Inbetweener
Posted:
Feb 23, 2008, 5:15 AM
|
|
New "Horton Hears a Who" Movie
|
|
|
CBS aired a promo for the new animated "Horton Hears a Who" feature last night. As everyone
knows, there has been a glut of CG animated movies lately; but this one looks like it might be
worth seeing. Jim Carrey voices Horton.
|
|
Cartoon Aficionado / Contributor
Posted:
Feb 25, 2008, 6:33 AM
|
I just saw the latest trailer, and I wasn't impressed. I'd rather see the original animated special again.
-------------------------
"Here's to thirty years of Godzilla, Godzilla, Godzilla. And....Godzooky!"
|
|
Directing Animator
Posted:
Feb 25, 2008, 7:46 AM
|
"...Jim Carrey voices Horton."
Thank God, at least he won't be parading around in a rubber elephant suit and make-up (anyone here remember his live-action turn as the Grinch?).
Why can't these morons leave the classics alone?
-------------------------
"Sit, Ubu, sit... good dog!" ("Arf"!)
|
|
Supervising Animator
Posted:
Feb 25, 2008, 12:50 PM
|
I wasn't impressed either. From the looks of the trailer I saw, it seems the movie has the typical "dumbing it down" syndrome. But I would like to view a couple of more trailers before deciding if I want to see this movie.
|
|
Supervising Animator / Contributor
Posted:
Feb 25, 2008, 2:12 PM
|
I know that many people regard CG animation as a force of evil that is destined to bring the world of animation down in flames, but personally, upon learning that Horton Hears a Who will be CGI, I'm kind of relieved. Yeah, it's yet another CG animated movie, but I'll take CG over actors buried under layers upon layers of bad makeup any day of the week. I saw Mike Myers dressed up as the Cat in the Hat and was frightened for hours afterward.
What concerns me the most about this new Horton movie is that I know that the writers are going to throw in a bunch of irrelevant stuff in order to stretch out the plot to an 90 minute format. For example, in the movie, the Mayor of Whoville (voiced by Steve Carell) has a wife and a daughter. In the book, if the Mayor had a family at all, we never saw them. Chuck Jones never tried to get more than 23 minutes out of any of Dr. Suess' books.
-------------------------
I love humanity, it's people that I have issues with.
(This post was edited by SpaceDemon on Feb 25, 2008, 2:15 PM)
|
|
Zinc Saucier
Posted:
Feb 25, 2008, 4:30 PM
|
Correction: you said Chuck Jones never tried to get more than 23 minutes out of any of Dr. Suess' books.
Chuck Jones had little say in the matter, since one of the people he worked with on those projects was Dr. Seuss himself. It's more appropriate to say that Chuck Jones was never allowed to get more than 23 minutes of of any of Dr. Seuss' books.
Which of course, is a very good thing.
-------------------------
AnimationHQ
(This post was edited by krisAHQ on Feb 27, 2008, 2:04 PM)
|
|
Inbetweener
Posted:
Feb 26, 2008, 4:16 PM
|
For what it's worth: the movie got a favorable mention in AARP magazine (of all places):
"An all-star cast (Carol Burnett, Steve Carell, Jim Carrey, and more) voice this animated
version of a classic that, for once, may do justice to Dr. Seuss's off-kilter vision."
That's pretty remarkable praise for a mag that is generally slanted toward "Movies for
Grownups."
|
|
Inbetweener
Posted:
Feb 27, 2008, 5:09 PM
|
Just looking at the CGI, this movie will be great--not at all like the Grinch and Cat movies. But there's the problem of post modernist shctick here. You know, the whole in-jokes, self awareness, trying-so-hard-to-be hip-it-hurts kind of thing. There's a trailer where the mayor of whoville asks his wife if she ever feels like someone--like a huge giant elephant is watching her. This somehow just screams postmodernism. It's already of the opinion on one forum that Carrey will play Horton like he played the Grinch. Not good. I didn't here any Suess rhyming either.
The WB version of Horton Hatches the Egg didn't do Suess justice either. The animators of the time were trying to do their own thing, not stay true to the story, just like the animators today are doing. They made Horton a big dumb guy like Lenny in MIce and Men. They also had one of those gags where a fish shoots himself. Definitely more WB than Suess.
|
|
Inbetweener
Posted:
Mar 3, 2008, 8:31 PM
|
I jsut saw a commercial for Horton. I didn't recognize a SINGLE scene that recalls the book. It's gonna be the Myer's Cat in the Hat all over again.
|
|
Zinc Saucier
Posted:
Mar 4, 2008, 4:41 PM
|
I'm curious, exactly what did you (general you, not specifically you Sleestak) expect? The book is aimed at essentially 4-8 yr olds, and has only 72 pages with about 15-30 words on each, if that many. How, except by adding a LOT of stuff not in the original book, does anyone think a story that takes maybe 7 min. to read would make it to 90+ min. on screen?
-------------------------
AnimationHQ
|
|
Supervising Animator / Contributor
Posted:
Mar 5, 2008, 6:25 AM
|
I liked the 2000 "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" movie. At least THAT stayed faithful to the book. They even sang the old "Welcome Christmas" song like the 1966 special, and in its original format, and now a hip-hop version.
But the 2003 "Cat in the Hat" film was another story. It seems the producers were deliberately trying to make it really bad! There was an extremely minor amount of Seuss rhyming in that one, too, while the Grinch one had plenty of the Seuss rhyming bit.
I guess a movie done completely in rhyme would be totally difficult to write, and it is easier for a six-minute short (like the "Gerald McBoing Boing" cartoons) or the original Dr. Seuss specials by Chuck Jones.
Besides, the Golden Book Videos from 1985 also added a lot of material that weren't in the original books they adapted from. For instance, when they adapted Little Critter's "Just For You" story in one of those videos, they had Little Critter sing a song at the beginning and end of the story, and after his dish accident, they used a shot of him from the cover and had him say "You're going shopping? SHOPPING? I'll help, mom!" That was not in the book. Another example was in the original book, during the nap sequence, he originally just bounced on the bed. But in the adaption, he plays "Space Critter" for a while with a paper airplane ("Oh no, it's the moon monster and his lunar laser!") and then his mom comes in and we find him bouncing on the bed. And after the apple scene, they reused the shot of him sliding by holding the dishes from earlier, but made him say "I wanna set the table, just for you." That was not in the original book either. And they did a customized shot of Little Critter holding a towel while all dirty (modified image of him holding a mop and bucket) before the bath scene, and they had him say "Here comes the storm! Watch out, tidal wave! Duck overboard!" which was not in the book version either. They also made the spider and grasshopper kiss each other at the end instead of just LC and his mom.
-------------------------
People think I am crazy just because I didn't like "Ratatouille." Am I REALLY crazy, or do I see things differently?
(This post was edited by WileECoyote on Mar 5, 2008, 6:30 AM)
|
|
Supervising Animator / Contributor
Posted:
Mar 7, 2008, 4:11 PM
|
Some more changes that the movie made that differ from Dr. Suess' original book:
The movie producers turned the character of Jo-Jo into a black hair and clothes wearing emo kid. Also, in the movie, Jo-Jo is the Mayor of Whoville's son. IIRC, in the book, they were not related.
-------------------------
I love humanity, it's people that I have issues with.
|
|
Supervising Animator
Posted:
Mar 7, 2008, 7:14 PM
|
Not to sound incredibly silly but I've actually never read this classic and totally need to.
On another note as for this movie:I would not watch it in a box.I would not watch it with a fox. I would not watch it in a house.I would not watch it with a mouse. I would not watch it here or there. I would not watch it anywhere.
-------------------------
Bugs Bunny cartoons are not supposed to feature a lisping Viking rabbit hunter enthusiastically professing his operatic love for a bunny in drag.
|
|
Zinc Saucier
Posted:
Mar 7, 2008, 9:05 PM
|
Glad to see you aren't pre-judging a film you basically know nothing about except for the commercials. O_o
-------------------------
AnimationHQ
|
|
Inbetweener
Posted:
Mar 9, 2008, 8:02 PM
|
What I meant ot complain about was not that the specific lines in the trailer weren't lifted directly from the book. It was just that they didn't seem Suessian at all. THey just seemed like the same type of "hip" pop-cutural dialogue I've come to expect. If you look at the origianl animated versions of the Grinch the Cat in the Hat, or the LOrax, you'll notice a lot of stuff they added, but they still are in the spirit of the books on which they are based.
|
|
Zinc Saucier
Posted:
Mar 10, 2008, 3:30 PM
|
I think once again it's a problem with lack of source material. After all, they could have put every line in the film and it would add up to about 10 minutes. So, they have to add lines and that would naturally be reflective of the type of dialogue in most kids' films these days. Would you prefer they used antiquated, awkward sounding victorian era speech, lol? While I'm sure that a good bit of it is intentionally written in that way (like you said, to be "hip"), a good bit is also just how people speak now.
-------------------------
AnimationHQ
|
|
Lead Animator / Contributor
Posted:
Mar 10, 2008, 9:00 PM
|
Actually, speaking as a captive WB fanatic, Horton/Who seems to possess (based on the trailers), the madcap POV of Clampett and Scribner. That doesn't mean I will see it, because I miss a lot of things these days. But I do detect an admiration for the WB-style interp of Dr. Seuss. I hope it's good—we'll soon know.
|
|
Inbetweener
Posted:
Mar 11, 2008, 10:13 AM
|
So, they have to add lines and that would naturally be reflective of the type of dialogue in most kids' films these days. Would you prefer they used antiquated, awkward sounding victorian era speech, lol? While I'm sure that a good bit of it is intentionally written in that way (like you said, to be "hip"), a good bit is also just how people speak now.
That's the porblem--they reflect the dialogue of other kid's movies nowdays. I would prefer they talked in Suessian-type dialogue, even if not the exact words. Since when did Suessian rhyme sound Victorian?
|
|
Lead Animator / Moderator
Posted:
Mar 11, 2008, 4:54 PM
|
I just watched a TV review of "Horton" and thought it looked good. The personality animation appeared excellent and it seemed very true to the spirit of the story.
While the use of Seuss' rhymes worked well for the Chuck Jones "Grinch" featurette, where the verse was effectively a voice-over, telling the story, I think it would be too tedious and limiting to force a fully realised, dialogue- (rather than narration-) led movie to utilise rhyming couplets: the effect would just be too stilted.
(The message being: if you want the verses, read the book!)
-------------------------
("La-la La-la I can't HEAR you!")
(This post was edited by peterhale on Mar 11, 2008, 4:56 PM)
|
|
Inbetweener
Posted:
Mar 14, 2008, 10:15 PM
|
I jsut saw it. It's much better than the trailers led me to beleive. It wasn't like Myer's Cat at all. THere were some liberal satire, about challenging dognatism, and all that--but that's entirely appropriate as Suess WAS a liberal satirist. I'd wager he'd approve. The animation is snazzy and zingy. The narrator speaks in Suess rhyme.It would be better if the characters did too, though. And what about songs? There's only one song and it's disticntly un-Suessian (" Can't ight this Feeling????) It would be better if they had the songs from the origianal (He's gonna be roped, he's gonna be caged,Horton the elephant's gonna be caged...) Other than that, it's an enjoyble translation of the book and an enjoyable movie experience.
(This post was edited by Sleestakgod on Mar 14, 2008, 10:24 PM)
|
|
Forum Admin
Posted:
Mar 24, 2008, 9:40 AM
|
I saw it (with Tori) opening day. I was not expecting much, but I was hoping not to have a "Cat In The Hat" or something.
I was very pleasantly surprised. Sure, there is a LOT in there not in the book- but as a few have pointed out, the book itself would only support a 10 minute film.
I thought they created a whole Suessian world that worked. What they added seemed to be in the spirit of Suess.
There was a bit of the "Happy Feet" syndrome, where the filmmakers preach their morals to the children watching (which is NOT unheard of in Suess- Lorax anyone???) But it was not nearly as blatant or sickening as Happy Feet was.
Carol Burnett was a special treat- I had forgotten how much I love her. And she was incredible.
I was also afraid of Carrey- he can get over the top way too easily. But he was held in check quite well (I think Robin Williams can get away with it better, but Carrey seems too forced when he tried. Luckily, it was not a problem).
All in all, yes, I was worried. The film was much better than I had hoped, and was quite enjoyable. Even for an adult (when I meet one, I will let you know).
-------------------------
Dave Koch
Big Cartoon DataBase
|
|
Directing Animator
Posted:
Mar 25, 2008, 11:24 PM
|
Slightly OT, but I recently read a review (how's that for aliteration-repetition?) at GAC of the DVD re-release of Chuck Jones's Horton Hears a Who. The DVD includes as a bonus a (supposedly) restored print of Robert Clampett's Horton Hatches the Egg and the Ralph Bakshi version of The Bitter Butter Battle Book. This bodes well for Looney Tunes fans, as it means that HHTE will undoubtedly turn up in either LTGC5 or 6.
-------------------------
"Sit, Ubu, sit... good dog!" ("Arf"!)
|
|
Supervising Animator / Contributor
Posted:
Apr 23, 2008, 1:25 PM
|
but I'll take CG over actors buried under layers upon layers of bad makeup any day of the week. I saw Mike Myers dressed up as the Cat in the Hat and was frightened for hours afterward.
Amen to that! Mike Myers's Cat in the Hat makeup looked NOTHING like a true cat. Not only that, usually the cat has mittens with an extra finger on the side, but here they gave the Cat standard cartoon three-fingers-and-thumb gloves, which the Cat never had.
And typically I am not that big a fan of Jim Carrey, though I thought he was kinda funny as the Grinch. And his Grinch prosthetic makeup was actually kinda good, so good it even won an Oscar for Best Makeup in 2001! I also saw some of "The Mask" from 1994. The only makeup he was wearing was when he was wearing The Mask (the green bald face, fake teeth, no ears). Plus, I usually don't care for his appearance, no matter what guise (animated or not), but when I saw the scene in the nightclub with Stanley watching Cameron Diaz's Jessica Rabbit-esque dance number, I gotta say he looked kinda cute when he morphed into a 'toon wolf 
Had they attempted to do it via makeup/prosthetics or try to animate a realistic green wolf head with fur, fangs and eyes, then I probably wouldn't have liked that.
Besides, I found out something shocking about Jim Carrey. He actually auditioned to perform the voice of Corporal Capeman on "Inspector Gadget" in 1985! Capeman is pretty bad in general, but if Carrey voiced him instead of Townsend Coleman, it probably would've been ten times worse.
-------------------------
People think I am crazy just because I didn't like "Ratatouille." Am I REALLY crazy, or do I see things differently?
|
|
|
|
1
