1973 vs 2006
I was not impressed, Paramount Pictures, Walden Media, Kerner Entertainment Company, and Nickelodeon Movies. Not at all. So many of you went in on this movie and yet it was not up to par. Here are some reasons why:
Each and every one of the characters -- human and animal -- sounded exactly the same. Monotone is not the right word, but the speech in this film was pretty emotionless. Was it that everyone was trying to be so serious about it? Because, frankly, it made the movie a bit boring.
Gussy, gussy, gussy. Did the animals even have names in 1973? I don't think they did. Well, Wilbur and Charlotte and Templeton did of course. But the geese, cows, and sheep? I don't think they did. I may be wrong. This is not a big problem though. I didn't mind that they named the animals. It was cute. Way to go 2006.
But back to my point: Oprah, Oprah, Oprah. I watched your show, and I didn't even make a big deal about the fact that you called Julia Roberts the "star" of the movie just because she plays Charlotte. The book/movie may be called Charlotte's Web, but she is not -- and I'm sorry Julia, but this is not personal -- the star. The star of the movie is Wilbur. After him, Charlotte and Fern, and maybe a little bit Templeton, but mainly Wilbur.
This is beside the point.
I watched your show and you got me so excited for this movie. So excited that even when I found out that Cedric the Entertainer was playing Golly, I still managed to keep my hopes up high. But Oprah, I am sorry to say that you did not do Gussy any justice whatsoever. Once again, you sounded exactly like all the other characters. And Gussy, of all characters should have sounded unique. Her speech was unique in the 1973 movie (and I assume in the book as well, although truthfully I have not read the book -- Sorry E. B. White) but lines that emphasized this (such as "That's my Golly-olly-olly") were quite, quite limited. I think I counted three.
By far, the biggest disappointment with this movie was the fact that, in the 1973 version, Charlotte can't spell. She has a big vocabulary and blah-de-blah-blah-blah, but she could not spell. That is part of the reason she asked Templeton to bring back the words -- so she could copy them.
It is not so much the fact that they made Charlotte know how to spell that upset me, but that in doing this they got rid of my favourite, favourite line in the 1973 Charlotte's Web When Charlotte asks the barn animals if any of them know how to spell "terrific," the Goose (now Gussy) says:
Each and every one of the characters -- human and animal -- sounded exactly the same. Monotone is not the right word, but the speech in this film was pretty emotionless. Was it that everyone was trying to be so serious about it? Because, frankly, it made the movie a bit boring.
Gussy, gussy, gussy. Did the animals even have names in 1973? I don't think they did. Well, Wilbur and Charlotte and Templeton did of course. But the geese, cows, and sheep? I don't think they did. I may be wrong. This is not a big problem though. I didn't mind that they named the animals. It was cute. Way to go 2006.
But back to my point: Oprah, Oprah, Oprah. I watched your show, and I didn't even make a big deal about the fact that you called Julia Roberts the "star" of the movie just because she plays Charlotte. The book/movie may be called Charlotte's Web, but she is not -- and I'm sorry Julia, but this is not personal -- the star. The star of the movie is Wilbur. After him, Charlotte and Fern, and maybe a little bit Templeton, but mainly Wilbur.
This is beside the point.
I watched your show and you got me so excited for this movie. So excited that even when I found out that Cedric the Entertainer was playing Golly, I still managed to keep my hopes up high. But Oprah, I am sorry to say that you did not do Gussy any justice whatsoever. Once again, you sounded exactly like all the other characters. And Gussy, of all characters should have sounded unique. Her speech was unique in the 1973 movie (and I assume in the book as well, although truthfully I have not read the book -- Sorry E. B. White) but lines that emphasized this (such as "That's my Golly-olly-olly") were quite, quite limited. I think I counted three.
By far, the biggest disappointment with this movie was the fact that, in the 1973 version, Charlotte can't spell. She has a big vocabulary and blah-de-blah-blah-blah, but she could not spell. That is part of the reason she asked Templeton to bring back the words -- so she could copy them.
It is not so much the fact that they made Charlotte know how to spell that upset me, but that in doing this they got rid of my favourite, favourite line in the 1973 Charlotte's Web When Charlotte asks the barn animals if any of them know how to spell "terrific," the Goose (now Gussy) says:
I think it's T double-E double-R double-R
double-I double-F double-I double-C, C, C...
double-I double-F double-I double-C, C, C...
That is the best line in the movie and they took it out and ruined it. The goose was not done justice at all. She was supposed to be mothery and protective, and she wasn't. And who could blame her? They sold her babies. In 1973, those babies followed Wilbur around like there was no tomorrow. Sigh.
As well, I missed the songs. I missed the singing. Especially Templeton's smorgasbord song, Wilbur's "I can talk!" song, and the songs that Fern sings to Wilbur at the beginning. Although, Dakota Fanning did sing to Wilbur in bed at one point.
Avery was more of a jerk in 1973 than in 2006, which I neither like nor dislike. I thought 2006 Avery was a cute little boy though, so I guess that makes it okay.
One of the scenes I wished they would have put in the 2006 movie I might have dreamt up in my head, but doesn't Wilbur get jealous (more sad, really) at the fair because Fern is spending so much time with that boy from school and not visiting Wilbur as much? I missed that scene. Poor Wilbur was so sad.
Oh! And I also missed Wilbur fainting all the time! He fainted once this time, that's it. And one of the times he should have fainted, the horse did instead. They really didn't portray the pig that well, in my opinion.
The one good thing about this movie, however, is that they picked a good actor to play Templeton. No offense to Steve Buscemi, but Templeton was a greasy little rat who had a greasy, nasal voice and I think that Steve did a really good job. The voice could have been a little more... greasy, I guess is the only word I have here, but otherwise, way to go.
Another good thing -- so I guess there are two now -- about the 2006 movie was the detail on the web and the detail that went into making Charlotte spin the web. I loved to watch Charlotte. She was very well animated and I thought it was super neat how you could watch her spin the entire web and they would animate her every movement. I like the letters too. The letters in the words she wrote. That sounds like a petty thing to compliment, but they did a really good job with the web. That made me very happy.
So, to recap: in the 2006 Charlotte's Web, I missed the expression in the voices, the songs that were in the 1973 movie, as well as the lines, like the actual wording. They replaced a lot of the classic lines with newer, hipper, "puns" and goofy/corny/predictable lines. I liked the originals. But most of all I missed the goose because I loved her and she was my favourite character in 1973.
If you want my opinion -- and even if you don't -- it isn't a terrible movie for your kids to see. They may be a little bored, as I have seen from the 10,000 children talking/yelling/whining in the theatre, but they may also enjoy it. It's a cute family movie.
But if you are anything like me, or if you have seen the original movie yourself, you probably won't want to see this film, and your kids would probably enjoy the 1973 version of Charlotte's Web much, much more.
Just because a movie is "live-action" does not mean it is better than a traditional, animated cartoon.
As well, I missed the songs. I missed the singing. Especially Templeton's smorgasbord song, Wilbur's "I can talk!" song, and the songs that Fern sings to Wilbur at the beginning. Although, Dakota Fanning did sing to Wilbur in bed at one point.
Avery was more of a jerk in 1973 than in 2006, which I neither like nor dislike. I thought 2006 Avery was a cute little boy though, so I guess that makes it okay.
One of the scenes I wished they would have put in the 2006 movie I might have dreamt up in my head, but doesn't Wilbur get jealous (more sad, really) at the fair because Fern is spending so much time with that boy from school and not visiting Wilbur as much? I missed that scene. Poor Wilbur was so sad.
Oh! And I also missed Wilbur fainting all the time! He fainted once this time, that's it. And one of the times he should have fainted, the horse did instead. They really didn't portray the pig that well, in my opinion.
The one good thing about this movie, however, is that they picked a good actor to play Templeton. No offense to Steve Buscemi, but Templeton was a greasy little rat who had a greasy, nasal voice and I think that Steve did a really good job. The voice could have been a little more... greasy, I guess is the only word I have here, but otherwise, way to go.
Another good thing -- so I guess there are two now -- about the 2006 movie was the detail on the web and the detail that went into making Charlotte spin the web. I loved to watch Charlotte. She was very well animated and I thought it was super neat how you could watch her spin the entire web and they would animate her every movement. I like the letters too. The letters in the words she wrote. That sounds like a petty thing to compliment, but they did a really good job with the web. That made me very happy.
So, to recap: in the 2006 Charlotte's Web, I missed the expression in the voices, the songs that were in the 1973 movie, as well as the lines, like the actual wording. They replaced a lot of the classic lines with newer, hipper, "puns" and goofy/corny/predictable lines. I liked the originals. But most of all I missed the goose because I loved her and she was my favourite character in 1973.
If you want my opinion -- and even if you don't -- it isn't a terrible movie for your kids to see. They may be a little bored, as I have seen from the 10,000 children talking/yelling/whining in the theatre, but they may also enjoy it. It's a cute family movie.
But if you are anything like me, or if you have seen the original movie yourself, you probably won't want to see this film, and your kids would probably enjoy the 1973 version of Charlotte's Web much, much more.
Just because a movie is "live-action" does not mean it is better than a traditional, animated cartoon.
No comments:
Post a Comment