Putting the THUNDER Back in the 80's CATS

Well, I’m happy to be able to report that yet another “reboot” has been totally worth it. Cartoon Network has released a new version of the 80’s cartoon Thundercats. And it’s to purr about.

I liked the original show, but I wouldn’t say I’d been a true fan of it. But that doesn’t affect my opinion of how well it compares. For both Bart and Buttercup, who would count themselves among those enthralled with it, also really like this new take on it.

For one thing, the animation is superior. But that’s really no difficult task.

What I like best about the new Thundercats is that it begins further back in time. Nutshell: A handful of surviving Thundercats (including the heir to the throne) are forced to leave their planet of Thundera, only to be pursued and thwarted by the “villains” of other anthropomorphic animals as well as a mysterious and freaky mummy-like character named Mumm-Ra who wants the “Eye of Thundera” which is embedded in the Hero’s sword.

The first go around, we only briefly saw their home planet and knew virtually nothing about their ways, customs and culture. To be honest, this is one of the reasons it never really shined for me. I wanted that backstory to be able to care about the characters.

The second go at it, we (as I said) begin much earlier in the tale. Thus, providing a richer understanding. We even now see Lion-O’s (the Hero) father, the king. But in terms of making them more understood beyond cat-humans, this cartoon series has done something rather interesting. The Thundercats are not exactly the great beings we once thought them to be. It’s their kind (cats) that oppress the other animal-beings...hoarding the resources and enslaving them. They’re the bad guys in this one! Of course, Lion-O does not like this once he discovers the truth and speaks out against his father. Nothing really new here, as this is the same plot as Fritz Lang’s Metropolis from 1927. But it works rather well.

Another reason the original seemed a bit flat to me is that the “villains” (animal-based humans and Mumm-Ra) seemed arbitrary. They just were there, and hated the Thundercats, wanting that sword’s “eye.” Now there might be something I’m forgetting which helped explain them beyond “bad guys.” But even if it did, it had obviously not been memorable. Here, though, it’s different. We see that Mumm-Ra is an ancient evil once thwarted by the Thundercats and that the Eye belongs to him - once again painting the ‘cats to be not so stellar on their morals. I’ve already mentioned their abuse of the other creatures. There’s more to it than all this, fortunately, but I’m not going to bore you with it.

They’re also so much more cat-like than they were the first time, which only makes sense (and had bothered me before as well.) They’ve taken some liberties, such as making Tigra and Lion-O brothers, changing up relationships and such... but hey, it’s a reboot. It’s not supposed to be exactly the same. So far the changes are welcomed. The character design is such that they’re easily recognizable as their 80’s counterparts but they’re more sleek and tweaked just enough to be “new.”  Oh - they also gave the Thundercats - get this - THUNDER & lightning to use!  Cool.



Snarf 2011



80's Snarf



They even managed to keep the most annoying character, Snarf (annoying in voice [always saying 'Snarf Snarf'] and intrusiveness), and tone him down to something not so damned irritating.  (Reboot Snarf doesn't talk [as of yet that I've seen] beyond a version of his trademark 'snarf' but it doesn't sound the same.  The difference, for instance, between a cat's actual meow and our saying "meow.")

And so, because this version cares much more deeply about the story it would seem [even to the point of trying to make sense of one of the more ridiculous bits in the original: The Ro-Bear Berbils [cyborg bears with tufts of fur from their metal] by having a glimpse of them as a relic from a time of technology now thought to be mere myth, proven wrong when Mumm-Ra awakes and joins forces with the others who have been developing this mythical weaponry ever since...] ANYWAY, I’m liking it very much - mostly due to the bonus of actual storytelling this time!

BRAVE mov(i)e on Pixar's Part

We all know Pixar does amazing work.  Not just in stunning animation and art design, but in terms of storytelling as well.

So I'm really looking forward to the upcoming movie, Brave.

Brave is set in the mystical Scottish Highlands, where Merida is the princess of a kingdom ruled by King Fergus and Queen Elinor.  An unruly daughter and an accomplished archer, Merida one day defies a sacred custom of the land and inadvertently brings turmoil to the kingdom. In an attempt to set things right, Merida seeks out an eccentric old Wise Woman and is granted an ill-fated wish. Also figuring into Merida's quest - and serving as comic relief - are the kingdom's three lords: the enormous Lord MacGuffin the surly Lord Macintosh, and the disagreeable Lord Dingwall.

I really like that it's a girl on the quest and that she is seeking the Wise Woman.  Color me sympathetic to the need for strong female characters in stories, especially films, but it just sounds refreshing.

It will be a while before it arrives [June 22, 2012], but I'm  thinking it will be worth the wait.

That's the concept art scattered about, of course.  Personally, I would love it if it continued to have this painting feel to it.

Oh Pooh! - Part 4

If you’re not already aware, Disney is coming out with a brand new Winnie-the-Pooh movie. Now, if you’re like me (and some of my friends, as I discovered) you’re wincing at the thought. For you might fear it to be another one of their recent (cough!) crappier Pooh movies and endeavors mentioned in 'Oh Pooh! - Part 3.' Well, I’m here to tell you - stop wincing!

At least it seems as if we don't have to pretend not to notice this one. Having seen the trailer for it, I am most excited. In fact, I felt like I’d been in red footie pajamas of my childhood as decribed in 'Oh Pooh! - Part 1.'

This new Pooh movie looks to be a sheer delight. The animation is wonderful. And the drawings? Well, they don’t look new. They have the same style as the original we all love so much. Little things made me happy... like the fact that often Pooh’s lines are not “clean” - in other words, it’s not just a thick line defining his tummy, but a few extra strokes to show his tousled fluff. The scenery seems as if they dusted off the old backgrounds used in the original. It does the bit with the words on the page. [The “other” movies might, too, I’m not sure, but it looks ‘right’ here.] Truth is, I laughed out loud during it. I said “Awwww” and melted into a youthful spirit.  It looks totally “Old School.”

What’s more, it has touches of the modern as well - such as a comforting and smooth pop song, computer assisted animation and a brand new story. But all of these appear to work.  Usually the songs put into movies pull me right out of them. Here, the song brings me peace and inserts me right into the Hundred Acre Wood. One thing Disney certainly does well is the hybrid of computer and hand-drawn animation. They’ve proved time and again since as far back as the 80's that they know how to make it seamless and beautiful. Oh! The honey! No really, seeing Pooh with magical glistening honey is like being a kid and an adult at the same time.

All in all, it makes me want to applaud. I cannot wait to see it. And I found that I’m not alone. Bart, too, has “Awwww”ed and laughed. Josiecat came over this past Windsday (er, Wednesday [another great change that Disney made to Milne, which in fact, I wish HAD been part of the original]) and she mentioned she loved Pooh. That’s all I needed to hear. She, too, grimaced and wanted to protest another Pooh movie. Then I showed her the gloriousness. Yep. She “Awww”ed and laughed and smiled and can’t wait to see it. In fact, when she came over the next night (for the usual Thursday night get-together at my and Bart’s place) she requested we watch it again. Buttercup, as you probably already guessed had a round of “NooOOoo00ooo0!” at the idea of yet another lousy Pooh.  Josiecat allayed her fear and told her “Just watch.” It turns out Buttercup “Awwww”ed bigger than any of us and laughed quite hard. Josiecat also brought her friend Filmer along last night. Filmer, too, became a kid again watching.

Yes, folks, this new Pooh looks like it has potential. It definitely does not appear to be “cranked out.” It gives the impression that a lot of extra time (beyond normal intensive labor required even for ‘run of the mill’ animation) and love went into this motion picture. It’s like it had been done by those who all wore red footie pajamas, glued to the TV when The Many Adventures of Winnie-the-Pooh graced the screen.

Enjoy your trip back into the Hundred Acre Wood.

Oh Pooh! - Part 1

Oh Pooh! - Part 2

Oh Pooh! - Part 3

Ollive Juice

Want to see a delightful animation?   It's ever so fluid and quite an homage to the dawn of moving drawings on film.  And - I bet you could see this coming - it has elements of Peter Pan in it.  It winds up misquoting it at one point.  But I had so much fun watching I hardly seem to mind.  Plus, it's not entirely nor exactly Peter Pan... and one could argue the main character in this short is the one remembering incorrectly.  Either way, it matters very little if any, as the cartoon is so charming.  I especially like the way in which the Peter character flies, twisting and turning gracefully for no reason.  (I also like that a certain appendage is placed correctly.) 

The Night Visitors animated short is by Richard Ollive.  Looking him up, I learned he also worked on Monty Python's The Meaning of Life.  Other credits include cult classic Heavy Metal and a (seemingly) lesser known Peanuts movie: It's the Pied Piper, Charlie Brown.   I'd love for him to do more.  Maybe he'd consider a faithful animated Peter and Wendy.  ;)

ENJOY.

Heck YES!

A while back I had an idea for a TV show... and now it's being done.
The thing is, I'd been told by many that it's a bad idea.
Are you ready for Napoleon Dynamite: The Series?

Ready or not, it's coming. And it's a cartoon.
The thought of it being animated crossed my mind, but truthfully I had wanted it as live action. Of course, live action is not entirely feasible and animation makes a great deal more sense. Fortunately, most (if not all) of the original actors will be reprising their roles.

Why did I think a Napoleon Dynamite show to be a good idea? Simply because I wanted to know more about the characters. Specifically the minor ones, like Trisha and her parents. Episodes of this wacky town would allow for expansion of all facets of it. I'm hoping the creators see the potential to develop their other oddballs, too.

When the ads for the movie aired, I had asked, "WHO on EARTH would ever go SEE that?" I'll be honest. It looked stupid. But then there'd been the great fan base that sprang up for it. Still, I'm not always a fan of what's popular, so I still had decided I need not bother. However, my friend Lemonie and best friend Laughter asked me if I'd seen it. They sang its praises. I thought perhaps I'd just been missing something, that whatever had been great about the movie didn't show through in the ads. Fortunately, this had just been about the time of the re-release with the added ending. So Bart and I went to see it. I'm happy to say I'd been grossly wrong. We adored the movie. I loved everything about it. From its subtle humor to its compelling characters and quirky lines. I've now seen it quite a few times. And when I show it to people who have not seen it, I warn them and apologize in advance. Of/for what? The fact that it makes me laugh. A lot. That they'll be wondering what's so damn funny when nothing funny seems to be happening. But I can't help it. For instance, when Napoleon is standing there waiting for the bus. There's just something hysterical about his very presence there. Hats off to Jon Heder for that. Maybe it's partially due to the fact that I can generally identify with Napoleon. I'm not that strange, no. But I certainly hear my own drum like him.

And so, I found myself wanting more. But a sequel just wouldn't work, that's for sure. Hence, my thinking a TV show would be good.

I, for one, am very glad they're doing it. It's got my vote.

Let's hope it's SWEET.

Seasoned Again

I'm very excited.
As I indicated in this post and here, I'm quite enthralled with the movie Paprika. Back at the time of the posts, I'd shared it with other people. One apologized when next I saw her. For she didn't bring the movie on account of she needed to watch it again. No one I've shown it to disliked this film.

At that time, the book on which the movie is based had been unavailable. I'd have been amazingly lucky to find even a copy in the original Japanese. Not that I can read Japanese anyway.

Lately, I've had a resurgence of Paprika. Having heard about it from me and Banky, Josiecat wanted to see it. (I'd shown it to Banky a long while back.) Josiecat immediately wanted to see it again. I can still hear her saying "amazing." She said the next day she told everyone about how cool the movie is and that they need to see it. Naturally, then, Buttercup heard about it from Josiecat, and, yes, Buttercup watched it, too. Same effect. Both the animation and the story, loved undeniably. Even with me a veteran of it, I still made new discoveries. Josiecat has since seen it again. She wants to be Parika for Halloween.

Well, it prompted me to seek the book once more. Lo and behold, a new English translation recently-ish came out in the UK. Need I say that I sent for it? It hath arrived. Imagine my excitement to read it - the basis of that magnificent movie. From the DVD "extras" I learned the author adores the film, saying the film reduces his book down to its essence while making the story its own. In other words a good adaptation. Most of the people who've written reviews agree it's a faithful rendition, and that the book enriches the whole experience.

I usually read in transit, so I'll post again when I'm through for sure. So far, I am quite happy. It's wonderful to see how the film has rearranged the material. I've already noticed what a great job it does with character's relationships with and opinions of other characters which the author can do with words. There are two "Aw, shucks!" though. A place that exists via the internet and dreams, so to speak, in the film turns out to be a real place (in what we deem reality) in the book. Also, the backstory of one of the characters from the film belongs to a different character in the book, one that does not appear in the movie. I'm only a few chapters into it, so these may yet reconcile with the film. My guess is that the movie character is in the book, but has been combined with another to simplify the tale.

I'll find out, guaranteed.

Oh - there is now a waiting list among my friends for my book.

*Note: The movie Paprika is not for everyone. It's certainly not a kid's movie. It does contain nudity, but not gratuitously (believe me I wouldn't like it so much if it were) and it also has many disturbing images. So before you rush out to rent it, make sure you can handle the oddities of anime.

Should We Close the Window for This??

I just found out (and therefore do not have much information yet - but I didn't want to wait to report) that DQ Entertainment, among other projects including The Jungle Book, is soon releasing a a CGI Peter Pan series. It's apparently called The New Adventures of Peter Pan.

I'd be happier about it if it weren't for the fact that the description has the expression "New generation Wendy" (as it takes place in the 21st Century) and it also includes Captain Hook. The fairy's name is also misspelled (and she , too, should not be around like the Captain.)

Here's the blurb:
The new adventures of Peter Pan brings alive the Magical World of Neverland and 21st century London. Neverland is defined by imaginations running wild, the place to go for big adventures, and a place ruled by a boy who never grew up. New generation Wendy and her brothers and their loving dog Newfie are joining forces with Peter Pan and Tinkerbell to face their long time foe captain hook and his pirates in a never-ending battle to save Neverland from unimaginable evils.
For the record, the site did not captialize Captain Hook in the blurb, not me.

There's supposed to be a video of it released soon. I'll keep you posted.

I wonder if they know that "DQ" will make people think of Dairy Queen.

UPDATE:

I've found a billboard featuring the new set of shows from DQ. WHY does Peter Pan have (essentially) Disney's outfit? Click to make the picture bigger... not that it will make Pan that much larger, however.


UPDATE 2:

Thanks to JAQ [Neverpedia] for finding the site's better image of their Peter Pan. He pointed it out in the comments. He also mentions how his outfit is actually leaves. Hooray for that, but it still seems Disneyesque to me.

It's almost horrifying to see the London Eye there.

Furry, er, Slurry White Rabbit

There’s a line in Disney’s animated feature Alice in Wonderland that we’ve been curious about.

It’s said by the White Rabbit… but the trouble is what in fact does he say?

Bart, quoting him when pressed for time one day, said, Oh my fearing whiskers...!
I had thought it to be Oh my ears and whiskers...!
To settle it, we put on the English subtitles on the DVD. Lo and behold, the subtitles are not entirely accurate. For instance, Alice (unmistakably) says a bit more than is actually shown in the text. And when it comes to the White Rabbit’s lines some are missing as well. (Horrors!) It just so happens, of course, that the misheard line is not included.
TO THE INTERNET!

Wouldn’t you know that there are yet more hearings of it?
Oh my fur and whiskers...!
Oh my furry whiskers...!
I’m willing to bet we can rule out that last one.

Can anyone verify the actual line?

P.S. - We saw Burton's Alice again... it's even better the second time. When a movie is able to bring you the same thrills (or more so!) at key scenes, that's an accomplishment! Also, Bart noticed a painting of the Griffin (fighting the Jabberwock[y]) in the Red Queen's castle, while I spied the Mock Turtle in another portrait. So at least those two are in fact represented... and it adds support to the guess of what happened to them.

Crabs & Frogs for 2010

2010. Jeepers!

All righty, I suppose I should get back to the virtual world of this site.

I'll start the posts off by telling you how I rang in the New Year.

On New Year's Eve, Bart and I had our usual and annual feast at Joe's Seafood, Prime Steak & Stone Crab. Bart's sister Lage joined us this time. Once again, I found myself defeated. By which I mean the crab legs (as big as a baby's arm [which is only a slight exaggeration] without the shell) proved too much for me to tackle. Of course, that probably wouldn't be the case if I didn't also dine beforehand on scallops and stone crabs and stone crab bisque and butternut squash. I just never learn, as it's all so damn tasty that I/we can't stop ourselves... I skipped the lobster tail this year, although Bart and Lage had some. If you haven't (and want to) read it, Bart's guest post "report" about the experience from last year can be found here.

But before our meal, we saw Disney's latest animated feature, The Princess and the Frog.

All three of us thoroughly enjoyed it. I figured I might, given what I had seen of it. But I didn't expect to like it as much as I did. I've never been that much of a fan of the Frog Prince storyline, to be honest. But the House of Mouse spin on it certainly seemed intriguing. If you don't know - and this is not spoiler for they want you to know this part - the twist happens to be that kissing the frog turns the lady into a frog as well. So off they go on a quest to restore themselves to humans by seeking the help of Mama Odie the voodoo queen who lives deep in the bayou. (Also for those who don't know, it's set in New Orleans.) But what I really didn't expect: The other twists in the story.

First (too late), let me say why I didn't think I'd be that entralled besides not being all that keen on the source material. The firefly character seemed overly annoying in the trailer and advertisements. As if they tried too hard. The same goes for the alligator. They had the potential to be overdone and quickly tiresome. But on the contrary, Ray (firefly) and Louis (alligator) each proved to be a hoot. I loved each of them. (Bart and Lage, too.) Both characters really came into their own, developed beyond their all-too obvious visual jokes. Ray's a cajun, ugly rascal with huge rump/light and big-bellied, scaredy-cat Louis blows a trumpet. Sometimes disliking a character can sour a whole picture. But as I said, they brought quite the smiles.

I'm quite happy to report that Disney didn't skimp on the scary. Not that it terrified me per se, but it certainly had its share of freaky frights. After all, it is dealing with voodoo! Dr. Facilier [a.k.a. The Shadow Man] delivered a lot of spooky delights. The Mouse House allowed such elelmets as needing blood for spells and dark, sinister demons. Not that they've ever been so squeaky-clean that they didn't have such material before (such as Maleficient screaming "...and all the powers of hell!" while transmogrifying into one of the greatest dragon designs ever, Chernobog the Devil summoning ghastly entities from the infernal depths and the overly creepy rise of a titaness Ursula the Sea Witch.) But given that Princess and the Frog is Disney's proverbial "return" to '2-D' animation, it's nice to know they haven't lost their edge among the cute parts.

As for those twists I spoke of, well, I will not spoil them for you. But I did not see either of them coming, I can tell you that. Very clever indeed. One is almost like an exploited loophole. However, it's quite effective, as it catches the characters off guard, too. Well, most of them. One of them knew the whole time. ;) Glad I didn't.

The animation's top notch. No lack of effort there. Nothing like the cranked out direct-to-video stuff. Quite beautiful. It even changes styles here and there (dream sequences) and they handle each of those very nicely, too. Quite [ahem!] stylish (as well as stylized.)

Although I really haven't heard or read any bad reviews of the film, I have heard some complaints, as it were, that characters were too similiar to other films. Dr. Facilier, for example, has been called a rehash of Jafar from Aladdin. Louis the Alligator has been said to look exactly like the crocodile in Peter Pan. In addition, Louis also floats on his back in the water, with characters riding on his belly - which brings to mind Baloo the Bear in The Jungle Book. Kaa the Snake from that film admittedly does share much in common with Mama Odie's snake helper. But I don't acknowledge these as rip-offs. They're most definitely homages. Disney's notorious for homages. Both to and in their own films as well as other movies. They don't feel like re-uses at all. They're most definitely nods. If you want an example of a rehash, try the giant octopus in Return to Never Land. Now that's a recycled, unimaginative bit - down to the eye movement and the tick-schlock noise of the suction cups - to say nothing of the exact same storyline as the original. But I digress. Dr. Facilier, Louis and the serpent all have their own personalities entirely. They're not trying to recreate the same characters, merely tipping a hat to them.

They also managed to reference some key fairy tale elements - such as the infamous needing to be finished by midnight or all is lost.

Lately a lot of music (words and score) in some musicals have made me yawn, but these tunes are rockin' - just as one would expect from a New Orleans setting. Very fun and sweet lyrics, too. The kind that advance a scene or idea, as a good song in a musical should.

It's not the crown jewel in Disney's treasures, but it deserves a place in their trove for sure.

After the movie and dinner Bart and I counted down the time to midnight watching Season 1 of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, which Banky gifted me with for Xmas. We just got into Sunny this past year, so it proved quite a treat to begin our "catch up." Thanks, Banky!

All in all, a very satisfying ringing into 2010.

Calling for the PAN of Barrie's Classic!

So I've been reading through Peter and Wendy (a.k.a. Peter Pan) again on account of that really cool event that will be happening this weekend [which I hope to have permission to write about here.]

No matter which version of the novel being addressed, there is always too much missing. Ridiculously so. Sure, I understand that cuts and tweaks usually need to be made when transferring it to the visual medium. But does that always have to be the case? I've decided no.

If I ever am able to present my own filmed adaptation of Barrie's masterpiece, I am going to do using several parts. It seems the only way to be able to include it all (besides one VERY long film) is to spread it over several sections. I'm imagining the proverbial "mini-series." I'd also like to see it done in realistic motion-capture CGI animation. In many ways, it's the "best of both worlds."

It's truly a shame, for instance, that we always lose the full gamut of Mrs. Darling's fears and toils regarding the coming of Peter Pan. Do you even know about her scouring the floor with a candle in a panic for footprints? And She rattled the poker up the chimney and tapped the walls. She's really freaked out! I mentioned the loss of Mrs. Darling's interactions before in this post.

And none have fully realized the flight to the Neverland. What of the real duration? Where are the bouts with the birds? The touching of shark fins? And the Darlings fearful at being left by themselves when Pan darts off to some adventure without them?

It would also require the alluring task of adding some dialogue for passages such as: [Wendy] gave him a look of the most intense admiration, and he thought it was because he had run away, but it was really because he knew fairies. Wendy had lived such a home life that to know fairies struck her as quite delightful. She poured out questions about them, to his surprise...

If ever given the chance, I want to include it PAN (ALL.) And yes, there would HAVE to be a Narrator for the salient quips included as such.

If you've never read the original, please do so... you'll be surprised at how much you're missing!

Is it XMAS yet?

Can it be Xmas NOW? Please?
Okay, okay, I don't really want it to be the Holiday Season yet.
We finally just got rid of Winter here in Chicago.

But WOW, if I'm not excited to see the new version of A Christmas Carol coming out this year!
Robert Zemeckis has some great insights into the tale.
A couple that made me nod in assent and wonder why I didn't see it that way, too.

I'm not exactly a fan of Jim Carrey. Okay, wait, yes I am. I just don't like when's "JiM CaRreY!!" But he's proven he has another side and quite a wonderful range. (The Truman Show, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Man in the Moon) And damn. If he doesn't have Scrooge down!

Take a look at this featurette. I'm thinking this will truly be THE Definitive version of the classic Dickens story.



Yes, Virginia, There Is a Carol...

I've Been Wondering...

Why isn't there a movie of
Peter Pan
in Kensington Gardens?


Wouldn't it look great either in traditional animation or CGI?


Just imagine it - done in the style of Arthur Rackham.


I vote YES.





(If one does exist, I have never come across it in my studies/pursuits.)

Welcome to the (Other) Jungle

Way too long ago, back before Disney's endeavors to give sequels to things that never asked for one nor needed one, I had a wish for a sequel from the House of Mouse.

As you can see from the picture, yes, I wanted more The Jungle Book. In fact, that is what I felt it should be titled: More Jungle Book. (Note that I did not call it something so utterly uncreative and hackneyed as The Jungle Book 2.) I did not watch Disney's first animated feature based on Rudyard Kipling's book until college. It instantly found a spot in my Top 5 favorite Disney animations. It also made me realize that I had not yet read the book. As per my penchant for source material, I journeyed into the wild lands of India. Mowgli's adventures enthralled just as much in print, naturally. I couldn't help compare it with the House of Mouse...and as to be expected, they didn't quite get it right. The most notable "offense" is the King of the Monkeys. The book stressed that the monkeys have no leader and live chaotically. A contrast to the ever imporant Law of the Jungle. And yet... King Louie brought such joy! Not only a remarkablly entertaining personality (both in animation and Louis Prima) but despite the "law" they worked him into the plot beautifully. Overall, the scene felt as if it could have been in the original.

I soon learned through reading that Disney only used the first third or so of the book. Not surprising. The entire novel would have been a much longer movie, especially when it needs to be paired with classic Disney touches. I wanted those touches, though. I wanted more. I could see it...

I then learned that in its day, The Jungle Book proved so popular that Disney released a supplentary album starring Phil Harris (Baloo). To my delight, the songs matched with the rest of the book! Now I had to have it realized as an animated feature!

And then, one day, it came. And it looked... awful. Maybe I stuck my nose up at it in haste, but from the ads and trailer, nothing endeared me to it. Besides, it didn't have the other 'new' songs in it, even though the storyline still warranted them. No, they made it painfully clear that they decided to rehash 'Bare Necessities' ad nauseum. And had "sold out" on voice talent name recognition. Bitter much? At the time I also wondered why they didn't call again on Ed Gilbert, the man who did the voice for Baloo in Tale Spin, an animated TV series deliciously derived from Disney's The Jungle Book. Turns out Mr. Gilbert passed in 1999, before the sequel. Too bad, for Mr. Gilbert widened my eyes and tickled my ears with his impression of Phil Harris. Spot on. Eeriely so. Thankfully so. I just learned this from Wikipedia:

One of his most memorable roles was as the voice of Baloo the bear in the Disney animated TV series, TaleSpin. Originally, the role was supposed to go to Phil Harris, who had voiced Baloo in the original 1967 film, The Jungle Book. However, after one recording session, it was found that he had aged to the point where he could no longer do the voice successfully (his voice cracked). To perfect his rendition of Baloo's voice, Ed listened to old recordings of Phil Harris and practiced for many hours until he had it just right.

I truly admire such dedication to art. Bravo, Ed Gilbert! And thank you.

Okay.

Back to The Jungle Book 2. As you might have guessed, I chose to leave it alone. And then one day recently, while plunking about the television, I see the Toon Disney channel airing it. With a shrug, my trusty TiVo would pick it up for me.

I didn't pounce on it...it remained on the Now Playing list for quite a while. One night...oh maybe last Thursday, while Bart entered the IntraWeb, I sat down and began to watch.

I'll admit I set into it with a mild grudge. I say mild because such a long time had passed that I had gotten over the initial disappointments. To be fair, I decided to give the film an actual chance. Yet it did not prevent me from disappointment right off the bat. Already it had steered away from the rest of Kipling's book - the parts that I really wanted to see. But I kept watching. Typical over-cutening and aggravating additions. No sign of the real book in sight. But I kept watching. And then...the JUNGLE. Once we ventured back into the jungle, somehow...it felt good again. Oh, I don't mean in felt like the original. But as close as anyone is ever going to be. I should mention here that the art is spot on - the colors, the layering, the drawing style - all of that is right. And the voices? Yes, I had complained about them. And no, they're not quite right. But truthfully? They did the job well. Bravo John Goodman and Haley Joel Osment. And a special thanks to Tony Jay, whose impreccable and eerie (like Ed Gilbert) impression of George Sanders as Shere Khan also brought magic to Tale Spin.

So. There I am in the jungle of Disney's second installment. What a treat to see Baloo interacting with Colonel Hathi! What fun to see Kaa slinking into self-slaughter again. Yes, I enjoyed it very much. We all knew the characters interacted more than they did in the original movie (and book) and Disney delivered.

After a little while, I began to reinterpret their reinterpretation for the first third of the movie. In other words, I realized that perhaps the basic essence had been like the book, just Disneyified. As I recall it from the book, Mowgli is shunned and feared somewhat in the "Man Village" for his ability to talk to animals, knowing roots and leaves that soothe...along this vein. He's accused of witchcraft, to a degree. Realizing he doesn't belong there, he goes back into the jungle and sets out to kill Shere Khan once and for all to prove himself to both the jungle and the village. Disney traded his wary wizardlys for too much talk about the jungle and reckless behavior, as it corrupted the tender mind of a sickeningly cute little boy who idolizes Mowgli. When a musical parade (of course) led by Mowgli almost leads everyone into the jungle (with the music naturally about the how great the jungle rhythm is), Mowgli is "grounded." Enter Baloo (after various hijinx) into the village, exiting with Mowgli. I won't delineate all of it for you, in case you want to see it. Besides, the point is that okay, perhaps they rearranged it entirely. But the distrust of Mowgli and his desire to escape remains intact. They also comepletely turned around the Shere Khan aspect. Khan is seeking revenge on Mowgli. (Typical Disney-cleaning.) And where is King Louie during all of this? That's another thing that pleased me. Although so very sad to not see his return, the truth is the film returned to the book. Baloo explains that King Louie skipped out a long time ago. Now the ruined city is just a place of "partying." Like the original book. It balanced out.

So, as you can tell, maybe I didn't need to hate this as much as I thought. And then....

Villagers other than Mowgli held conversations with animals. Unacceptable. Yes, I realize the time constraints of the film. The fast paced action scenes had to roll onward. However, a slip up like that is not minor. Why on earth would the villagers, who had been trained to stay out of the jungle and fear it (as per the Disney film) suddenly, when confronted with their fear, articulately and intelligibly communicate in words? Um, no. Hand gestures, I could see. Ignoring one another until both realize the goal is helping Mowgli and then understanding enough to assist each other? Even better. But talking to them? No. Only Mowgli knows the languages of the jungle. Did it kill the movie for me? No. On the whole, I enjoyed it. But it vexed me, sure.

Lots to enjoy in it, despite it foibles and shameless overuse of 'Bare Necessities' without so much as new lyrics.

Maybe I should watch some Tale Spin now.

*The picture is from the ViewMaster version.

Shadow of a Doubt

Don’t you just love Peter Pan’s shadow?
How it moves around like a living entity all its own?
I don’t.

Sorry to rain on the balloon, but I’m going to have to pop the parade.

The “living shadow” does not appear in the play Peter Pan nor does it happen in the book Peter and Wendy. It’s yet another concoction of the House of Mouse. And a slightly (pun noted) damaging one at that, for the free-roaming silhouette has become part of pop culture. (Much like the ruby slippers of Oz.) The mischievous moving shadow even shows up in P.J. Hogan’s version. In fact, he devotes quite a bit of time to it. (Time which might have been spent putting some other aspect of the book onto the screen.)

Please don’t take offense to me pointing it out that it’s not correct. I’ll grant you that it’s a charming idea. But don’t forget that I’m a Pan purist. It’s just my nature to sigh at misrepresentation.

You may now be wondering what DOES happen according to Barrie. You probably remember some of it correctly: Peter’s shadow is snapped off when Nana slams the window down on it as he is escaping from the Darlings’ home. Now for the parts you might not know. Mrs. Darling finds it in Nana’s mouth (after checking for a little boy’s body outside as she saw him leap out a window). She keeps it, rolls it up and stuffs it in a drawer. (You likely remember the drawer.) But what you probably don’t recall is Mrs. Darling's intial inclination. At first she hangs it out the window: He is sure to come back for it; let us put it where he can get it easily without disturbing the children. The narrator goes on to say: But unfortunately Mrs. Darling could not leave it hanging out at the window, it looked so like the washing and lowered the whole tone of the house. So you see, in Barrie’s vision, a shadow does not behave like an inky flat person of free-will. It’s rather like a piece of laundry. I know what you may be thinking…what with all the magic that Peter Pan has been exposed to, wouldn’t his shadow have obtained magical qualities? No, apparently not: You may be sure Mrs. Darling examined the shadow carefully, but it was quite the ordinary kind.
Again, sorry to have debunked Disney’s touch for those who liked it. But let us assume that it is a sentient shadow for a moment. It’s just not logical (outside of it being utterly fantastical). What happens to the shadow when it is re-attached to Peter? It behaves normally, so… does that mean it is now dead, so to speak? Or is it still “alive” and a slave to Pan’s motions? Either notion is creepy. It just doesn’t work, if you ask me.

Now it’s entirely possible that Barrie himself would have relished this idea. If stage effects had been sophisticated enough to have produced a living shadow, would he have wanted one? (Chances are it could be easily accomplished with a scrim and backlighting.) Animation had been in its infancy when the play premiered in 1904. Barrie probably would not have readily thought to produce an animated Pan. And if he had, it would have remained silent anyway. So we are left wondering whether or not he would have enjoyed the “living shadow” concept. There is no way to know for sure. However, I'll admit that it does indeed have a Barriesque quality.

For Peter Pan’s NeverWorld, I decided to make a compromise. Since the idea is in fact ingrained into popular culture but nevertheless incorrect, how could I reconcile the two, as it were? I solved it thus: Peter’s shadow is again “lost” when he arrives on NeverWorld and it is roaming around freely. Did I go against my own rant? No. You see, the shadow is not willfully flitting around. Rather it’s being blown about by the wind. Naturally, I couldn't simply separate him from it without cause. As for what that reason is or how Peter Pan is re-acquainted with his pesky shadow… you’ll have to read the book to find out, of course.

A Used Bookstore Score

Last evening I browsed around a used bookstore that Bart and I frequent. It’s across the street from our favorite sushi restaurant. So I looked, waiting for Bart to arrive. One of the books in the back of my mind that I knew I should probably read happened to be there. I’m quite excited. Coraline by Neil Gaiman. I’d heard of it before, especially since there is a movie in the works. Having seen featurettes on the film, I knew it to be right up my alley. In the most basic terms, it’s about a little girl named Coraline who finds a mysterious door in the house they moved into which leads to a fantastic adventure of some kind. I’m not quite sure what yet…I’ve only just begun. It’s supposed to be scary, too, which could be fun. The movie stars the amazing Dakota Fanning. Also exciting is how the movie is being made. It’s following the lead of James and the Giant Peach. A live-action film until the “other world” begins, which is then stop-motion animation with delightfully odd figurines. Plus, it will be in 3-D. I’m a little on the fence about the 3-D stuff. It’s cool, but I’m not overly into it.

I’m about to start the fourth chapter. As I’ve said before, I usually read in transit. So when I finish, I will give a report. Then, when the movie comes out I can make a comparison. As always, I hope for the rare good adaptation.
Here's the trailer. I have not seen it in a long time. Months, in fact. So I don't recall all that much. I'm not going to watch it again, so as to let the book speak for itself. But you can watch.



Coraline Sewn Up with Slightly Irregular Stitching

Finite Cartoons III

Finite Cartoons I
Finite Cartoons II

Before I tell you about my final favorite Finite Cartoon (my definition of this term is here) I must confess something. I have not seen every episode of this one. Gads! Furthermore, once I researched it to refresh my memory of what I did know of it, I discovered that I might not be entirely correct on this one. That is, it may not be a Finite Cartoon in the truest sense. It seems as if it is more like a series with a continuity, but not an actual arc. I’m sorry. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen it and as I stated, I didn’t get to see them all. However, this cartoon series has what I think are fascinating origins and production development. I’ll get to it in a bit.

First let me explain the difference between a continuity series and a finite series. A comment on the last post asked if the delightfully wacky parody of superheroes and supervillains, The Tick, counts as a Finite Cartoon. To the best of my knowledge it does not. The argument for it being one is that it has recurring tidbits such as the example given that Chairface’s attempt to emblaze his name on the moon can be seen throughout the shows after it first appears. Yet this just chalks up to consistency (which many cartoons do ignore, sadly.) I don’t see The Tick as having a general overall story that follows toward an ending. It’s a series of adventures, each separate but for the continuity of elements. I hope I’m making it clear enough. For the record, I love The Tick. SPOON!

All right…the last cartoon show I wish to talk about is Jumanji: The Animated Series. I have to tell you, I happened to experience Jumanji backward. Huh? Like this: The cartoon series is based on the live-action movie, which itself is based on a magnificent picture book by the amazing writer/illustrator Chris Van Allsburg. Somehow I never had picked up that particular book. I had wanted to see the movie, but it did not work out in the cards. I happened to catch the cartoon show one day. At first the drawing style threw me, for it takes some getting used to. [For instance, the character’s eyes are very far apart on their heads.] After time, I really came to enjoy the vaguely abstract character and setting design. Now, as I watched, it made me wonder. I knew the basic idea of the movie’s plot through general knowledge. But this show had the premise…backwards. I suppose I should explain the general idea for those who don’t know. Jumanji is a board game about traversing a jungle. But the game is “real.” When it says monkeys attack, well, they do. Creatures and people and floods and things come “out of the game” and manifest into our reality. In the movie version, a boy named Alan Parrish plays with his friend Sarah Whittle. A little black bubble in the center has green mist form into rhyming words for each turn, indicating what will happen, albeit usually in “clue” form. Alan’s message: In the jungle you must wait until someone rolls a five or eight. Then, the reverse happens to him - he gets “sucked into” the game through the black bubble. Sarah runs screaming. Decades later, two children named Peter and Judy move into the house and find the game in the attic. They start playing and experience its delicious horror…but they are not playing their own game…they become additional players to Alan and Sarah’s, as a game of Jumanji does not end until someone’s piece gets to the center of the board. Peter rolls and releases an adult Alan, now a “wild man” of the jungle. They have to enlist the help of reclusive Sarah, for they need to finish the game in order to stop the ever-increasing chaos unleashed upon their town. Got that? Good. Now you will be able to see why I became confused watching the cartoon. For in the series, Peter and Judy receive a clue and then both get sucked into the game, where they meet “Wild Man” Alan Parrish and have adventures with him in the jungle of Jumanji. In order to get out, they must figure out what their cryptic clue means. Alan, however, never saw his clue and is thus stuck in Jumanji. Sarah Whittle is not in the show. After getting ‘sucked into’ the TV show, I then, naturally, sought out the movie. Loved it. I knew they had expanded the story from the picture book, so I had a theory. Alan Parrish would not be in the book. Correct. It’s just Peter and Judy and the perils that escape from the game remain confined to their house only and they complete the adventure before their parents get home. [In the movie and cartoon, their parents had died and they live with their Aunt Nora played by Bebe Neuwirth. For the record, a young Kirsten Dunst plays Judy. Bonnie Hunt is adult Sarah Whittle. Robin Williams is adult Alan Parrish.]

I’m not sure about you, but I find this progression and re-adaptation from book to series fascinating. It’s cool how you can re-fashion something without losing the basics of the original. Chris Van Allsburg (love him!) is given credit on IMDB for helping with the screenplay, although in interviews he says that his (allowed) input had been extremely limited.

As for it being a Finite Cartoon, I’ve discovered that it at least has a rudimentary plotline of trying to find out Alan’s clue that he missed so that he can escape Jumanji. Sorry for this spoiler (spoiled it for me, too): In the final episode they do get the clue and Alan leaves with them and takes a shine to their Aunt Nora. So at the very least, it does “end.” So in that sense, it qualifies as Finite, though it may not fully deserve the title.
And guess what…Tim Curry has a role in this one, too! He plays Trader Slick of Jumanji, as the cartoon allowed for the creation of a whole set of new characters.

If you haven’t seen the movie or read Van Allsburg’s book…what are you waiting for?

Van Allsburg is also responsible for The Polar Express, among others. My favorite of his works, though, is The Mysteries of Harris Burdick. Talk about creatively inspiring...!

Yes, YouTube strikes again. You can find nearly all the episodes of the Jumanji cartoon series there.

Two other examples of a Finite Cartoon (though I would not call them “favorites”) are:
Jackie Chan Adventures. Yes, the martial arts legend is also a ‘toon. I’ve caught quite a few episodes and have enjoyed it. But for me it did not have the same lure as Mighty Max, Danny Phantom or Jumanji. This one has the distinction of having a new (but contiguous) arc for each season.
Star Blazers (English Title). This is a Japanese anime series chronicling the adventures of a starship crew making their way to see Trilena of Telezar, who needs their help. (As I recall it.)
The web has info on both, of course.

If you know any more good Finite Cartoons, I’d love to know about them!

Finite Cartoons II

Here is the next Finite Cartoon I wish to tell you about. For a definition of “Finite Cartoon,” see this link to the previous post.

Danny Phantom is Butch Hartman’s spin on the formula of Stan Lee’s Spider-Man. Danny Fenton is a fourteen year old high school freshman whose somewhat eccentric parents are into ghost hunting (and busting.) Their portal to the Ghost Zone doesn’t work initially, but Danny takes a look at it when they are not around. In true comic book fashion, there is a freak accident and he becomes a halfa, half boy and half ghost. Actually he is able to switch at will. Thus, Danny Fenton becomes Danny Phantom. Like Spider-Man, he keeps a secret identity, though his best friends Sam(antha) and Tucker know the truth. He battles the ghosts that plague Amity Park (kudos on the name. They also attend Casper High.) Again like Spider-Man, using his super powers for justice and protection are often misunderstood by the media and public, forcing him to grapple with acceptance and his dual nature in addition to the horrors of high school. It evolves into his arch nemesis being Vlad Plasmius, an evil adult halfa, aka Vlad Masters, a college mate of his father’s. But both Danny and Vlad are sometimes at the mercy of bigger, badder villains from the Ghost Zone. Admittedly, Danny Phantom is not rich in a basis of mythology and legend as is Mighty Max. But Hartman is to be praised for his imaginative new creations.

Okay, on to the Finite part. Oh, the horror! Hartman had a plan for the series from the beginning. He had a definite story he wanted to tell when he pitched the series to Nickelodeon. (He already had the very successful Fairly Odd Parents [which I also love, but is not Finite] on the network.) I don’t recall the exact number (nor is it important) but they allowed a chunk of them. Well received, they gave him another chunk, circa 20. Hartman happily set to work on fleshing out his storyline…recurring characters, developing relationships and situations. Danny also discovered new ghostly powers as it went along. Hartman certainly kept it interesting. While some had aired and some were being written, Nickelodeon gave him even more. About double what he had. Thus, he excitedly expanded his storyline further, able to write in much more developments. But…eventually Nickelodeon pulled the plug…in the middle of his story. He had a fixed number left, nowhere near his allotment. A trooper, Hartman had to rework his arc to fit within the only remaining episodes he had. Guess what happened next. Yes, possibly due to fan outcry, they went ahead and reversed their decision. However, by the time they did so, Hartman had already retooled the storyline. Now he had the opportunity to make it closer to his original vision, but still not quite the same given the changes that had been made. Then, they did it…again. Poor Hartman! I’d like to think I can sympathize with his trauma. To make matters worse, they aired episodes out of order! Now, in a regular show, this most likely would not make a difference. But for a Finite series, it throws it all out of whack. It does not make it easy for good storytelling at all, no fault to Hartman, who informed fans on his website of the shenanigans. It finally ended up that they gave him a set, final limit. Having already had some “movies” (hour long episodes) during the course of the show, they also gave him a “movie” to finish it off. (How nice of them.) So Hartman had to shuffle it around yet again and get his story back on track to its conclusion in much less the space than planned. Though he will admit that some small bits feel rushed (but can you blame him after that frenzy?), he is pleased with how it turned out. And I have to say, I am very impressed. In light of what insanity he had to work under, he gave us a fabulous adventure, with a satisfying ending to boot. Yes, it leaves it open for more. But not in the sense of a Hollywood movie where it is painfully obvious that more is on the way. In the final movie "Phantom Planet,"Danny Phantom is wrapped up nicely, all the loose ends tied into bows, secrets revealed and major dilemmas solved. Yet if he wanted to, he could start another story arc from there.
Danny Phantom could be considered as falling into the Puer Archetype as well. But my next and last report of my favorite Finite Cartoons will not include a traditional Puer.

Coincidentally, you will find Rob Paulsen's vocal talent in this series as well. He plays Danny's father.

As of now, many episodes of this are on YouTube, hunt it down if you wish. Also as of now, the first two seasons are available from iTunes.

Finite Cartoons I
Finite Cartoons III

Disney's Boy Who Never Grew Up

The Walt Disney version of Peter Pan. While reading, please keep in mind that these are merely my views. Obviously yours may not be the same. I am very much a purist, especially when it comes to Peter Pan. I am looking as someone who reveres the original work. Perhaps that skews me in general, but I don’t want to lose sight of the specifics.

I do not dislike the animated feature, but I have no great fondness for it either.
As with many stories that they have adapted, the "Disney touch" is not necessarily a good thing. It's a bit too bright and happy for me. Too "bubble-gum" if that makes sense to anyone. It does have its "dark" moments, which is great. I'd say Barrie's story is a little of both. It's just that Disney seems cutesy heavy. Overall, it’s fine. Besides bringing to the story the ever-popular live shadow, I have a few qualms, which are:

"Second star to the right and straight on till morning." The added word irks me. Barrie wrote: "Second to the right," said Peter, "and then straight on till morning." Now, I can see why they'd want to put a word in there. Second to the right...what does that mean? Second to the right of WHAT? But that is precisely the point. For Barrie also wrote: That, Peter had told Wendy, was the way to the Neverland; but even birds, carrying maps and consulting them at windy corners, could not have sighted it with these instructions. Peter, you see, just said anything that came into his head. The inclusion of the word "star" has become ingrained into popular culture. I deem this loss of the original story element sad. (It's like the Wicked Witch of the West. Technically she is not green, folks.)

Tinker Bell (not Tinkerbell nor Tinkerbelle) is not a pixie, but a fairy. The change baffles me. Though similar, there is a folkloric difference.

Disney's mode of dress for Peter Pan has tainted people's view of him. Many illustrations allude to Disney's design. And it makes people believe he wears tights. *sigh*  And the ears?  No. 

Hook is too comedic and foppish. Barrie wrote, Hook should be played absolutely seriously, and the actor must avoid all temptation to play the part as if he was conscious of its humours. There is such a temptation, and in the stage play the actors of the part have sometimes yielded to it, with fatal results. He is a blood-thirsty villain, all the more so because use he is an educated man. The other pirates are rough scoundrels, but he can be horribly polite when he is most wicked. He should have the manners of a beau. But above all the part should be played with absolute seriousness and avoidance of trying to be funny. This should be insisted on throughout, and especially later in the pirate-ship scene. This same warning applies to all the pirates.

The hook is on the wrong the hand. I am used to this one, however. It seems 'everybody' makes this mistake. Possibly because it is harder for most to swordfight with the left hand. Dare I say this might be excusable if not for some lines in the movie. As John and Michael are playing at being Hook and Pan respectively, Wendy corrects John on the placement of his hook (coat hanger) saying, Ohno, John, it was the left hand. The narrator then informs us that Wendy is the “Supreme Authority” on Peter Pan and all his marvelous adventures. Now, the problem here is that she corrects John…incorrectly! Not only is there the discrepancy with the text but it is then emphasized? Again, I am baffled. I don't object to the scene or Wendy’s title, but why not have her comment on some other aspect?

Otherwise, the disturbing racial portrayal of the Indians notwithstanding, it's all right – it’s Disneyized.
Just please don't hold it as the ideal.

Japan's Boy Who Never Grew Up
P.J. Hogan's Boy Who Never Grew Up
The Silent Boy Who Never Grew Up
Fox's Boy Who Never Grew Up