Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

the new Grinch is millennial wuzzy


NipkowDisc
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think they missed it. the new grinch looks wuzzy. the eyebrows should be more arched and sinister like chuck jones' Grinch which is the best realization of the character. the Grinch is supposed to imo exude a middle-aged sourness like ebenezer scrooge but the new grinch has a young squeaky millennial age voice.

they cannot even get something as relatively simple as a dr. suess book character right in today's hollywood.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, hamradio said:

A shame modern trendies can't appreciate the simple aspect of the original cartoon.  

Yes, especially since it's the only one that actually looks like the original Suess drawings. Every incarnation feels the need to elaborate on the master work, while Chuck Jones kept the very spirit of Suess' simple story & charming illustrations.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

Yes, especially since it's the only one that actually looks like the original Suess drawings. Every incarnation feels the need to elaborate on the master work, while Chuck Jones kept the very spirit of Suess' simple story & charming illustrations.

As a "wuzzy millennial" (I guess), I agree that this new Grinch looks too nice and too cuddly.  This is like "baby Grinch" or something.  They even butchered the classic "You're a Mean One Mr. Grinch." Nobody can replace Thurl Ravenscroft's original.  Boris Karloff also has such a sinister sounding voice, something that works perfect for the Grinch character.  I can't say that Benedict Cumberbatch has that same quality.  I also disliked the Jim Carrey version.  The 1966 Grinch cartoon is the one I grew up watching every single year and is the only one that I make a point of watching.  The Jim Carrey one seems to have developed this cult following among the younger Millennials/Gen Z that I cannot get behind.  

The simplicity of the original Chuck Jones illustrations of the 1966 cartoon is one of my favorite aspects of the cartoon.  Who needs a complicated background? Just make the background blue, or yellow, or pink, etc.  Everything these days is CGI'd to death, to the point where the CGI isn't even impressive, it's just boring.  I also love A Charlie Brown Christmas and the other Peanuts cartoons for that matter, because the animation (at least the actual drawing of the characters and backgrounds) isn't perfect.  101 Dalmatians (1961) is also charming because in the animation, the artists colored out of the lines, but in an artistic fashion, not just because they're terrible at coloring.  It gives the film a different aesthetic.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

101 Dalmatians (1961) is also charming because in the animation, the artists colored out of the lines, but in an artistic fashion, not just because they're terrible at coloring.  It gives the film a different aesthetic.

Just an aside....101 DALMATIONS was Walt's first foray into using photo copiers (Xerox™) to duplicate all the puppies in the back ground scenes. I think he allowed the "sketchy" feel of the drawings to keep it feeling hand drawn, less automated.

Walt himself was such an innovator, most of the feature cartoons he oversaw broke new ground artistically and stylistically-something the present Disney mega-corporation lacks entirely.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2018 at 7:33 AM, TikiSoo said:

Yes, especially since it's the only one that actually looks like the original Suess drawings. Every incarnation feels the need to elaborate on the master work, while Chuck Jones kept the very spirit of Suess' simple story & charming illustrations.

Of course every new incarnation feels the need to elaborate on the work;  to make it their own.

This is called creativity. 

NOW,  it might end up being a 'weak' incarnation (just like 'remakes' often are),   but what is really silly is mimicking pre-exiting work.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, hamradio said:

How long before these get's CGI'ed?

As long as there's Gen X parents who think those were "great" shows from their childhood.

I must have been the most sophisticated (in other words: a total PIA) child ever. As a 10 year old I thought Rankin Bass was the junkiest animation ever. I hated their work, much preferring the lush MGM Tom & Jerry's and Disney.

As an adult, I find Rankin Bass kind of cute in a primitive sort of way. But still stinko animation.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, TikiSoo said:

As long as there's Gen X parents who think those were "great" shows from their childhood.

I must have been the most sophisticated (in other words: a total PIA) child ever. As a 10 year old I thought Rankin Bass was the junkiest animation ever. I hated their work, much preferring the lush MGM Tom & Jerry's and Disney.

As an adult, I find Rankin Bass kind of cute in a primitive sort of way. But still stinko animation.

I am not a fan of Rankin Bass either.  It doesn't do anything for me.  I hate the voices in 'Rudolph.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

Remember those animated cartoons that had human mouths saying the lines. Was there a name for that.

GlisteningSmugAuklet-size_restricted.gif

Clutch Cargo was the prime offender in that regard, and I've always seen it referred to as "Clutch Cargo animation" ever since.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2018 at 12:39 AM, hamradio said:

Tells the story how the Grinch came to be.  One thing's a mystery, what exactly is he?  An alien?

Seuss introduced the Grinch in an early magazine story, "The Hoobub & the Grinch":

The-Hoobub-and-the-Grinch.jpg

Where the G is a slick salesman (Seuss was working in advertising at the time), who tries to sell a big, contented Hoobub on the idea that a $.98 piece of string is better than the Sun--Since, of course, the Sun is harmful, only works part-time, won't work indoors, only comes in one color, and isn't portable.  

When Seuss gave the Grinch his own book, it stood to reason the Grinch would see Christmas only as a commercial excuse to buy tringlers and trappings, and the Whos would all cry boo-hoo if you took it away.  Which, in Seuss's story, they don't--since That's Not What the Holiday Is About--except for the Ron Howard/Jim Carrey movie, where they DO.  😡

I don't recall the story having fat reindeer in it either, but then, I also remember Cindy Lou only having one line.

8 hours ago, hamradio said:

How long before these get's CGI'ed?

Well, since Audrey Geisel doesn't own them, probably never.  She also said "No more live-action Seuss!" after that Mike Myers "Cat in the Hat", which is why Universal can't exploit the Jim Carrey movie with more prequel/spinoffs.

Although, Rudolph was CGI'ed in that "Island of Misfit Toys" abomination, when Classic Media had to create a new CGI direct-video sequel to cement their ownership of the Rankin-Bass Big Four.  (Warner owns all the other B-titles, which is why they keep trying to ram "Year Without a Santa Claus" down our throats.  And yes, they did do a live-action version of that one.)

7 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

I must have been the most sophisticated (in other words: a total PIA) child ever. As a 10 year old I thought Rankin Bass was the junkiest animation ever. I hated their work, much preferring the lush MGM Tom & Jerry's and Disney.

You..."preferred"...Tom & Jerry??  Oh, you were sophisticated at that age, weren't you?  😛

(On our channel growing up, T&J was right between the Bugs Bunny and the Flintstones, and the only reason for tuning into T&J was the Tex Avery/Droopy cartoon they'd always show in the middle.  I was raised on the classics.)

As for Rankin-Bass, the first Rudolph had a different style, back when they were "Topcraft" with Japanese stop-motion animators, and looked like a department-store window display.  But then, by the time they were doing Frosty and Santa is Comin' to Town, they'd sunk into a rut with their Romeo Mueller scripts, Jules Bass songs and Paul Coker artwork, and every special started to look and sound alike.  Which, sadly, was true of the Thundercats as well, although those were miles ahead of Filmation's static He-Man.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

GlisteningSmugAuklet-size_restricted.gif

Clutch Cargo was the prime offender in that regard, and I've always seen it referred to as "Clutch Cargo animation" ever since.

That is just super creepy! I imagine kids being scarred for life after seeing that. 

Hey...may make an excellent "effect" for a horror movie!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK....

CLUTCH CARGO never "scarred" any kid.  Not any I knew anyway.  We were too busy LAUGHING at the way it was done to feel much, if any, trauma.  ;) 

Sure, the "claymation" work like "Rudolph" and the Fred Astaire narrated "Santa Clause Is Coming To Town" and others(not CGI, Eric) were OK and still fondly watched by many, by the time the Rankin-Bass CARTOONS came along("Frosty The Snowman" in particular) critics were slamming them due to their seemingly forwarding the idea that Christmas is about avarice and getting presents  than anything the earlier stories became about. 

And yeah, although no big fan of Tom and Jerry here, I thought they were OK, and the Tex Avery humor was a bit more sophisticated than many other "kiddies" cartoons.  couple examples...

Having the usual big dog in their cartoons appear in one as a wrestler named "Gorgeous Gorillawitz".  :D 

And one cartoon starting off with the showing of an animated "Do it yourself cartoon kit" in which there were several different items inside many separate compartments.... "A small mouse...A cat, some dangerous implements( showing shovels, hammers, anvils and such)  and one compartment showed it contained a cup of coffee and a pack of cigarettes, with the narrator explaining, "The coffee and cigarettes are for the cartoonist."  ;)

And I just LOVED Droopy Dog.  And WHO did that VOICE, and HOW?  :D 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

Sure, the "claymation" work like "Rudolph" and the Fred Astaire narrated "Santa Clause Is Coming To Town" and others(not CGI, Eric)

I know--THIS, however (again, when Classic Media had to produce "new content" in the early-early 00's to establish property ownership of Rudolph, Frosty and Peter Cottontail) is best handled only with toxic gloves and extreme caution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypH_FhAw-PY  

(Oh, and it's "Claus".  With an S.  Join our new mission to eradicate the "Tim Allen spellers" by the end of 2020.)

Quote

And one cartoon starting off with the showing of an animated "Do it yourself cartoon kit" in which there were several different items inside many separate compartments.... "A small mouse...A cat, some dangerous implements( showing shovels, hammers, anvils and such)  and one compartment showed it contained a cup of coffee and a pack of cigarettes, with the narrator explaining, "The coffee and cigarettes are for the cartoonist."  

(Oh, the Gene Dietch-animated years...What corner of Eastern Europe did they come from, and why were they such inexplicable nightmare fodder?)

Quote

And I just LOVED Droopy Dog.  And WHO did that VOICE, and HOW?  :D 

Bill Thompson.  The same voice he used for Mr. Wimple on radio's "Fibber McGee & Molly", and for the White Rabbit in Disney's "Alice in Wonderland".

Billthompson.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just recently saw the new Grinch movie. I can affirm that the original animated film was quite honestly the best one, and there was no reason for Illumination to remake it. They decided to go a different direction for this movie in an attempt to make it more whimsical & fun, I think. It was entertaining enough, but I agree with speedy that the original was much more true to the Seuss story. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2018 at 2:48 AM, TikiSoo said:

Just an aside....101 DALMATIONS was Walt's first foray into using photo copiers (Xerox™) to duplicate all the puppies in the back ground scenes. I think he allowed the "sketchy" feel of the drawings to keep it feeling hand drawn, less automated.

Walt himself was such an innovator, most of the feature cartoons he oversaw broke new ground artistically and stylistically-something the present Disney mega-corporation lacks entirely.

I personally find most of the more recent live action movies to be quite boring/tedious: Jungle Book, Cinderella, The BFG, Pete’s Dragon were all very lackluster. I think my favorite so far has been Beauty and the Beast (2017). It didn’t beat the original animated version in my book, but it was the most enjoyable (in my opinion) of Disney’s live action projects. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, EricJ said:

I know--THIS, however (again, when Classic Media had to produce "new content" in the early-early 00's to establish property ownership of Rudolph, Frosty and Peter Cottontail) is best handled only with toxic gloves and extreme caution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypH_FhAw-PY  

(Oh, and it's "Claus".  With an S.  Join our new mission to eradicate the "Tim Allen spellers" by the end of 2020.)

(Oh, the Gene Dietch-animated years...What corner of Eastern Europe did they come from, and why were they such inexplicable nightmare fodder?)

Bill Thompson.  The same voice he used for Mr. Wimple on radio's "Fibber McGee & Molly", and for the White Rabbit in Disney's "Alice in Wonderland".

Billthompson.jpg

Thanks for the info.  Yeah, knew there isn't an "e" at the end of SANTA CLAUS, but sometimes the brain DOES pass some gas...  ;)

Not familiar with the Eastern European animation you mentioned.  And having once been a shopping center Santa (back in '89) I couldn't even venture a guess as to why some kids were TERRIFIED of Santa, made worse by parents who threatened DIRE PUNISHMENT if they didn't "STOP that and SIT ON HIS LAP for Chrissakes!" 

I usually told parents that in those cases it's best not to push it and declined their sitting on my lap, but still give the kid a candy cane regardless.  :)

Otherwise LOVED that gig.  ;)

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2018 at 7:44 AM, Sepiatone said:

Not familiar with the Eastern European animation you mentioned. 

And having once been a shopping center Santa (back in '89) I couldn't even venture a guess as to why some kids were TERRIFIED of Santa, made worse by parents who threatened DIRE PUNISHMENT if they didn't "STOP that and SIT ON HIS LAP for Chrissakes!" 

Otherwise LOVED that gig.  ;)

Haha he was referring to Gene Dietch the director of those weird WB cartoons late in their run. What made those cartoons incredibly creepy was the music - or actually lack of. While I love electronica, these cartoons used bleak, haunting, echoey sound effects instead, much like what was coming from Raymond Scott's Manhattan Research studio. 

Haha again- you were a shopping center Santa? Cool! I loved hanging out with Santa/Elves back in the years I was a display person for big department stores...including the Mall itself.

One year I discovered the Santa hired was a high school chum of mine who resembled Danny Bonaduce. Sexy Sadie 20 y/o in a micro mini skirt, I sat on his lap and said, "I wish Jon Saunders would have noticed me in high school." His freckles connected he was so red!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lotta amusing stuff comes with that gig....

Had one kid hand me his "wish list" of what looked like Egyptian hieroglyphs that he proudly proclaimed " I writed it myself!"  ;) 

Another kid handed me HIS list, a mile long COMPUTER printout!  :o  Y'know, back when the paper had those green and white stripes on it. 

My favorite was one young man who, when asked what HE wanted for Christmas, mentioned instead what he'd like to see his SISTER and BROTHER get instead.  I finally at least got him to tell me, "Well, anything you get me is OK with me."  :lol:

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...