Gotten" that put the scenes in story-chronological order to make sense, you know something's wrong. 

(And while there were just as many other Rich Ross mistakes, like the infamous premiering of "Winnie the Pooh" against Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows Pt. 2, John Carter is considered to be the movie that finally executed Ross's career for the public good.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sewhite2000 said:

This is more or less a response to what Princess of Tap was saying:

They have indeed "multiculturalized" a novel that contained only white characters (on Earth, anyway). I would like to stress I don't have any issue with those kinds of casting decisions. Used to be white actors took a lot of the minority roles! So, now the pendulum has swung the other way. Not that minorities are now playing white people! But roles that have been long-established as white are occasionally being rewritten as other races. It happened with the latest version of Annie with both Annie and Daddy Warbucks. There has been buzz that Idris Elba is going to be the new James Bond. I don't know if that will happen, but they already made Moneypenny a black woman. There are a number of others, but I'm just not thinking of them right now.

Anyway, yes, I'm old, and I've read many books and seen many movies and seen many movies that were adapted from books, and sometimes I've read both the book and seen the film adaptation!  I'm well aware the film adaptations almost always take their liberties. I'm more of a movie watcher than fiction book reader (easily 90 per cent of my reading material for the last 20 years has been nonfiction), so if it's a book from the last generation or so, I'm very unlikely to have read it. But yes, people who do read the book first seem to almost always favor it to the movie. 

I had a very distinct vision of A Wrinkle in Time in my my head as a child, more earthy, dark and mysterious than this very bright, splashy, Vegas stage outfit version this movie appears to give us. It's rather unsettling to me. I'm not even certain if I'll see it.

As an adult I almost exclusively read Agatha Christie for pleasure because it seems as though in one lifetime you never run out of something to read. However, I never like the film adaptations that I see after I read the story and vice versa.

It simply may be a result of  the very  intimate experience that you have when you personally read a book Alone by yourself.

I found that her stories that I loved the most were the film adaptations that I liked the least.

The only way they could have satisfied me would have been if I was the one directing the film adaptation and had done all the casting. LOL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out the evolution of the book's cover over its first 50 years (all the present editions have photos from the movie, of course). I had the original edition, with that evocative blue cover with the white silhouettes. Note also the depiction of the three "Mrs." characters on the second version, which is way closer to the way they're described in the book than the glam-rock/Cher outfits that they're wearing in the movie.

http://odysseybks.blogspot.com/2012/02/many-covers-of-wrinkle-in-time.html

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Princess of Tap said:

As an adult I almost exclusively read Agatha Christie for pleasure because it seems as though in one lifetime you never run out of something to read. However, I never like the film adaptations that I see after I read the story and vice versa.

It simply may be a result of  the very  intimate experience that you have when you personally read a book Alone by yourself.

I found that her stories that I loved the most were the film adaptations that I liked the least.

The only way they could have satisfied me would have been if I was the one directing the film adaptation and had done all the casting. LOL

 

I read all the Hercule Poirot novels in chronological order when Waldenbooks stocked every darn one of them and sold most of the paperbacks versions for $2 each! (The longer ones were maybe $3) In a relatively short time, began when I was 11 maybe and had finished by the time I was 14. Along the way I also read a few Mrs. Marples and one or two of the stand-alones like Ten Little Indians.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sewhite2000 said:

Check out the evolution of the book's cover over its first 50 years (all the present editions have photos from the movie, of course). I had the original edition, with that evocative blue cover with the white silhouettes. Note also the depiction of the three "Mrs." characters on the second version, which is way closer to the way they're described in the book than the glam-rock/Cher outfits that they're wearing in the movie.

http://odysseybks.blogspot.com/2012/02/many-covers-of-wrinkle-in-time.html

I'm not a librarian , but I have spent so many years hanging around libraries and librarians-- academic and community that once some librarians asked me to work several years with them classifying books, tapes, CDsand DVDs in the Dewey Decimal System. That was my idea of a good time. LOL

The real librarians did the heavy work of the initial classification but my job was to check to make sure that new terminology in the classification kept up with current norms.

For example I had to go through and find every reference to some books with the word Indian and change it to Native American on the computer or to verify some boring thing like the exact city of publication and whether or not the title was preceded by an article.

Trivial details that are so important to classification.

I went through so many books, especially children's books, that I know I remember your book very well although I didn't have time to read the whole book. So it must have still been popular a few years ago. I thought we always got a lot of copies of it to classify  from private and school libraries now that I have seen the original cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, sewhite2000 said:

I read all the Hercule Poirot novels in chronological order when Waldenbooks stocked every darn one of them and sold most of the paperbacks versions for $2 each! (The longer ones were maybe $3) In a relatively short time, began when I was 11 maybe and had finished by the time I was 14. Along the way I also read a few Mrs. Marples and one or two of the stand-alones like Ten Little Indians.

Terrific!

In my Junior High English book there was a Sir Conan Doyle Story, "The Case of the Dying Detective". That started me on Sherlock Holmes for my entire time in High School. So all that coincided with me watching the weekly Scotland Yard local TV show with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Holmes and Watson.

 As an adult, I got a chance to read an old book at home that contained Murder on the Orient Express. It excited me so much that I went to Waldenbooks and bought two or three Christies and it's been that way ever since. After that I discovered Joan Hickson and I've never been the same since. 

BTW-- You don't sound old at all. We just sound extremely mature and know our way around the block. Reading is fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a Newberry Award winner, and I feel reasonably certain it's never been out of print. I would say the height of its popularity (until now, as the movie will no doubt spark a whole new generation of readers) was in the 60s and 70s, maybe on into the early 80s. It was popular enough L'Engle wrote, I believe, three sequels continuing to chronicle the weird adventures of the Murry family on into the next generation of Murrys (I read at least two of them. They didn't do as much for me). Disney has actually adapted the novel before! As a made-for-TV movie in 2003.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290382/?ref_=nv_sr_2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jakeem said:

Anybody remember what the biggest flop in Disney history was? 

"The Black Cauldron" perhaps?

Image result for the black cauldron gif

I remember this one. I tried watching it for the first time about a year ago, and couldn't get all the way through it. I don't see its appeal, although I know it has a fanbase 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NickAndNora34 said:

I remember this one. I tried watching it for the first time about a year ago, and couldn't get all the way through it. I don't see its appeal, although I know it has a fanbase 

Basically, when any child-of-the-80's rhapsodizes in its defense, pretty much all--ALL--they ever show of it is the Horn-y King, or the scenes of skeletons on the march...As you can see.  
That's because their whole sentimental appeal was "Oo, it was a Disney movie and scary back then!", which is probably the only earthly reason a sentimental fanbase exists for "Return to Oz".  (Except for when some Disney-fan smartypants asks "Why isn't Eilonwy a Disney Princess?", just to show off he remembered his childhood.)

I was a book fan who watched it in theaters with another book-fan family member, and the words that sprang to both our minds was "What a waste of time..."  Little did we realize this was the short Disney career of Richard Rich, who later went on to plague us for years with sequels to his "The Swan Princess" and "Alpha & Omega"--And yes, this does look like a Cheap 90's Disney-Wannabe, even if it wasn't the 90's, and was the actual Disney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw The Black Cauldron in the theater. I was a junior in high school, and heavily into Dungeons & Dragons, and one of my gaming friends and I went and saw all the '80s movies that seemed to have any medieval fantasy elements at all, of which there were quite a few. We were mildly embarrassed as we were pushing legal adulthood, but we took some comfort in that it was Disney's first-ever PG-rated animated feature, which I think was even part of their advertising campaign. Since Disney animated films never air again anywhere except the Disney Channel (which I don't have) or if you buy them, I saw the film that one day and have never seen it again. As such, I barely remember anything about it. Looking at some stills on imdb are jarring my memory just a little bit but not much. All I really remember is we emerged very disappointed that is was still very Disneyesque with animal sidekicks and whatnot. We were very sure we were too grown up for all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read a review of A Wrinkle in Time on CNN and it wasn't very positive.   My local paper also had a less then positive review.    

But CNN did have a politically slanted article on the film that uses guilt to try to help sell tickets: i.e. that one needs to support the film (by going to see it and paying for a ticket),   if one supports the movement. 

If the film doesn't do well and the director isn't given additional 'big budget' projects it will be interesting to see how this will be spun in the media, especially here in LA LA land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2018‎-‎03‎-‎09 at 5:25 PM, EricJ said:

I detect a little deliberate antipathy, in a one-third-old year that already gave us Peter Rabbit and Fifty Shades Freed.  <_<

So far, the audience reaction has been divided into "It looks funny!" from people who haven't read the book, "It looks funny!" from people who have read the book, and a general consensus on "Giant Oprah-zilla...Insert punchline here."  Me, I'm in that little invisible sliver of the pie chart reading "I couldn't stand the book" (even if you liked the Narnia stories' "religious allegory", clear the dance floor for Madeline L'Engle), but can accept it's at least more visually imaginative than that 00's TV-movie Disney already gave us back when they were playing with their new ABC-TV toy.

 

Some of them ARE:

  • Walt had to sell Fantasia to RKO to pay back his big-city stereo costs, and RKO cut the small-town version into shreds and made a howling mess of the marketing.  (Eerily similar to Fantasia 2000's fate in its later non-IMAX cineplex release.)
  • John Musker and Ron Clements had wanted to make Treasure Planet literally since the days of Black Cauldron (but Eisner & Katzenberg thought it "wasn't commercial" and stuck them on Great Mouse Detective, Little Mermaid and Hercules*)--And it had the bad timing not only to be released two weeks after Harry Potter 2 and 007, but hit the new anti-Eisner sentiments from enraged Lilo & Stitch uber-fans who thought Chris Sanders should be crowned laurels and be made new Disney Czar.
  • Prince of Persia is actually a respectable version of the fan-sacred "Sands of Time" video-game, if you happen to be one of the fans who already played it, and one of the arguable points in "Why can't we have one good video-game movie?".  Not too many paying moviegoers had, though.
  • The Alamo, in addition to its Disney big-budget "Remember 'Pearl Harbor'!" historical-blockbuster image, originally had horror stories of "PC historical revisionism" during production, most of which were either toned down in rewrites or were simply inaccurate.  It's no John Wayne (except for a movie-stealing Billy Bob Thornton as Davy Crockett), but its B.O. became basically an early-00's symbol of "Disney can't do anything right, so either bury them now or kick Eisner out!"
  • I can not now, nor have I ever understood the murderous rages fans still go into fourteen years later at the very mention of "Home on the Range"--But it did come out the same month as The Alamo, when those same enraged Lilo fans couldn't understand why the studio hadn't simply dropped dead and ate dirt yet after Treasure Planet.  (Yes, Roseanne actually is funny as a cow, and judging from those ABC Oscar ads, oh, we sure want her back now, don't we?)  During the whole anti-Eisner campaign, you never once heard Range mentioned outside of the same sentence as Alamo.  Never.  Once.  EVER.
  • John Carter is...as good a version of the corny book series as you could get, and is unquestionably a labor of love--For those who love the books.  It's now remembered only for being so deliberately and willfully badly-marketed during an already risky March-madness, it lost the major Disney studio exec his job.

I had to substitute a few of the four, since no sane person on earth who was alive to have seen it in a theater would EVER call "Return to Oz" a good film (unless they were defending David Shire's score to the bitter end).  That was one of those same rare nightmarish peeks over the cliff into the dark, swirling abysses of director/studio insanity that left analysts wondering why "Lone Ranger" and "Tomorrowland" didn't succeed at the box office.  :blink:  As for "Mars Needs Moms", that, like the CGI "A Christmas Carol", was one of Robert Zemeckis's own private insanities, and Carol had already made him a dead-director-walking at the studio by that point.

And as for Sorcerer's Apprentice, Deedles and Around/80, those were merely in the "Ohhhhh....dear gods. -_- " category.

---

* - After Black Cauldron, Hercules beat the record as biggest studio-crushing animated flop of all time.  If it's considered a fan-favorite on disk today, that's because our hot audience heads have cooled somewhat in twenty years, but most of the murderous rages against it at the time may have just been the delayed-reaction confusion to sort out our feelings why Hunchback of Notre Dame hadn't really been that good a movie...The reasons why didn't hit us until a month or two after it'd left theaters, and then we all picked up a baseball bat.  It wouldn't be until after "Chicken Little", THE worst Disney animated in history, that Eisner would finally be kicked out, but it must have been the new 00's discovery of 3-D that recouped enough losses to keep Chicken off the list.

There certainly was a lot of rambling and buzzwords in that post EricJ. It seems like you have a lot of misplaced anger toward Disney, or more specifically, towards Lilo and Stitch.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

For example I had to go through and find every reference to some books with the word Indian and change it to Native American on the computer or to verify some boring thing like the exact city of publication and whether or not the title was preceded by an article.

Perl and sed are your friends.

Of course, changing the references wouldn't be helpful to books about Diwali.  :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JamesStewartFan95 said:

There certainly was a lot of rambling and buzzwords in that post EricJ. It seems like you have a lot of misplaced anger toward Disney, or more specifically, towards Lilo and Stitch.

Think I'm overreacting?  All I say is, ohh, friend, you SHOULDA BEEN THERE from the summer of '02 to the summer of '03, back during the darkest boiling-point days of SaveDisney.com, when a growing majority of anger-issued animation fans wanted Michael "Not Our Disney" Eisner out, and didn't care how they got it or what would replace him.  Your walls would have large head-sized holes in them from repeated pounding.   Leaving aside that this was fresh during the mania for "Shrek" in '01, back when every single anti-fairytale joke was politically spun into a "Long-awaited attack on Disney!", and all Jeffrey Katzenberg had to do to get the female demographic on his side was throw out a few more princess-bashing jokes--Simply put, a lot of fans had ISSUES.

First, you had L&S teaser trailers, where Disney was unsure whether audiences would accept lil'-hellraiser Stitch as an official "Disney character", and did funny teasers where Stitch interrupts Disney classics:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv90Sp71mfQ  The marketing wasn't quite ready to tell us who Lilo was at the end of the trailer, so Shrek-manic fans literally--literally--thought the entire movie would be gags about Stitch coming to Earth to interrupt Disney classics for 90 minutes.  I quote:  "Disney's finally gotten the message from the success of Shrek, they're ready to meet the audience's new realization that their classics are outdated and are taking a step to parody them!"  No, I did not make that up...Welcome to the crazy pipe-bomb-throwing war zone of 2002 animation fandom.

Then we found out the real plot--Okay, so there's a little Hawaiian girl in it, and Stitch doesn't spend the whole movie dogpiling gags on Little Mermaid and Beauty & the Beast.  In fact, when the movie came out, it was SO strange, undisciplined and disorganized in pursuing Chris Sanders' "In praise of the Weird" theme of the two misunderstood characters, fans saw it as some kind of--you guessed it--"attack" on the "conventional Disney fairytale stories".  SaveDisney.com only wanted Eisner out, but didn't go into specifics about who they wanted to replace him...Guess who a majority of formerly Shrek-manic, now Stitch-manic, animation fans decided would be perfect to run the company, and make, quote, "more weird films for a new audience!"  Even though most animators at the studio freely admitted that Chris Sanders couldn't direct fish into a bucket without collaborator Dean DeBlois, Sanders was now put up on a pedestal by fans as THE reason to kick Eisner out...Never mind John Lasseter's Pixar movies, think about that for a moment the next time you watch Dreamworks' "The Croods".

Treasure Planet may have failed its weekend because of its bad timing and competition, it may have not found audience awareness because it couldn't escape L&S's good word-of-mouth shadow from summer, and it may have been hobbled after Eisner pulled it out of wide release before Christmas vacation...But, like Home on the Range, it was PUNISHED by fans for being "Too normal!" a Disney movie, and was tarred, feathered, drawn, quartered and burned at the stake for such a crime.  Do I seem like I bear Stitch fans a bit of a grudge*?--Welcome to 2002.  Those days are long ago by now, but animation fans are still suffering its legacy.

------

* -  I have softened my stance on the characters somewhat since, after a few funny encounters with L&S at Disneyland, and the Disney Channel cartoon series did a much better job than the movie of putting the characters front and center of the story--But I maintain that the Movie could have used at least two or three more script drafts to finally persuade itself what it was actually about.  I'm starting to agree with the animators about Chris Sanders and that bucket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EricJ said:

Think I'm overreacting?  All I say is, ohh, friend, you SHOULDA BEEN THERE from the summer of '02 to the summer of '03, back during the darkest boiling-point days of SaveDisney.com, when a growing majority of anger-issued animation fans wanted Michael "Not Our Disney" Eisner out, and didn't care how they got it or what would replace him.  Your walls would have large head-sized holes in them from repeated pounding.   Leaving aside that this was fresh during the mania for "Shrek" in '01, back when every single anti-fairytale joke was politically spun into a "Long-awaited attack on Disney!", and all Jeffrey Katzenberg had to do to get the female demographic on his side was throw out a few more princess-bashing jokes--Simply put, a lot of fans had ISSUES.

First, you had L&S teaser trailers, where Disney was unsure whether audiences would accept lil'-hellraiser Stitch as an official "Disney character", and did funny teasers where Stitch interrupts Disney classics:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv90Sp71mfQ  The marketing wasn't quite ready to tell us who Lilo was at the end of the trailer, so Shrek-manic fans literally--literally--thought the entire movie would be gags about Stitch coming to Earth to interrupt Disney classics for 90 minutes.  I quote:  "Disney's finally gotten the message from the success of Shrek, they're ready to meet the audience's new realization that their classics are outdated and are taking a step to parody them!"  No, I did not make that up...Welcome to the crazy pipe-bomb-throwing war zone of 2002 animation fandom.

Then we found out the real plot--Okay, so there's a little Hawaiian girl in it, and Stitch doesn't spend the whole movie dogpiling gags on Little Mermaid and Beauty & the Beast.  In fact, when the movie came out, it was SO strange, undisciplined and disorganized in pursuing Chris Sanders' "In praise of the Weird" theme of the two misunderstood characters, fans saw it as some kind of--you guessed it--"attack" on the "conventional Disney fairytale stories".  SaveDisney.com only wanted Eisner out, but didn't go into specifics about who they wanted to replace him...Guess who a majority of formerly Shrek-manic, now Stitch-manic, animation fans decided would be perfect to run the company, and make, quote, "more weird films for a new audience!"  Even though most animators at the studio freely admitted that Chris Sanders couldn't direct fish into a bucket without collaborator Dean DeBlois, Sanders was now put up on a pedestal by fans as THE reason to kick Eisner out...Never mind John Lasseter's Pixar movies, think about that for a moment the next time you watch Dreamworks' "The Croods".

Treasure Planet may have failed its weekend because of its bad timing and competition, it may have not found audience awareness because it couldn't escape L&S's good word-of-mouth shadow from summer, and it may have been hobbled after Eisner pulled it out of wide release before Christmas vacation...But, like Home on the Range, it was PUNISHED by fans for being "Too normal!" a Disney movie, and was tarred, feathered, drawn, quartered and burned at the stake for such a crime.  Do I seem like I bear Stitch fans a bit of a grudge*?--Welcome to 2002.  Those days are long ago by now, but animation fans are still suffering its legacy.

------

* -  I have softened my stance on the characters somewhat since, after a few funny encounters with L&S at Disneyland, and the Disney Channel cartoon series did a much better job than the movie of putting the characters front and center of the story--But I maintain that the Movie could have used at least two or three more script drafts to finally persuade itself what it was actually about.  I'm starting to agree with the animators about Chris Sanders and that bucket.

Wow! You didn’t get the point of Lilo and Stitch, did you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JamesStewartFan95 said:

Wow! You didn’t get the point of Lilo and Stitch, did you?

I got the point of the series, that it was about the two characters, and their being just perfectly weird enough for each other.

Unfortunately, Sanders seemed to think we moviegoers were already Getting the Point and on their side the very minute and second we walked into the theater.  He'd been too close to his misunderstood-oddball material and working on his lil' pet project so long, he forgot that this was not a Classic Story, we had no ideas who these two characters were in our lives, and that as audiences we would instinctively follow the one character who has some actual dream-goal to pursue early on--In the movie's case, that would be the big sister, and her determination to find a job and be independent, despite being sabotaged by a psychotic little drama queen and a slobbery hellbeast.  

I think, in Sanders' mind, we were supposed to find it a running funny comic element to see Nani "punished" as the one frustrated-Normie in the middle of all the free-spirited creative chaos, but instead making her the butt of the joke trying to keep the family together came off as gratingly mean-spirited.  When we're supposed to shed a tear as Lilo might be taken away, all I dry-eyed thought was, "Now, y'see?...If you'd just OPENED THE DOOR when you were supposed to, you wouldn't be in this mess in the first place--Whose freakin' fault was THAT??"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and also, I was going to theatres to see Disney movies at that time, including Treasure Planet which I still hold as an underrated gem in the animated Disney catalogue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, EricJ said:

I got the point of the series, that it was about the two characters, and their being just perfectly weird enough for each other.

Unfortunately, Sanders seemed to think we moviegoers were already Getting the Point and on their side the very minute and second we walked into the theater.  He'd been too close to his misunderstood-oddball material and working on his lil' pet project so long, he forgot that this was not a Classic Story, we had no ideas who these two characters were in our lives, and that as audiences we would instinctively follow the one character who has some actual dream-goal to pursue early on--In the movie's case, that would be the big sister, and her determination to find a job and be independent, despite being sabotaged by a psychotic little drama queen and a slobbery hellbeast.  

I think, in Sanders' mind, we were supposed to find it a running funny comic element to see Nani "punished" as the one frustrated-Normie in the middle of all the free-spirited creative chaos, but instead making her the butt of the joke trying to keep the family together came off as gratingly mean-spirited.  When we're supposed to shed a tear as Lilo might be taken away, all I dry-eyed thought was, "Now, y'see?...If you'd just OPENED THE DOOR when you were supposed to, you wouldn't be in this mess in the first place--Whose freakin' fault was THAT??"

Yeah, but the reason that Nani was go exasperated with Lilo, and in turn Lilo was so “psychotic” around her sister was that both were demonstrating their respective feelings on their situation (their parents having just died). I didn’t have any siblings growing up, but I, like many other people could clearly see that their was a relatable sibling relationship at the heart of Lilo and Stitch. That’s what is and what should be the focus of the movie. Not the aliens. Maybe it’s misleading, but I’d rather have the movie that we got than a movie sold purely on alien sight gags. I think we have the TV show (and movie) My Favorite Martian for that!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us