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

[Rob Lutter]

Pfft... what about the Hunchback of Notre Dame 2. In the end of the first movie, Quasi should have DIED.

What about totally fucking with the classic stories of the Greek gods in Hercules? (which is NOTHING like the original story).

...the list goes on and on and on and...

As long as the meaning of the original story is still translated to the screen, that's okay... but when Disney messes with the story to give a nice little happy ending that alll the little kids will enjoy... THAT my friends is... BLASPHEMY.

Disney does not cater to the original work... they cater to their audience. And little happy meal toys and shit...

Not blasphemy... but how about STEALING the story of Kimba: The White Lion for Disney's first "original" animated film, The Lion King and never playing royalties to the creator?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

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

But it's not the *original work*, it's a film *adaptation* of a book (or story or whatever). If they somehow got all copies extant of a public domain book and then inserted their own version into it and then claimed that it was still the original by the original author in those covers, then you might have a case for *blasphemy*.

"Unnecessary" is in the eye of the beholder - a film is NOT a book (nor should it be unless that's what the film's creators wanted) and never will be.

 

[Lew Crippen]

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

In many of the cases that you are referencing (i.e. Disney) this concept is not applicable, because the ‘original’ does not exist in that fairy tales come largely from an oral tradition. Now it may be true that the brothers Grimm and others codified or wrote down what had until then been stories told orally, but even these cannot often be considered ‘original’, as the stories had existed long before they were written.

For example, both Disney and Jean Cocteau have made cinematic versions of the French fairy tale, Beauty and the Beast. Both have altered what I understand to be the ‘original’, story to some degree, albeit differently.

Even though I have a position on which I perfer, I think that the world would be a poorer place if neither existed—which is what your views, strictly enforced, would suggest.

 

[Rob Lutter]

Also, you ever notice this... almost every Disney character is an orphan or is raised by a single parent.

It's part of the formula I tell ya

 

[Jeff Kleist]

B&TB is actually fairly close to the original story, and when I say fairly close this is on the Disney Scale

In the original story, there is no Gaston, no raid by the townspeople, and no talking furniture. In the end he gives her permission to go, and after a month or so at home she looks in the mirror and sees him wasting away in misery. She rushes back as he dies in her arms, and her tears and her true love bring him back as human.

And as a man with no religion, I can decide what I holy to me, so I can define blasphemy as I see fit.

And for the record. Fellowship was not blasphemous, just compressed. Two Towers was, the entire BS with Faramir was unnecessary wholesale alteration of the material, as was the addition of the Elves to Helm's Deep.

There's extra upcoming blasphemy in the extended edition from what I hear


Cutting is fine, time compression is annoying, but fine, combination of characters I can deal with. Just don't write your own scenes and I'm usually OK with it. If someone wishes to be creative, write your own book/play/movie

 

[Lew Crippen]

And as a man with no religion, I can decide what I holy to me, so I can define blasphemy as I see fit.

 

[Lew Crippen]

When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean. Neither more nor less

But seriously you can’t define words as you wish, if you expect to be understood by others.

The meaning of a word has nothing to do with any individual’s belief systems.

 

[Paul_Scott]

can anybody answer this for me?
i realize there is no commentary ( a serious oversight w/ a film like this), but is there at least some text screens, or booklet liner notes that adequetly break down all the culture-specific things that are going to go over a typical western audiences head?

i can't for the life of me understand why they would go to the trouble of putting out a two disc set, without any kind of supplement that addresses these fundemental issues.

i liked this film much more in retrospect after i was made aware of some of these cultural issues, however i can't remember everything my friend talked about, and he won't be over my shoulder pointing things out the next time i watch it.
thats the reason i'm holding out on picking this up, otherwise i would really like to explore it again...in the proper context this time...sheesh.

 

[PaulP]

But I like what Disney did with Snow White DVD, including the original fairy tale on it. I can't remember if Beauty and the Beast had such a feature. At any rate, I think this discussion is very inapropriate. Studios have always and will always adapt things for the screen, and invariably things will get lots as they or their screenwriter(s) feel(s). That's just the nature of cinema as opposed to literature. So I'm fine with it. If a person wants a faithful adaptation, perhaps they should make one.

 

[Robert Montoya]

Looking to checking this one out. Blind purchase here I come.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

The main difference between LotR and what Disney does is Peter Jackson is a HUGE fan of the books and is open about the changes he does. Disney doesn't get questioned about the changes they make to stories (including ones that are set in stone, like Tarzan), so they never really mention it, which is sort of unfair.

And the REALLY bad thing Disney does is they change the stuff in the original stories in order to allow them to match a modern audience, which I think is perfectly fine, but they change the stories so that the original intent or moral that is given at the end is not pushed through. The Little Mermaid and The Hunchback of Notre Dame both suffer from this a lot.

As if that wasn't bad enough or disrespectful to the original stories, they then make horrible craptastic sequels.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I can't remember if Beauty and the Beast had such a feature.

The Criterion release of Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast does indeed have the French fairy tale (in text).

 

[PaulP]

The Criterion release of Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast does indeed have the French fairy tale (in text).

That I know; I have that disc. I meant Disney's Platinum Edition of Beauty and the Beast.

 

[James Reader]

Sleeping Beauty does, but it stops half-way through (the full fairy tale continues after the Princess is woken and actually chronicles the adventures of the Prince and Princess' daughter - a new Disney DTV anyone? )

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Don't give them any ideas James

 

[Jeff Kleist]

If a person wants a faithful adaptation, perhaps they should make one.

Hey, I'd be happy if PJ used his ROTK reshoot to fix the Faramir crap, then as long as he didn't get creative in ROTK we're pretty much five by five

I'd love to make faithful adaptations, actually writing a screenplay for one of my favorite Heinlein books right now that I believe can be shot fairly cheaply. Have I cut a few things? Sure, but the only change I made was that one character is not dressed in the ludicrous uniform described in the book.

 

[Brendan Brown]

I'm turned off by most Disney adaptations, but I'd probably be turned off by most of their original stories either way.

Also: If you're going to make a word-for-word slavish adaptation, then what's the point? Just review the original source material, it's a lot cheaper.

 

[Edwin-S]

Then it is not a faithful adaptation....is it? Who are you to decide that the original author's uniform description is "ludicrous"?

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I think that you can make an adaptation that is faithful to the original for the most part and still retains the original themes, ideas, and emotional impact (for example, in TTT, Faramir isn't tempted by the ring, so much as he's tempted to bring it to his father, which is very much in line with the book's character, especially in the context of some of the events near the first 1/3 of the RotK book).

I don't mind Disney adding songs and dance numbers; in fact, those were the BEST parts of some of their films. The main problem comes in adding them simply because they always do, making changes that distort the original story's intent, altering EVERY story in the EXACT SAME WAYS (adding buddy characters, must be a love story, etc.), and then not even making the final product that good. Of their more original stuff (I'm not sure if Mulan or Pocahontas would technically count), I haven't really liked anything. Lilo was cute, but it still felt like they took a good idea and ran with it before they finished thinking about what they really should have done. And it was kinda boring.

 

[Phil Dally]

My 5 year old grand daughter really liked it. At first she thought it would be scary because I told her it was about ghosts so she wanted the lights left on, but she looked up at me and said "I like this movie, Grandpa." There you go.