|
Post by kr on Oct 21, 2009 18:05:03 GMT -5
I wished I liked it as much as you guys did. Carol was just too crazy for me. And James Gandolfini, are you about to have a heart attack over there? Stop breathing so heavily. he's a monster I am aware. I just didn't enjoy his character most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Tommy on Oct 21, 2009 18:05:51 GMT -5
I barely even remembered reading the book and I don't think it matters too much. I'd recommend the movie to anyone, whether they read the book or not.
|
|
|
Post by Paige on Oct 21, 2009 18:06:12 GMT -5
I asked my mom if she would take me to see it, you know, make an effort to spend time with her and all. She said no. I have no money. Looks like I'm waiting for the DVD.
|
|
|
Post by Nick Taxidermy on Oct 21, 2009 18:12:43 GMT -5
ask a friend?
|
|
|
Post by Imhotep on Oct 22, 2009 10:45:54 GMT -5
sneak in??
this movie was pretty fucking good.
|
|
|
Post by Diance on Oct 22, 2009 16:37:49 GMT -5
God, the ending made me cry. I thought it was so good I just wish that they'd put a little more into the plot. I want to see it again, though. I don't get the whole "plot" thing. the movie is based around a kid who runs away from home, lives with monsters, and then chooses to go home. there's not much plot. I just wanted more insight into why the wild things were all so sad and why KW left. There was this sadness there and I just want to know where it came from. And good god "Don't go. I could eat you up, I love you so." was one of the best lines, ever. And I totally lost it at the end with the howling. I definitely couldn't help but laugh whenever Carol ripped off Douglas' arm. " That was my favorite arm."
|
|
|
Post by Super Nintendo Chalmers on Oct 22, 2009 16:38:50 GMT -5
Going to see it this weekend!
|
|
|
Post by Paige on Oct 22, 2009 16:38:58 GMT -5
Aww, Diane. I love that line.
|
|
|
Post by Tommy on Oct 22, 2009 17:32:07 GMT -5
I just wanted more insight into why the wild things were all so sad and why KW left. There was this sadness there and I just want to know where it came from. KW left because she was supposed to be like his mom and Carol was suppose to be Max, and they didn't get along. (I think)
|
|
|
Post by Nick Taxidermy on Oct 22, 2009 17:58:33 GMT -5
yeah, that's the thing, all of the monsters were really supposed to be like...within the parameters of Max's understanding of the world. so the monsters were always frustrated over perceived slights, they were always leaving and forming factions and alliances, and they always felt abandoned.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Oct 22, 2009 18:13:05 GMT -5
I still don't entirely see this movie as a children's movie. Seems more like an adult movie with a child-like mentality/nostalgia in mind. Still very much enjoyed it. I'm not entirely sure why people are dissuaded from seeing it just because they haven't read the book. I mean, that's like saying you don't want to see a Spiderman movie because you've never read any of the comics. Sure, you may not be entirely familiar with it all, but honestly, does it really seem like it'd be that hard to catch up? Hell, this movie wasn't even very much like the book at all. all of the monsters were really supposed to be like...within the parameters of Max's understanding of the world. Definitely one of my favorite aspects of it. I really enjoyed how much Carol was like the frustrated version of Max.
|
|
|
Post by kr on Oct 22, 2009 19:13:57 GMT -5
yeah, that's the thing, all of the monsters were really supposed to be like...within the parameters of Max's understanding of the world. so the monsters were always frustrated over perceived slights, they were always leaving and forming factions and alliances, and they always felt abandoned. This helps me understand the movie a lot more, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Crystalfist on Oct 22, 2009 20:43:24 GMT -5
I just wanted more insight into why the wild things were all so sad and why KW left. There was this sadness there and I just want to know where it came from. KW left because she was supposed to be like his mom and Carol was suppose to be Max, and they didn't get along. (I think) KW is a reflection of max's sister. The first part of the movie was designed so you can draw comparisons between max's relationship with his sister and carols relationship with KT later on in the movie. A good example of this would be when KT brings terry and bob back to the cave. everyone likes them except carol, and later on carol and max agree that neither of them could understand the owls. They only heard sqawking. This clearly parallels max's feelings toward his sister and her friends in the beginning of the movie. He cant understand why she would rather hang out with them than play with max in his igloo.
|
|
|
Post by Tommy on Oct 22, 2009 20:46:59 GMT -5
I was thinking Bob and Terry were his sister and his mom's boyfriend, but KW being his sister would make a lot more sense.
|
|
|
Post by Nick Taxidermy on Oct 22, 2009 21:58:57 GMT -5
Bob And Terry were hysterical. those noises were so awesome.
|
|
|
Post by noah on Oct 22, 2009 23:56:23 GMT -5
Hell, this movie wasn't even very much like the book at all. Thusly: plot is a factor.
|
|
|
Post by Nick Taxidermy on Oct 23, 2009 9:13:40 GMT -5
no, plot isn't a factor, because the plot of the book is so insubstantial and secondary to just the wild transformation of his world. that's really all that matters, and in that regard, it's entirely faithful to the book.
|
|
|
Post by Crystalfist on Oct 23, 2009 9:51:59 GMT -5
Bob And Terry were hysterical. those noises were so awesome. the knock knock joke cracked me up!
|
|
|
Post by noah on Oct 23, 2009 13:21:02 GMT -5
no, plot isn't a factor, because the plot of the book is so insubstantial and secondary to just the wild transformation of his world. that's really all that matters, and in that regard, it's entirely faithful to the book. No that's completely wrong. Ben is correct, this movie was not really like the book at all. Therefore while true to the spirit, the look, and the idea of the book, plot is still very much a factor. If you have to make a 2 hour movie you have to make it engaging: this movie was not engaging. There was nothing at stake, there was no real story structure, and the pacing was all sorts of wrong. Tell me what you think the climax of this movie was? Where the rising action should have been getting to the climax? There was so much more that could have been put into the movie to heighten the adventure (which is what the movie was being billed as, especially via trailer), and in the end the adventure parts were just as even keeled as the rest of the movie. and the soundtrack fucking sucks, what an annoying thing to keep having to listen to for the entire movie. Shoulda just had the Arcade Fire replay Wake Up.
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Oct 23, 2009 14:31:12 GMT -5
I can see how the plot could be a bit of a let down, but I don't think the plot was what this sort of thing is really supposed to be about. I mean, the book was supposed to basically show to Max that he had it better off at home, because being a king is a shit ton of responsibility (thusly relating with his mother grounding him), and appreciate that more.
The movie has a more heavily dialogue-based way of doing that. Obviously, it used the varying perspectives/attitudes of the Wild Things to portray Max's varying emotions on the matter. I think the climax was Max finally coming to the realization that he wasn't going to make everything perfect and happy all the time for everyone. And that's when he realized that it wasn't his place to be the king, and his place was actually back at home with his family, making him appreciate his mom and sister (and their right to having friends, similar to Carol and KW) quite a bit more in the process.
Yeah, an adventure story might have been more suitable to this sort of set-up, since that's what usually happens when you introduce weird creatures in a movie, but I thought this was a great way to tackle inner-conflicts in a child.
|
|
|
Post by tara on Oct 23, 2009 14:59:48 GMT -5
Ben is correct, this movie was not really like the book at all. Therefore while true to the spirit, the look, and the idea of the book, plot is still very much a factor. If you have to make a 2 hour movie you have to make it engaging: this movie was not engaging. There was nothing at stake, there was no real story structure, and the pacing was all sorts of wrong. Tell me what you think the climax of this movie was? Where the rising action should have been getting to the climax? There was so much more that could have been put into the movie to heighten the adventure (which is what the movie was being billed as, especially via trailer), and in the end the adventure parts were just as even keeled as the rest of the movie. and the soundtrack fucking sucks, what an annoying thing to keep having to listen to for the entire movie. Shoulda just had the Arcade Fire replay Wake Up. I disagree. At least, from my experience, the film stirred up everything about the book that made me love it so much to begin with. And actually, since exactly how engaging a movie is would be an entirely subjective thing, it's not really right to out and out say that it wasn't engaging, period. It didn't engage you; I, on the other hand, was completely engaged and immersed through the entire film. I think what you're not getting is that the entirety of the story was played out through Max's scope of experience and understanding. As a 9-year-old, he views things on a completely different plane as we do. Things are fractured and frantic and chaotic because that's how he interprets everything at this point in his life. How many games that you played as a child with your action figures had a clearly defined beginning, middle, and end? Of course the pacing was all over the place. And there was Max's entire world at stake, at least how he viewed it. As for the climax of the movie, to me the climax was Carol's disintegration. That didn't feel climactic to you? It sure as hell felt dramatic and scary to me when seeing it through a kid's eyes. I dunno, it just seems like you kind of missed the point of the movie to me. That's cool, there are lots of movies I didn't get the first time I saw them. Sorry if this came off as critical. It just angers me that there are so many people who don't see just how important this film is.
|
|
|
Post by noah on Oct 23, 2009 15:09:48 GMT -5
It's a let down because it putters around with no real rise in action. Max never has anything at stake here in his world. The only time theres a heightened action is when Carol tries to eat him and he runs away and hides. And then it slows down again and kind of fizzles out. Then he decides to leave. That chase scene is completely out of place and throws off the pacing entirely.
The rising action is Max learning that he's completely incapable of holding together his family, but its so up and down and all over the place that its completely muddied.
It's bad story structure. Just because its a movie for adults using child imagery doesn't mean you have to abandon the nature of the adventure. The story didn't know if it wanted to be Broken Flowers with monsters, or it wanted to be My Little Monster with the loss of childhood. And it didn't commit to either.
|
|
|
Post by noah on Oct 23, 2009 15:27:56 GMT -5
Carol flipping out is certainly dramatic, and intense, but that's not the climax. The climax is when Max returns to see Carol's secret world destroyed. The problem here is that the action doesn't LEAD to the climax. The action amps up, then sputters, then the climax happens. That's just BAD story structure.
in order for something to be a climax, that means resolution happens near immediately afterwards. Carol going nuts, and then the movie just kind of limps along until he finally decides to leave. If that's supposed to be the climax, it's poorly done.
To argue that the story SHOULDN'T be expected to have a clear beginning, middle and end because its a child's fantasy is ridiculous. This is an adult movie, created by adults, for adults. This is not a movie about how a child interprets the world. I read it somewhere best, probably Wikipedia excerpt, but to paraphrase it: This is a movie about how adults interpret how a child interprets things.
The PLOT isn't the only way to view a story. The theme, the staging, dialogue, characterization are all just as important. You don't butcher the story structure to get across fractured and splintered ideas. You use that with your characters and dialogue.
and LOL at I missed the point.
|
|
jerf
Babby
Posts: 246
|
Post by jerf on Oct 23, 2009 18:27:58 GMT -5
Finally saw this today. What a pile of dogshit.
|
|
|
Post by tara on Oct 24, 2009 6:41:45 GMT -5
I dunno, I guess we've just got two very different viewpoints here. I can see your point of view, definitely. But I think maybe me being a parent caused me to have far more empathetic experience with the film because not only do I remember having the emotions myself as a child, but I've seen my 9 year old try to deal with these things, which put a whole new spin on it for me. I really feel that had this come out before I had kids it wouldn't have been as powerful for me. Agree to disagree, then?
|
|
|
Post by Nick Taxidermy on Oct 24, 2009 9:59:31 GMT -5
I reread the book yesterday. what a pile of dogshit. no plot. the story is unconnected to any real dramatic structure. the goat character keeps disappearing. CONTINUITY ERRORS. where is the denoument?
|
|
jerf
Babby
Posts: 246
|
Post by jerf on Oct 24, 2009 11:39:12 GMT -5
I haven't read the book since I was 7, so I really can't remember. However, what I do remember was that it doesn't take an hour and a half to read the book.
EDIT: That, and I don't hear obnoxious screaming when I read books. Of course, I loathe unruly screaming children so perhaps I'm simply biased against this movie. I suppose it's understandable for someone to like this movie if they like walking into day care centers and just stare at the children for an hour and a half. You'd pretty much have the same experience.
|
|
|
Post by Nick Taxidermy on Oct 24, 2009 13:49:49 GMT -5
that has nothing to do with the movie.
|
|
|
Post by noah on Oct 24, 2009 14:30:53 GMT -5
Nick, it comes down to the media in which the story is told. You can't compare how a book (a children's book no less) and a movie go about their way. It's the same reason why Watchmen didn't translate well to a movie environment. The movie has a set guideline for how long you have to get the story across; books are not held to that limitation.
In the case of Where the Wild Things Are: I believe that the book was meant for children. I do not believe so that the movie was. That's fine, however, as an adult I expect my movies to be held to a standard higher than that of a children's book. I'm sure a child has no contextual comparisons for how plot should be structured and how elements of drama are used properly, but I do. And I feel that this movie had a lot of potential to be really epic, and almost got there, but that almost made it worse than if it hadn't tried at all.
On a side note, I think I would probably enjoy Eggers' novel The Wild Things, which is essentially that movie in book format.
Tara, perhaps so. I will retract my statement of that the movie is not engaging. This movie did not engage me as a viewer, but I will concede that it can engage other people whom have much different perspectives and experiences.
|
|
|
Post by Imhotep on Oct 25, 2009 3:36:47 GMT -5
I suppose it's understandable for someone to like this movie if they like walking into day care centers and just stare at the children for an hour and a half. You'd pretty much have the same experience. yeah, good one. PFFFFFT
|
|