HTF REVIEW: Miyazaki's "Spirited Away" (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED) (with screenshots) (1 Viewer)

[Edwin-S]

The wild generalizations fly when it comes to Disney. Where is the evidence that they are "trying to supplant the original" or "the core of their business is the destruction of said original".

I haven't heard of any coordinated effort by MouseCorp to buy up and destroy any original works that Disney based any of their movies on. There have been no Disney sanctioned book burnings; where Disney has exhorted people to..."come on down and burn a book today. BTW could you make sure it is a copy of 'The Little Mermaid', 'Bambi', or 'Snow White'....we don't like them competing with our films".

Just Because Disney, through advertising, keeps their version in the public's conciousness, doesn't mean that their reason for existence is the destruction or supplanting of the original work. If the rightsholders of the original work cannot be bothered to promote the original then don't blame Disney for the "supplanting" that takes place.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

The original work, as said is mostly in the public domain. So how can the long-dead rightsholders keep them in the public eye?

 

[Jay W]

I think this whole sub-discussion is pointless and irrelevant in the context of this thread. Aren't we supposed to be discussing the Spirited Away DVD?

Anyway, my local CC were almost out of copies today when I went in this afternoon to pick one up (they gladly pricematched BB btw), which is a great sign in terms of maybe getting other Miyazaki films out in R1, with the treatment they deserve. I had a chance to survey parts of it this evening and am very pleased with the transfer and audio - even having seen this twice in theaters it just has this special effect on me, I don't think I would be going too far when I say Miyazaki films are almost magical and I really hope people who aren't familiar with these movies embrace them.

 

[ScottR]

Were the credits in English in the theatre?

 

[Raphael]

On the subject of the Ghibli 3 (including Spirited Away)...

Did anyone else find John Lasseter's intros to be a little on the over-the-top side? I guess the thing that really got to me (especially by the 3rd film) was the way he would say in a dramatic voice, "You are about to watch (insert Ghibli title)!" Yes, I know I'm about to watch it. Thank you for letting me know I didn't accidentally put Silence of the Lambs in my DVD player.

Sorry. I love John Lasseter. I thought Toy Story 2 was a work of unmitigated genius. I just got a little overenthused by him the third time around. :b

 

[Brian E]

Did anyone else find John Lasseter's intros to be a little on the over-the-top side?

I just wish they were just on the disc as an extra instead of front loaded to the film.

 

[EricW]

Did anyone else find John Lasseter's intros to be a little on the over-the-top side?

I just skipped them.

The only thing I dislike about the Spirited Away disc would be the picture does seem a little soft at times, and also something with the subtitles - whenever the second line is a new sentence, they never end off the first line with a period. They just start off the second line with a capital Isn't that annoying?

 

[Edwin-S]

This may have been noted already, but there is an easter egg on the bonus features screen of disk 1.

What I didn't like about Lasseter's introduction is the condescending tone of voice he used. I found it irritating that he talked like the only people who would be watching the film were five year olds.

 

[Brent Hutto]

Our three Miyazaki DVD's from Amazon won't arrive for a few days. So we rented Spirited Away from Blockbuster on the way home from supper last night. On the whole, we enjoyed it more in Japanese with English subs. It wasn't a matter of it being a whole different movie but there were places where the changes to the script in the English track were obvious. It took the first half-hour or so to get used to the different emotional cues in the Japanese voices (on first exposure they can sound almost hystrionic at times) but after the first few scenes I was acclimated and able to let go and enjoy the movie.

I still don't care for the music, it sounds out of keeping with the scenes it accompanies in some places. The picture quality was overall better than the poor-quality print we saw at the local multiplex. There were occasions of very distracting graininess in background scenes, not sure if it was in the movie or if it was MPEG problems. Didn't really look like film grain to me.

It goes back to Blockbuster today. We'll have to watch the extras when our own copy arrives (although maybe not until after watching Kiki and Laputa). Cool movie.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

The original work, as said is mostly in the public domain. So how can the long-dead rightsholders keep them in the public eye?

Uh...by making access to them free and universal? If Disney's marketing can compete with and annhilate something that can be accessed at no cost, then the music industry needs to take notes from Disney.

Regards,

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Access to their IS free and universal, that's the definition of public domain

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Bingo

 

[Jeff Kleist]

SO how are they supposed to defend work they no longer own in the legal sense, and in some cases were dead 100-1000 years before it was blasphemed by Disney?

 

[Brendan Brown]

By becoming a Zombie.

All kidding aside, that's the point of public domain: The ability to do whatever you want with the material without legal repercussions. What you do with it may be good or it may be bad, but blasphemy is in the eye of the beholder, not an absolute, and if Disney can make a profit off of adapting public domain material to their own purposes, then that's fine, we don't have to watch it (and believe me, I don't)

Indefinite intellectual property rights is currently unconstitutional in the United States, and interestingly enough, Disney is the major opponent to public domain; they're trying as hard as possible to keep all their works legally protected in perpetuity.

 

[Lew Crippen]

they're trying as hard as possible to keep all their works legally protected in perpetuity.

And sucessfully, so far.

 

[Brian Kidd]

So is WEST SIDE STORY a bastardization of ROMEO AND JULIET?


It's very true that Disney's versions of the classic fairy tales have become part of the global consciousness, most times overshadowing their predecessors. However, the fact is that stories have been told and retold throughout the centuries, changing with each telling in order to become relevant to the culture in which they are being told. I have no problem with revision as long as the spirit of the tale remains intact. Cultures evolve by embellishment. If nothing ever changed, we'd still be living in caves.

 

[PaulP]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most or all Disney features that have been adopted from some book/fairy tale have a credit for what it's "based on"? As long as they credit the original source, I feel that does not in any way invalidate the original.

 

[Edwin-S]

Okay. I screwed up when I referred to rightsholders. However, there is still no evidence that Disney is in business to destroy or supplant the original stories that they have based movies on. All you have offered is baseless statements to support your argument.

As to Disney "blaspheming" the original works. That is totally a matter of personal opinion and not authoritative fact. I do not think Disney has "blasphemed" anything. They have presented their take on a particular story. You may not like the result, but their version just becomes one more variation that gets added to the numerous other versions of the classic tales. The only way Disney would be commiting blasphemy is by telling the story exactly the way it was originally written and then claiming it as their very own work.

At that point Disney could then be accused of trying to supplant the original. As long as the original tale is available along with the Disney version, your Disney conspiracy theory falls apart.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Blasphemy-- unnecsssery wholesale alteration of the original work, aka cute talking animals, aka wisecracking bumbling villains, aka the Disney formula

There is no "take", either it matches the events of the original or it doesn't.

 

[TheLongshot]

There is no "take", either it matches the events of the original or it doesn't.

So, I guess Peter Jackson's LotR is blasphemy in your eyes, since he makes wholesale changes to the details of the story. Funny, but "The Little Mermaid" probably follows the original story closer than LotR did...

Jason