Family friendly movies vs harry potter & shrek! (1 Viewer)

[TheBat]

I understand that some people are still unsure about the garfield movie. I will agree that the marketing has not been that good to say the least. animal planet is going to have a 1 hour special on garfield on june 10th at 8pm. Its on the direct tv.. you might might to check out the special.
to get more info about the movie.

Its a very harmless movie, unlike other kids movie like scooby doo. Its better then scooby. I think if you are a cat person, you will probably enjoy it more.. its not a movie that insult your intelligence, only the itelligence of dogs.
the reviews for movie are mostly from adults, I don't expect adults to say kind things about the movie. you probably have to ask a 10 year old or younger if they liked the movie or not.

JACOB

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Ernest,

Re: LION KING vs. BAMBI, I would attribute the difference to the quality of the filmmaking itself. Despite the undeniable technical skill on display in TLK, I personally found it almost totally unmoving on an emotional level. (I realize that I'm in the minority, and I mean no offense to LION KING fans.) I was surprised, but pleased, to see you place it in the middle of your ranking of Disney films, rather than in the top 5 or 10.



Jacob,


I would disagree with this. If anyone was unsure about the film, I'm pretty sure your review put to rest any doubts. In my opinion, a good film review is one that allows me to determine whether or not I will enjoy the film (whether or not I agree with the actual opinions expressed in the review). On that basis, I give your review an A+.

 

[Ernest Rister]

Here is the truth abuot Garfield, because I was around.

Garfield gained such instant popularity because of his cynical, ultra-realist personality. Americans identified with Garfield -- not because they saw themself as domesticated felines -- but because they understood his disdain for his dim-witted owner, his disdain for the moronic dog he had to live with, his disdain for his very existence. THAT is why Garfield became popular...the smiling, happy Garfield of today bears no resemblance to the "I hate mondays" Garfield of the early 80's.

That's why Garfield hit a chord. Not his smiling happy modern 90's schtick. It was his bitter, caustic, cynicism that made us all crack up. The happier Garfield became, the more he became irrelevant. Jim Davis doesn't even draw the comics anymore, hasn't drawn them in years. He's sold the rights and now gets a royalty check every year. Is it any surprise that Garfield has become a smiling happy lazy cat in modern times as opposed to the original incarnation of Garfield as a bitter, dry, caustic kitty? Odie was created as a "stupid" character to contrast Garfield's superior intelligence. Jon was a somewhat dopey, Potsie-esque owner who also was inferior to Garfield's "hipper-than-thou" demeanour.

All that has fallen by the wayside. Like Bart Simpson without the "eat my shorts" attitude, Garfield has become nothng more than a humanized cat - a human without a sense of humour.

People who bash Gafield should really look at the collections of early Garfield comics. Those who defend modern Garfield...I don't know what I can say, its like trying to defend "Saved by the Bell". You wind up looking dumber than Screech for even trying.

 

[Jason_Els]

Ahhh. This is actually fairly easy to answer. If you know anything about Christian symbology you'll see that Lord of the Rings is rife with it. The comparisons play out as follows:

• Frodo and the good guys reject the ultimate power of the ring. Harry and his friends seek out occult power and use it to their advantage.
  
  This is the first and most remarkable difference between the two stories. The wizards are not human and Galadriel, Elrond and all the elves get a pass because they represent Man before the fall of Eden. They are immortal and creatures of Valinor (heaven) and thus not subject to salvation. Tolkien states that not even the wisest elf or Vala knows what happens to the souls of men when they die. Only Iluvatar knows, hence the opportunity for salvation. Frodo, Sam, and Gimli (not counting elves as they may always return) are rewarded for their fidelity by physically entering Valinor.
• Frodo sacrifices himself for the good of Middle Earth. Harry Potter has not yet had to do that.
• LOTR promotes cooperation among the various races and nations. The witches and wizards of Harry Potter promote separation of magicals from muggles and both disdain each other.
• Gollum becomes weak, pathetic, and fractured because of his pursuit of occult power. Valdemort (and some others) become very powerful from their pursuit of occult power.
• Iluvatar, the Valar, and the Istari (the wizards), have direct complements to the Christian hosts of heaven. They created the races of Middle Earth and left them to prove themselves on their own with but a little guidance. Harry Potter's world has no comparable recognition of divinity.
• Galadriel corresponds to the Mary, mother of Jesus in her wisdom and ability to repel Sauron and all his evil. She sacrifices her beloved Lothlorien for the good of Middle Earth. There is as yet no comparable character in Harry Potter.
• Frodo and Gandalf both contain elements of Jesus in their humility, ability to inspire men, occasionally work "miracles" and they depart for Valinor with Elrond and Galadriel when their mission is complete. Harry Potter is much more human and has no correspondence with Jesus.

Yes Tolkien was a devout Catholic and said quite plainly once that, "The Lord of the Rings is essentially a Catholic work." Tolkien even brought the 20th century Christianity one of its greatest theologians in converting C.S. Lewis to Christianity.

I myself love the Harry Potter books and movies along with the Lord of the Rings books and movies. I have no axe to grind here.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"Frodo and the good guys reject the ultimate power of the ring. Harry and his friends seek out occult power and use it to their advantage."

No, Harry and his friends seek out knowledge to defend themselves against the powers of evil.

"Frodo sacrifices himself for the good of Middle Earth. Harry Potter has not yet had to do that."

Balderdash. Harry - in book after book - is called upon to face and defeat the doom of his kind. He just hasn't failed yet. I'll not give away a spoiler, but Order of the Phoenix addresses this question in a somewhat somber way.

"LOTR promotes cooperation among the various races and nations. The witches and wizards of Harry Potter promote separation of magicals from muggles and both disdain each other."

Not true. Many wizarding folk have great affection for the work of Muggles, as seen by Mr. Weasley's great admiration for muggle technology.

"Gollum becomes weak, pathetic, and fractured because of his pursuit of occult power. Valdemort (and some others) become very powerful from their pursuit of occult power."

And is reduced to a vapor by the power of love -- a love created by the sacrifice of a mother to save her son. Almost christ like...dying to save others.

"Iluvatar, the Valar, and the Istari (the wizards), have direct complements to the Christian hosts of heaven. They created the races of Middle Earth and left them to prove themselves on their own with but a little guidance. Harry Potter's world has no comparable recognition of divinity."

There are no exclusions of ANY deity in Harry Potter's world. The books are neutral on the subject. they are not pro, nor con. Religion is left up to the students. Separation of school and God, I guess.

"Galadriel corresponds to the Mary, mother of Jesus in her wisdom and ability to repel Sauron and all his evil. She sacrifices her beloved Lothlorien for the good of Middle Earth. There is as yet no comparable character in Harry Potter."

Lily Potter gives her life to save her son, and by doing so, saves the Wizarding world. There are multiple acts of sacrifice throughout the books. Lily was the first.

"Frodo and Gandalf both contain elements of Jesus in their humility, ability to inspire men, occasionally work "miracles" and they depart for Valinor with Elrond and Galadriel when their mission is complete. Harry Potter is much more human and has no correspondence with Jesus."

Just to be clear, no one is the equivalent of Christ. Moving on from that, Harry shares similarities - he is the doubted messiah of his day, a messiah prophesized before his birth, one who resists the temptation of evil, and - well - the parallels become very strong in Order of the Phoenix, but I cannot say more.

 

[TheBat]

Rob, thanks for the kind remarks about the review.

JACOB

 

[Ernest Rister]

I hate Mondays.

 

[Jason_Els]

The preceding post I made consisted of views made by other people, not me. I'm simply the messenger.

I think Harry Potter is family friendly but frankly I find the term laden with such varied interpretations as to render it useless. Each family can decide what is or is not appropriate for their viewing. Simple as that.

 

[Malcolm R]

Ernest -- Good post re: classic Garfield vs. sellout Garfield. Once Jim Davis began to care more about the money and merchandising than the strip and the characters, the thing really began to go off the rails. The strip has been on auto-pilot for years and is really but a shell of its former self.

 

[TheBat]

its hard to funny all the time. there are some great garfield funny moments in the movie.. compared to the modern comics. it has the garfield attitude.

JACOB

 

[Mark-W]

Jason_Els,

I appreciate your post for the POV.
I am one of those freaks who is a completely-out-of-the-closet gay guy,
and yet, I have friends of almost every ilk,
and some of my dearest (but, true, not "closest") friends also happen to be conservative Christians.
I remeber when there was talk of barcodes on
heads being "the mark of the beast," and
I have heard that Harry's mark on his forehead is,
unfortunately, something that can be interpreted as
Satanic.

I don't personally share that POV, but I had heard about
a "z" mark on the head being "evil" long before Harry
Potter was anything other than an unshaven dyke friend
of mine who like to make her own ceramics.


(I think, in fact, I first heard about it when
KISS was all the rage, and their Ss looked like
lightning bolts.)

I also think the fear surrounding Harry Potter is that
that his world, it seems, is based on moral relativity,
where even Harry usually must break the rules
(often supported by the headmaster), to find out what
he needs to defeat his enemies,
while in the world of LOTR, there seems
to be clear "right" and "wrong," way to do things, and
the only instance I can think of where the good guys
"cheat," is when Took lights the beacon for Gondor,
which the steward clearly had no intention of doing.

As for what Ernest was saying about "Family Films" and
his neice having "wolf nightmares," I personally
remember the wicked witch of the West scared the crap
out of me for years after I first saw
The Wizard of Oz. (I was about 5 the first time.)
In fact, we used to have the record that played
the soundtrack and dialogue of the film,
and for several years, I routinely hid behind
the couch in anticipation of the witch's first arrival
in Munchkinland in that big puff of smoke... just from
the record alone.

 

[Andrew W]

Mark,

I don't think equating rules with morality is legitimate.

Parking between the lines is a rule, but if I fail to do so, there is no real moral consequence.

Killing my neighbor is certainly immoral and also happens to be illegal.

Almost all protagonists break rules for the greater moral outcome.

 

[Jack Briggs]

May I intrude for a moment? In perusing this thread, there seems to be something unspoken -- or some sort of insider's info to which I'm not privy -- about the nature of this thread's author's history here regarding "family friendly" fare. Can someone kindly fill me in as to what's going on?

Otherwise, as for this movie, it's just one of those things that inherently disinterests me, something I'd never even begin to consider viewing under any circumstance. But, hey, cool if the movie has some fans.

 

[Kevin Grey]

Jack, Jacob has been posting in a lot of threads about Garfield lately. The "industry plant" stuff were jokes because, I think, people were a bit surprised that Garfield would have such a devoted follower.

 

[TheLongshot]

Considering in the trailer there is a bunch of un-Garfield behavior, it doesn't give me a lot of confidence.

The one scene in particular that got me was the Garfield dancing with Odie scene. First, the fact that Garfield is dancing is out of character. He's LAZY! The act of walking is sometimes too much for him, unless it involved food. And the fact that he'd dancing with Odie is also out of character. Mostly, I see Garfield watching Odie, making quips and figuring out some way to trip up Odie for his own amusement.

As for cat lovers, they have long since abandoned Garfied for other strips like "Get Fuzzy", or "9 Chickweed Lane". Garfield lost its relevence years ago.

Jason

 

[Lew Crippen]

Talk about your attitude.

 

[Sam Favate]

The title of this thread infers that Shrek 2 and HP3 are not "family friendly." I think they are. Both are perfectly fine choices to take children to see.

Concerns about "witchcraft" on the other hand are pretty much limited to conservative Christians, and we should not limit our definition of what is "family friendly" to what that one group would classify as acceptable.

If someone has a problem with witchcraft or any of the themes in Shrek, that's cool - just don't take your kids to see 'em. But do not make a judgment for the rest of us that those films or those themes aren't appropriate for families, simply because that's your hang-up.

 

[TheBat]

there are better moment in the movie, that are not in the trailer that are very much garfield attitude.. don;'t let the marketing (which has not done a good job) make you want to see the movie less.

pig illustrated might be considered adult material in shrek 2.. the beginning of the movie.
JACOB

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

I think part of the greatness of great children's material is that they translate well to adults. Isn't it great to put in an old classic "children's film" and find something funny that you never realized was there as a kid?

 

[Chris]

It boils down to the fact that in no less then 4 threads Jacob has mentioned "Garfield" as a possible summer blockbuster, good competition for Shrek, then Potter, then it's own thread for "how about"

So, jokingly, a few of us razzed him on "damn, you seem to be pimping this thing awfully hard, what's the deal"

Just an aside to a rabid fan