I don't think anybody bothered to tell the Dreamworks execs that the "Poochie" episode of The Simpsons was supposed to be SATIRE. It's not a bloody instruction manual, ya schnorers!
I'm a huge fan of Rocky & Bullwinkle, but all these bad CGI movie adaptations just leave me feeling depressed. No wonder I have regular panic attacks about the thought of mortality. Movies like this are used by atheists as evidence in debates. Oy, my head hurts.
I wish I had some holy water. Back, back! The power of Christ compels you! The power of Christ compels you!
2 comments:
Remember Daniel, always recycle... TO THE EXTREME!!!
I was hoping you would have expanded on your distaste for this particular adaptation, because while I understand your problem with it being too hyped up and fast-paced, I don't understand what else you could have expected from an adaptation like this.
For one, it should be pretty obvious that at the very least, out of all of the movie adaptations of Jay Ward related properties; this is the one that stunk the least. Even George of the Jungle, (while it is still a decently fun 90s movie) includes humor that is borderline lame. And the Rocky & Bullwinkle and Dudley Do-Right movies epitomize early-2000s-style lame, pandering humor; and both were atrocious. Mr. Peabody & Sherman is nowhere near as dorky or lame as those others were.
I've also come to understand, while learning more and more about the film business, that one does have to compromise "loyal adaptation" with "box-office draw:" it's just a fact, and it will always be a fact. You can't make a film without backers, and you can't get those backers' money without guaranteeing that they will make it back with interest. It's a give-and-take system with the audience 2nd-in-line for satisfaction with the final product; most especially, and unfortunately, when it comes to the fans. Only when things start to shift more towards direct crowd-funding will this system change more in the fan’s favor.
In terms of accuracy, you have a cartoon that was generally absurdist, had relatively mild clever and witty humor, and involved a time-traveling dog and his pet boy hopping to different eras getting involved with events in history; and not a single historical figure ever had a real problem with the existence of Mr. Peabody: every single person, past or present, was in on the gag. To the movie’s credit, I think it gets most of these things dead-on. Updating a concept like this for the modern-day should be very easy, and in this case it was. The absurdist humor is more modern absurdist humor, choosing to use over-the-top personalities and quirky situations over word-puns and one-liners (which the original cartoon was mainly built on.) I think it was also okay for them to make Sherman Mr. Peabody’s adopted son because that adds a better dynamic between the two. It also allows for their father/son relationship to be the main plot of the film rather than having some generic villain figure, which I think more movies could do without.
I’m not saying the old cartoon was bad: it was simply a cartoon of its time with older fashioned humor that was generally appropriate and un-insulting: except for its simplifying and stereotyping of most ethnicities. The new film is honestly an admirable job compared to many other CGI films of late, which tend to tick me off with how lazy they are getting (cough… “Rio 2”)
So, again, I don’t really understand what your problem with this was.
Post a Comment