178 replies to this topic

[SDG]

mrmando, on 03 September 2011 - 02:30 PM, said:

SDG, on 03 September 2011 - 02:11 PM, said:

Switching to another reductive (but less reductive) metaphor, Epcot's World Showcase isn't the world, but a lover of the world can still appreciate in Epcot a taste of what he appreciates in the world, and not see it as an affront to the real thing.

No matter how much Jeffrey might love Epcot Center, he would never get it confused with the real world. At least I hope not.

Yes, I said it was still a reductive metaphor.

[SDG]

Peter T Chattaway, on 03 September 2011 - 02:21 PM, said:

: Somehow what you regard as a burned-out husk many other people including Jeff and I . . .

Jeff and *me*. Jeff and *me*. (If Jeff were out of the picture, would you say "including I"?)

FWIW, the sentence originally read "Somehow what you regard as a burned-out husk Jeff and I..."

Later, I decided to expand the point, and inserted "many other people" without noticing the editorial glitch created by the addition. Oh well.

Quote

Sorry, the abundance of "and I" where people really mean "and me" is one of my pet peeves. And since we're all in a nitpicky mood right now...

Were we all? I hadn't noticed.

Edited by SDG, 03 September 2011 - 03:37 PM.

[bowen]

SDG, on 03 September 2011 - 03:36 PM, said:

Peter T Chattaway, on 03 September 2011 - 02:21 PM, said:

Sorry, the abundance of "and I" where people really mean "and me" is one of my pet peeves. And since we're all in a nitpicky mood right now...

Were we all? I hadn't noticed.

Royal we.

[Overstreet]

bowen, on 03 September 2011 - 05:42 PM, said:

Royal we.

... which should really be a band name.

[bowen]

Overstreet, on 03 September 2011 - 05:48 PM, said:

bowen, on 03 September 2011 - 05:42 PM, said:

Royal we.

... which should really be a band name.

Absolutely.

[Overstreet]

bowen, on 03 September 2011 - 05:57 PM, said:

Overstreet, on 03 September 2011 - 05:48 PM, said:

bowen, on 03 September 2011 - 05:42 PM, said:

Royal we.

... which should really be a band name.

Absolutely.

Dang. All the good ideas are taken.

[Peter T Chattaway]

SDG wrote:
: Later, I decided to expand the point, and inserted "many other people" without noticing the editorial glitch created by the addition. Oh well.

Ah, a typo of sorts, rather than a grammatical error. This I can accept.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Peter T Chattaway, on 16 July 2011 - 02:23 AM, said:

Wow. Nikki Finke says this film might gross only $8 million this weekend.

Not only is that Big Disney's lowest opening weekend in decades -- you have to go back to 2004's Home on the Range to find a cartoon that opened to less than $20 million, and back to 2000's The Emperor's New Groove to find a cartoon that opened to less than $10 million, and (with the exception of Fantasia 2000, which played almost exclusively in a handful of IMAX theatres) back to 1990's The Rescuers Down Under to find a cartoon that opened to even less than Winnie the Pooh -- but it is also less than the $9.4 million that The Tigger Movie opened to back in 2000.

Make of that what you will.

FWIW, since this film is out of the weekly Top 10 now (indeed, it's barely in the Top 30), it may be worth noting that its North American box office has pretty much topped out at $26.2 million -- well under the $45.6 million that The Tigger Movie made in 2000, though slightly ahead of the $23.1 million that Piglet's Big Movie made in 2003 and substantially ahead of the $18.1 million that Pooh's Heffalump Movie made in 2005.

However, its foreign gross seems to have stalled at $6.5 million (this movie opened in some foreign territories BEFORE it opened in North America; are there still any countries where it hasn't opened yet?), which gives it a global cume of $32.6 million, easily the lowest of the bunch even before taking inflation into account. (The record here, too, is held by The Tigger Movie, which grossed $50.6 million overseas for a global total of $96.2 million.)

(FWIW, I have no idea where 1977's The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh would rank here. Aside from the inflation issue, there is also the fact that that film came out a few years before weekly (let alone global) box-office records were a matter of public record; plus, that film was basically a compilation of three existing short films, the earliest of which was produced in 1966, and I have no idea how you'd factor short films into these sorts of figures.)

[SDG]

Peter T Chattaway, on 03 September 2011 - 09:32 PM, said:

: Later, I decided to expand the point, and inserted "many other people" without noticing the editorial glitch created by the addition. Oh well.

Ah, a typo of sorts, rather than a grammatical error. This I can accept.

Thanks, officer.

Peter T Chattaway, on 03 September 2011 - 09:56 PM, said:

FWIW, since this film is out of the weekly Top 10 now (indeed, it's barely in the Top 30), it may be worth noting that its North American box office has pretty much topped out at $26.2 million -- well under the $45.6 million that The Tigger Movie made in 2000, though slightly ahead of the $23.1 million that Piglet's Big Movie made in 2003 and substantially ahead of the $18.1 million that Pooh's Heffalump Movie made in 2005.

However, its foreign gross seems to have stalled at $6.5 million (this movie opened in some foreign territories BEFORE it opened in North America; are there still any countries where it hasn't opened yet?), which gives it a global cume of $32.6 million, easily the lowest of the bunch even before taking inflation into account. (The record here, too, is held by The Tigger Movie, which grossed $50.6 million overseas for a global total of $96.2 million.)

[mrmando]

SDG, on 03 September 2011 - 07:56 AM, said:

Even the Backson is portrayed suggestively rather than definitely, in (pretty inspired) sketchy chalklike animation. (Not counting the post-credits sequence, that is.)

It's precisely the post-credits sequence that takes things too far. That sequence would seem to suggest that the Backson actually exists in the Hundred Acre Wood, and differs only in temperament from the creature Owl describes. Indeed, in a visual medium, the inspired chalklike sequence is an excellent way for Owl to make his point, and if the filmmakers had gone no further with the Backson, we might be able to say that Owl is Quite a Storyteller, with a Tremendous Imagination. But once we see that the Backson is real (at least, apparently, in the same sense that Pooh and his friends are "real"), then, in that instant, Owl's imagination (and, by extension, Owl himself) is greatly diminished. The creature is no longer imaginary at all; the only bits that Owl has "imagined" are its ferocity and its evil intent toward Christopher Robin. Hence Owl is no longer so much Imaginative and Creative as he is Mistaken and Cowardly.

[Overstreet]

Or, if we assume that these characters live in Christopher Robin's imagination, then by the end of the story he can't quite let go of the idea of the Backson, and brings it to life.

Whatever. It's a P.S. and I don't grant it much weight. I'd rather it wasn't there. But I certainly won't let it ruin what I love about the movie.

[Peter T Chattaway]

mrmando wrote:
: The creature is no longer imaginary at all; the only bits that Owl has "imagined" are its ferocity and its evil intent toward Christopher Robin.

In other words, this film manages to do, to the Backson, in its post-credits sequence, what it took an entire movie to do to the Heffalumps.

Overstreet wrote:
: Or, if we assume that these characters live in Christopher Robin's imagination, then by the end of the story he can't quite let go of the idea of the Backson, and brings it to life.

I would never assume that. It's been a long time since I read the books, but I always thought Christopher Robin was, himself, one of the characters in the storyteller's imagination (whether that storyteller be A.A. Milne or Walt Disney).

[SDG]

Peter T Chattaway, on 04 September 2011 - 07:52 PM, said:

I would never assume that. It's been a long time since I read the books, but I always thought Christopher Robin was, himself, one of the characters in the storyteller's imagination (whether that storyteller be A.A. Milne or Walt Disney).

In the books we learn from the get-go that the stories are being told by Milne to his son (Christopher Robin Milne) about Christopher Robin and his stuffed toys, including Winnie-the-Pooh (or Winnie-ther-Pooh as C.R. confusingly explains).

The live-action prologues in which we see the stuffed animals in Christopher Robin's bedroom reinforce this: Christopher Robin is real; Pooh and company are stuffed; the stories, based on Christopher Robin's play with his stuffed animals, are imaginary (and take place in storybooks that exist because Christopher Robin's father happens to be an author). Hence the comment in my review:

Quote

Milne’s stories ... tend to be rather aimless affairs in which more is imagined, planned or misunderstood than actually happens, much like a happy Saturday playing in one’s back yard with a few toys.

FWIW, I didn't even see the post-credits sequence (I was at a rare midday screening and in a hurry to get back to work). So, Mando's #5 grievance is now with a post-credit tag. Duly noted.

Edited by SDG, 04 September 2011 - 09:14 PM.

[Peter T Chattaway]

SDG wrote:
: In the books we learn from the get-go that the stories are being told by Milne to his son (Christopher Robin Milne) about Christopher Robin and his stuffed toys, including Winnie-the-Pooh (or Winnie-ther-Pooh as C.R. confusingly explains).

Right. So it's A.A. Milne's imagination at work here, not C.R. Milne's.

: The live-action prologues in which we see the stuffed animals in Christopher Robin's bedroom reinforce this: Christopher Robin is real; Pooh and company are stuffed; the stories, based on Christopher Robin's play with his stuffed animals, are imaginary (and take place in storybooks that exist because Christopher Robin's father happens to be an author).

Right. A.A. Milne wrote the books that open before us, not C.R. Milne. So if the Backson comes to life within that book, as he does in the post-credits tag, then he is coming to life as a figment of A.A. Milne's imagination, not C.R. Milne's. (I'm referring to the versions of those people filtered through the movie, of course, and not to their real-world counterparts.)

[SDG]

Peter T Chattaway, on 04 September 2011 - 11:11 PM, said:

: In the books we learn from the get-go that the stories are being told by Milne to his son (Christopher Robin Milne) about Christopher Robin and his stuffed toys, including Winnie-the-Pooh (or Winnie-ther-Pooh as C.R. confusingly explains).

Right. So it's A.A. Milne's imagination at work here, not C.R. Milne's.

No, there is an interaction between the two. First, Milne isn't inventing stories ex nihilo. Christopher Robin's existing imaginative play sets the context. It's reasonable to suppose, for one thing, that Milne has observed his son at play, and for another we see from the outset of the stories that C.R. interacts with his father and provides feedback as the story is in progress. (The device in the film of the characters themselves interacting with the narrator may suggest this.) Second, the stories are made for C.R., pitched at what A.A. knows about his son. Third, once told to C.R., they exist in his imagination, in a shape somewhat different than they did in A.A.'s mind. I see no reason not to apply this ambiguity to the movies, especially when we see characters walking across the pages and jumping over the spine, which is just how a child might imagine them while being read to.

Edited by SDG, 04 September 2011 - 11:25 PM.

[Peter T Chattaway]

SDG wrote:
: No, there is an interaction between the two.

Not in the writing of the books, there isn't. I mean, yes, of course, A.A. is imagining what C.R. might be imagining. But it all comes to down to A.A., and as far as A.A. is concerned, "backson" is just a misreading of "back soon". So the question of whether C.R. might have pushed that business any further (and with such an American voice!) doesn't come into it.

: (The device in the film of the characters themselves interacting with the narrator may suggest this.)

Sure. But the narrator isn't C.R.

[mrmando]

Peter T Chattaway, on 04 September 2011 - 07:52 PM, said:

I would never assume that. It's been a long time since I read the books, but I always thought Christopher Robin was, himself, one of the characters in the storyteller's imagination (whether that storyteller be A.A. Milne or Walt Disney).

Which reminds me, dimly, of something I read about the adult C.R. being somewhat estranged from his father, one of his grievances being that A.A. never quite let go of that idealized six-year-old version of his son.

[SDG]

Peter T Chattaway, on 05 September 2011 - 01:26 AM, said:

: No, there is an interaction between the two.

Not in the writing of the books, there isn't.

Except when A.A. actually quotes C.R. providing feedback, or "quotes" Pooh Bear commenting (i.e., C.R. speaking for Pooh).

Quote

I mean, yes, of course, A.A. is imagining what C.R. might be imagining. But it all comes to down to A.A., and as far as A.A. is concerned, "backson" is just a misreading of "back soon". So the question of whether C.R. might have pushed that business any further (and with such an American voice!) doesn't come into it.

Doesn't C.R. have a British accent in the new cartoon? In any case, the cartoons go beyond the books, and go to how the Pooh stories are appropriated and imagined. C.R.'s point of view is emphasized every time they do that live-action prologue/epilogue.

Same with the Pooh theme song lyrics: "Deep in the Hundred-Acre Wood where Christopher Robin plays / You'll find the enchanted neighborhood of Christopher's childhood days." Arguably C.R. in the first line could be understood more as C.R. the character in A.A.'s stories, but C.R. in the second line more aptly refers to the real C.R., including C.R. playing with his stuffed animals and C.R. listening to (and appropriating) his father's stories. And that's the very much the context for the cartoons.

Quote

: (The device in the film of the characters themselves interacting with the narrator may suggest this.)

Sure. But the narrator isn't C.R.

No, but Pooh could be (see above).

mrmando, on 05 September 2011 - 03:27 AM, said:

Peter T Chattaway, on 04 September 2011 - 07:52 PM, said:

I would never assume that. It's been a long time since I read the books, but I always thought Christopher Robin was, himself, one of the characters in the storyteller's imagination (whether that storyteller be A.A. Milne or Walt Disney).

Which reminds me, dimly, of something I read about the adult C.R. being somewhat estranged from his father, one of his grievances being that A.A. never quite let go of that idealized six-year-old version of his son.

Sad. I didn't need to know that.

Edited by SDG, 05 September 2011 - 10:33 AM.

[mrmando]

SDG, on 05 September 2011 - 07:41 AM, said:

Peter T Chattaway, on 05 September 2011 - 01:26 AM, said:

So the question of whether C.R. might have pushed that business any further (and with such an American voice!) doesn't come into it.

Doesn't C.R. have a British accent in the new cartoon?

I *think* Peter was referring to the "pot-smoking hairdresser" character voice of the Backson in the post-credits sequence.

Quote

In any case, the cartoons go beyond the books, ...

Yes, which means there's always a risk that they'll screw things up. You can argue that the books are to be enjoyed on their own terms, and the films on theirs, but when no less of a deep thinker on both film and literature than Jeffrey Overstreet confesses that he can't always remember which is which, what hope is there for the average reader/filmgoer? Another irksome aspect of the post-credits sequence is that it not only undermines the books, it asks us to reconsider what we thought we knew about the film. If the animals in the Hundred Acre Wood correspond to C.R.'s toys, then how the heck does the Backson get there? C.R. doesn't have a stuffed Backson. Does Owl have the ability to imagine other animals into existence?

[SDG]

mrmando, on 05 September 2011 - 05:01 PM, said:

Quote

In any case, the cartoons go beyond the books, ...

Yes, which means there's always a risk that they'll screw things up. You can argue that the books are to be enjoyed on their own terms, and the films on theirs, but when no less of a deep thinker on both film and literature than Jeffrey Overstreet confesses that he can't always remember which is which, what hope is there for the average reader/filmgoer?

Hope for what? What Jeff has confessed is that his appreciation of each merges into the other. I understand that to you that sounds like I would have felt as a kid about mashed potatoes getting mixed up with creamed spinach, but Jeff doesn't find himself to be in a "hopeless" condition, and neither do I. I can't understand what point you're trying to make.

Quote

Another irksome aspect of the post-credits sequence is that it not only undermines the books, it asks us to reconsider what we thought we knew about the film. If the animals in the Hundred Acre Wood correspond to C.R.'s toys, then how the heck does the Backson get there? C.R. doesn't have a stuffed Backson. Does Owl have the ability to imagine other animals into existence?

Actually, in the original order of things, I believe C.R. didn't have a stuffed owl -- or a stuffed rabbit. Surely you've noticed that Owl and Rabbit don't have seams or the other nursery-toy emblems possessed by Pooh, Piglet, Kanga, Roo and Eeyore (pin-on tail). Owl and Rabbit, I think, occupy a different ontological space than the others; they are native imaginary creatures of the Hundred Acre Wood, whose prototypes, if they exist at all, are the real owls and rabbits of the wood.

So, if C.R. and/or A.A. can imagine up Rabbit and Owl, why not a Backson?

Edited by SDG, 05 September 2011 - 06:00 PM.