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

[TheBat]

with all the negaitve attitude towards the garfield movie, I felt that someone should defend the movie. There is nothing wrong with that. I am just surprise by the negitave attitude towards the movie. I am not a fox plant.. just a fan of the garfield comic.. probably helps that I am very much a pro cat person myself. Besides when I worked at blockbuster video, parents whould ask about what is okay for the kids and stuff and I would tell them.

I guess old habits die hard.

however if someone does know someone from fox? can you ask them for me about a job? I think have taken the abuse for it. I did get to see the movie eary. I was very grateful for that. I do plan to watch garfield again on friday.

moviefone.com has some video clips from Q&A from jennifer and jim davis. and some other video. they show a bunch of clips that are more like garfield attitude then the trailer.

JACOB

 

[Keith Paynter]

Currently, RottenTomatoes.com rates the movie at about 9%.




rottentomatoes.com

Not much left to defend. It will be seen by the curious, and not much more...

 

[TheBat]

the reviews from Ew are so screwy at times. I never saw cat in the hat. I can't really compare the two films.

JACOB

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Yes, a pump and dump. No amount of pumping will propel this to any kind of box office stratosphere. This cat film will not have 9 lives let alone any kind of life at the box office.

~Edwin

 

[Sam Favate]

That may be true. But while I disagree with Jacob about Shrek and HP3 not being family-friendly, he is certainly entitled to his opinion of the movie. If he liked it, hey, that's cool. I've liked movies that everyone else thought sucked. (Isn't that another thread around here?)

 

[Kelly W]

Well I said the same thing about Scooby-Doo. I fully expect this to have a respectable if not substantial opening weekend. (Although the other apparent crapfest called Riddick will probably trump it.)



I think that it is part of human nature that when somebody is fortunate enough to catch an early sneak-peak at something, he or she will want to talk it up a bit so that when it becomes successful, they can boast about having been one of the first to have seen it.

I have found myself doing the exact thing after having seen some early movies and TV show pilots over the years. Looking back, I knew they weren't great, but who would be envious of someone who was the first to see something terrible?

-Kelly

 

[TheBat]

I have been talking about the garfield movie long before i got the sneak preview/press screening.

JACOB

 

[Jack Briggs]

Well, that's fine, Jacob. But if you persist with this crusade, you'll end up putting people off (or, worse, become the butt of jokes around here). From what I see here in L.A. with all the promotion bad summer movies get in this town, the movie in question doesn't need someone to "defend" it among the membership. All the marketing dollars being thrown at it can't save the movie if it's really, really bad.

 

[TheLongshot]

Which is a good point. If this was some small film that wasn't getting a marketing push, we probably wouldn't have as much problem with it.

But it isn't. It doesn't get any more mass-market than Garfield nowadays.

It also doesn't help that Garfield is long past its prime for being made into a movie. If it was still the 80s, then I could see the desire to make one, but nowadays? There are many comics I read before Garfield, and if I miss one, I don't feel like I'm missing anything.

Course, it doesn't help that the movie previews look dreadful. A good trailer may have given me some passive interest that I might have picked it up as a rental. As it is, I'll probably pass on it even if I get to see it for free. It isn't worth my time.

Jason

 

[Rob Gardiner]

We've discussed the witchcraft in Harry Potter, but I'd like to know what "adult themes" or other "family un-friendly" material was in Shrek 2. When I went, I was too busy laughing to examine the film critically.


This is the only example that has been mentioned. I actually don't remember this gag, but isn't it simply a reference to Sports Illustrated??

 

[andrew markworthy]

I do wish people would stop going on about Harry Potter encouraging witchcraft. For a start, has anyone noticed that the Hogwart's School keeps to the Christian calender? There is absolutely no attempt to link magic to Satanic worship or in any way to imply this. The reply that this is an innocent front to lure kids into the Dark Arts is nonsense. You might just as well argue that kids should be stopped from watching Singing in the Rain because it'll encourage them to splash in puddles and the next thing you know they'll drown at sea. I'd far sooner my kids watched well-crafted films with themes of friendship and loyalty triumphing over evil than some watered-down pap devoid of anything that might cause a child to be stimulated or (heaven forbid) think.

Nearly all great stories for kids are scary. Just have a long hard look at fairy stories - they are nasty brutish and violent. Kids need to learn about the bad as well as the good things in life and if they can be weaned into a mature understanding of the pleasures and pitfalls of the everyday world through fiction before they've to experience it first hand, then all to the good.

Thanks, but I'd sooner let my kids see HP and Shrek 2 (out later this month in the UK - in fact, I've just bought tickets for the sneak preview - and if it's half as good as the first, then my kids'll love it).

Incidentally, on the subject of LOTR - Tolkein was a devout Roman Catholic all his life, and was horrified at any suggestion that he was supporting witchcraft, drug abuse, or anything similar.

 

[Tino]

Of course Jacob is entitled to his opinion of Garfield, no one has hinted otherwise. However his extreme bias towards the film and his near obsession with it has made his review a bit one sided and predictable. After reading it however, I am conviced that I will not now or ever see this "film". In the end, Jacob enjoyed it and I'm sure that's all that matters to him.

But be prepared for much more kidding Jacob once this apparent disaster opens wide tomorrow. You think you've been the butt of jokes til now???? Be patient, there's much more to come!

 

[Rob Bartlett]

jacob does not feel the same ambivalence towards Harry Potter and its ilk that most Christians do, but in a way, that makes it more wrong. It's very cynical to use such a tactic to booster a product. I also think it's wrong to pander to prejudices like that, a little condescending.

I find mysef put off by the kind of book-burning fundamentalism that has gotten many projects driven out of town, and I would never become complict to those sensibilities by serving them.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Can anyone fill me in on the "adult themes" that make Shrek 2 unsuitable for children?

 

[Ernest Rister]

I don't know about Shrek 2 - I haven't been bored enough to see it - but Shrek 1 had dick, piss, and fart jokes galore. References to a short man having a little penis are not exactly "Disney" material. More like an Abrahms and Zucker picture.

I'm a bit mad at Shrek -- for only one reason, and perhaps you lovely boys and girls can talk me out of it.

It was a Disney tradition going all the way back to Snow White to start a new feature film with a shot of a book opening, followed by a truck in to the opening pages. So many Disney films begin in the same fashion...Pinocchio, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Cinderella, the Winnie the Pooh shorts, Sleeping Beauty, The Jungle Book, Sword in the Stone, and on and on it goes.

Shrek lost me in the opening moments -- the film begins with a storybook opening, exactly in the classic Disney technique...and then Shrek rips a page out of the book and uses it for toilet paper...he wipes his ass with it (off screen)

Ho ho. Dreamworks' only claim to fame begins with a character wiping his ass with Walt Disney's tradition. Bitter much, Mr. Katzenberg? As Fat Albert's good friend Old Wierd Harold once said, "Jeffrey - you're like a day without school...no class."

I think I'll go watch the "Fractured Fairy Tales" on the Bullwinkle Season One DVD box set again.

 

[TheBat]

alot of movies have been panned on the net and still did very well.. like cat in the hat and scooby doo. anything is possible.

JACOB

 

[Malcolm R]

We'll soon find out. BoxOfficeGuru is predicting $17M for the opening weekend. Not setting the BO on fire, but not too shabby either if it's close.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Garfield cannot be compared to these two films. Scooby Doo is a well-known commodity even before the film hit the theaters. Reruns of the old cartoon series played constantly on the Cartoon Network prior to the film's release.

The Cat In The Hat is a very popular and loved children's book. An equally popular stage show has also gotten some good reviews while attracting young viewers at the same time.

Garfield, on the other hand, is a lesser known commodity among today's young children. With talking animals at center stage, this just might perform like last fall's Good Boy, where talking dogs were featured. BoxOffice Guru's prediction of $17M sounds about right, which would be a little better than Good Boy's $13M opening weekend. But stranger things have happened so far this summer season.

I'm just glad none of the little ones I know have expressed any interest and asked me into taking them to see this one.

~Edwin

 

[Rob Gardiner]

How can GARFIELD possibly bomb! It's directed by the great Peter Hewitt, who brought us THUNDERPANTS:

 

[TheBat]

after watching the garfield special on animal planet. you would be surprise on how popular garfield is..specailly with today's kids.

JACOB