Winnie the Pooh
Posted 11 November 2010 - 05:40 PM
This isn't for anyone who likes the books is it? I mean the animation may be hand-drawn, but it looks horrible compared to the images in the books. And complaints about the Chronicles of Narnia just look nit-picky compared to this.
Just glad we haven''t got into the swing of going to the cinema just yet.
PS both my 4 year old and my 2 year old love Ponyo.
Posted 11 November 2010 - 06:09 PM
It's such a perfect cast of characters for a children's storybook world, and if the Milne personalities have been understood by the screenwriters, then this story should be enjoyable for most parents too.
If I could imagine some stories for children that have anything like the enchantment of Milne's world, I'd call that quite an accomplishment. I learned a lot from those stories when I was a kid, and enjoyed them over and over and over again.
Posted 11 November 2010 - 06:09 PM
: This isn't for anyone who likes the books is it?
Um, I think it has to be, especially given how the trailer ends with a somewhat vintage-looking book and all.
: And complaints about the Chronicles of Narnia just look nit-picky compared to this.
You mean in terms of reinventing the storyline? I think the better point of comparison here might be how this film compares to the featurettes that were produced between 1966 and 1974 and edited together (with a brand-new epilogue) into the feature film The Many Adventures of Winnie-the-Pooh (1977). Those featurettes introduced some "new" bits too -- including a gopher who actually says "I'm not in the book, you know!" -- so if the new film includes a bit of that too, it would arguably be in the spirit of the original film.
To put this another way, I believe Disney is trying to ignore the recent sequels The Tigger Movie (2000), Piglet's Big Movie (2003) and Pooh's Heffalump Movie (2005). If memory serves, all three of those films followed a formula that ended with climactic "scenes of peril", among other things, and I think the idea here is that the new movie will just skip all that and tell a story closer in spirit to both the book and the earlier movie.
: PS both my 4 year old and my 2 year old love Ponyo.
I think my kids liked that one too, though as far as Miyazaki movies go, they were bigger fans of Castle in the Sky.
Posted 11 November 2010 - 07:59 PM
The Many Adventures is a wonderful feature--if they get even 2/3rds of the close to that film, it will be a winner. The gopher rocks, too. I think it is the whimsy of the stories that resonates the most--it's a delightfully lyrical romp through the Hundred Acre Wood.
Posted 11 November 2010 - 08:10 PM
The charm of reading Milne is that his language, storytelling, haiku-like dialogue, and character development all mirror the Shephard drawings (or, rather, vice versa). They're all spare, sketchy, whimsical. They avoid "cute." Everything is necessary, and that includes the playful absurdities. Because these stories are all about the serious work of play.
The challenge for a filmmaker is to embellish Milne's characters and events enough to create a compelling big-screen experience without spoiling the spirit of the thing. The Many Adventures did that pretty well, I thought, and it's still one of my favorite Disney features.
Posted 11 November 2010 - 09:01 PM
Posted 11 November 2010 - 10:11 PM
Posted 12 November 2010 - 03:49 AM
I'm somewhat critical of TLTW&TW too, but Pooh feels like the bigger travesty.
Posted 12 November 2010 - 03:56 AM
PPS Please excuse me I may have got out the wrong side of bed this morning.
Posted 12 November 2010 - 04:19 AM
But that's the point. The Milne personalities never were understood by the screenwriters, not in Many Adventures and even less so in the sequels, so there's little hope of that happening now.
Posted 12 November 2010 - 08:07 AM
And I had no opinion on the LWW, other than it was a boring movie.
Posted 12 November 2010 - 09:44 AM
Posted 12 November 2010 - 09:46 AM
Posted 12 November 2010 - 10:27 AM
Of course, Many Adventures skeptics may easily reply "That's not saying much." But I think it says enough.
Edited by SDG, 12 November 2010 - 10:28 AM.
Posted 12 November 2010 - 10:52 AM
: . . . such a whimsical, quintessentially British work.
Well, Winnie himself is Canadian, "Winnie" being short for "Winnipeg" and all. So if Canadians are caught somewhere between Britain and America in their sensibilities, perhaps it's only right that the Winnie-the-Pooh films should be, too?
FWIW, I don't mind Sterling Holloway's voice that much, but I think I'd feel better about it if he hadn't been in SO MANY Disney cartoons already, going all the way back to 1941's Dumbo, where he played the stork. (He also played the grown-up Flower in 1942's Bambi, the Cheshire Cat in 1951's Alice in Wonderland, Kaa the Snake in 1967's The Jungle Book, Roquefort in 1970's The Aristocats, and the Narrator in 1944's The Three Caballeros, 1946's Peter and the Wolf, 1947's Mickey and the Beanstalk, 1952's Lambert the Sheepish Lion, 1960's Goliath II and a few other short films I haven't mentioned here.)
Posted 12 November 2010 - 11:03 AM
Posted 12 November 2010 - 01:06 PM
If you think Sterling Holloway is Pooh, that's because you've never heard Maurice Evans ...
Posted 12 November 2010 - 01:15 PM
When Rabbit and everyone else hides from Tigger in Many Adventures, Tigger yells, "Where the heck are you guys?" You couldn't get Milne to write that line if you threatened him with a shotgun.
Edited by mrmando, 12 November 2010 - 01:34 PM.
Posted 12 November 2010 - 01:35 PM
"I know," said Pooh humbly.