PDA

View Full Version : Where the Wild Things Are?


Powerman 6k
10-21-2009, 05:16 AM
Look, I understand that it's out now, and it's "soooo amazing because it was a book from my child hoooood!!!", but Jesus. I'm pretty sure basically every single child that was born in the 90s has read Where the Wild Things Are. You don't have to gloat about it because it's a "memory". Listen, I'm not trying to sound cocky, but c'mon... Please. You're going to ruin one of my favorite childhood books because you're flaunting around about it. Hey, go ahead, lug your douchey boyfriend to the theater with you, I could care less. But PLEASE! Let me enjoy Spike Jonze's masterpiece. Any hoo. Where the Wild Things Are has made over 32 million the first weekend of release. If it isn't bigger than Transformers 2, then please, shoot me. Transformers 2... sucked. I'm sorry. Meagan Fox herself said so. And if it loses to 'New Moon'... then you can shoot me again, in my crotch area for all I care >_>...

mightydes
10-21-2009, 05:38 AM
Look, I understand that it's out now, and it's "soooo amazing because it was a book from my child hoooood!!!", but Jesus. I'm pretty sure basically every single child that was born in the 90s has read Where the Wild Things Are. You don't have to gloat about it because it's a "memory". Listen, I'm not trying to sound cocky, but c'mon... Please. You're going to ruin one of my favorite childhood books because you're flaunting around about it. Hey, go ahead, lug your douchey boyfriend to the theater with you, I could care less. But PLEASE! Let me enjoy Spike Jonze's masterpiece. Any hoo. Where the Wild Things Are has made over 32 million the first weekend of release. If it isn't bigger than Transformers 2, then please, shoot me. Transformers 2... sucked. I'm sorry. Meagan Fox herself said so. And if it loses to 'New Moon'... then you can shoot me again, in my crotch area for all I care >_>...

To be honest, I've never heard of "Where the Wild Things Are" until like a few weeks ago ^^"

Brizer
10-21-2009, 05:55 AM
Look, I understand that it's out now, and it's "soooo amazing because it was a book from my child hoooood!!!", but Jesus. I'm pretty sure basically every single child that was born in the 90s has read Where the Wild Things Are. You don't have to gloat about it because it's a "memory". Listen, I'm not trying to sound cocky, but c'mon... Please. You're going to ruin one of my favorite childhood books because you're flaunting around about it. Hey, go ahead, lug your douchey boyfriend to the theater with you, I could care less. But PLEASE! Let me enjoy Spike Jonze's masterpiece. Any hoo. Where the Wild Things Are has made over 32 million the first weekend of release. If it isn't bigger than Transformers 2, then please, shoot me. Transformers 2... sucked. I'm sorry. Meagan Fox herself said so. And if it loses to 'New Moon'... then you can shoot me again, in my crotch area for all I care >_>...

Someone thinks that you should prolly get yourself a girlfriend. Or something...please.

I didn't really like the movie. Too lazy to write exactly why now, but I'll edit or something.
It just felt very disjointed and lazy at times. Great visuals, but it was basically a completely independent project having very little to do with the book.

-Holland-
10-21-2009, 05:58 AM
Look, I understand that it's out now, and it's "soooo amazing because it was a book from my child hoooood!!!", but Jesus. I'm pretty sure basically every single child that was born in the 90s has read Where the Wild Things Are. You don't have to gloat about it because it's a "memory". Listen, I'm not trying to sound cocky, but c'mon... Please. You're going to ruin one of my favorite childhood books because you're flaunting around about it. Hey, go ahead, lug your douchey boyfriend to the theater with you, I could care less. But PLEASE! Let me enjoy Spike Jonze's masterpiece. Any hoo. Where the Wild Things Are has made over 32 million the first weekend of release. If it isn't bigger than Transformers 2, then please, shoot me. Transformers 2... sucked. I'm sorry. Meagan Fox herself said so. And if it loses to 'New Moon'... then you can shoot me again, in my crotch area for all I care >_>...

Dude, Transformers 2 can go ahead and take the cake for "worst film of the decade": I'll believe it. That's one film Uwe Boll kind of deserves to critique. It made so much money because the franchise is worth a lot in the element in which it is presented. Where The Wild Things Are is an original film, and though it may have impressive gross numbers, it cant succeed quite like Transformers because it isn't marketed as a blockbuster of any kind. It's a fall film, and those naturally see less of an audience. I wouldn't worry about gross numbers; they're stupid and unfair because people can't make good judgments. I had to save my friend from going to see All About Steve because she really didn't know any better than what she got from a stupid preview.

And, you should face it: New Moon will own the box office for quite a while. Them hormones be runnin' wild.

I saw Where The Wild Things Are, and the only thing that really surprised me about my reaction to the film was realizing how extensively it explored the dark undertones of all the characters. With that in mind, it took me a little bit to consider that Jonze likely didn't direct this film toward this generation's kids like most reviewers are claiming it attempts. Really, I think the film is intended to speak to those who have already been through their childhood and have had time to reminisce of - and hold dear - Sendak's book. Once I had all that on my conscience, I was able to appreciate how honest the film is in its portrayal of Max's perspective on things. Jonze is an innovator of sorts, and so he probably never set out to emulate the archetypal motifs of Sendak's book in their entirety - rather, he wanted, perhaps, to personify the implied idealism of Sendak's characters. To me, that's exactly what he did, and he did it well. Though I would've liked to have seen a more apparent development in Carrol - among others -, the film appropriately revolves around Max and how he progresses and learns. Thanks to this focus, the film's last few instants come to mean so much in retrospect (you'll see what I mean), and fulfills its proclaimed purpose of burdening Max with the privilege and curse of observing his own mannerisms in another - powerless to change it.

Well, I could go on about this stuff and the importance of free will and whatnot, but the point is that Jonze has done us viewers a great deed. Though the film isn't really directed at kids, I believe that certain elements of the film are intended to cater to all kinds of audiences. Ultimately, it seems that there's no archetypal ideal for children to grasp (and there really isn't, so far as I remember), but the film does conclude with an ending befitting of its adult audience; it overcomes the themes of bewilderment and pandemonium with a sincere smile.

Powerman 6k
10-21-2009, 06:36 PM
Dude, Transformers 2 can go ahead and take the cake for "worst film of the decade": I'll believe it. That's one film Uwe Boll kind of deserves to critique. It made so much money because the franchise is worth a lot in the element in which it is presented. Where The Wild Things Are is an original film, and though it may have impressive gross numbers, it cant succeed quite like Transformers because it isn't marketed as a blockbuster of any kind. It's a fall film, and those naturally see less of an audience. I wouldn't worry about gross numbers; they're stupid and unfair because people can't make good judgments. I had to save my friend from going to see All About Steve because she really didn't know any better than what she got from a stupid preview.

And, you should face it: New Moon will own the box office for quite a while. Them hormones be runnin' wild.

I saw Where The Wild Things Are, and the only thing that really surprised me about my reaction to the film was realizing how extensively it explored the dark undertones of all the characters. With that in mind, it took me a little bit to consider that Jonze likely didn't direct this film toward this generation's kids like most reviewers are claiming it attempts. Really, I think the film is intended to speak to those who have already been through their childhood and have had time to reminisce of - and hold dear - Sendak's book. Once I had all that on my conscience, I was able to appreciate how honest the film is in its portrayal of Max's perspective on things. Jonze is an innovator of sorts, and so he probably never set out to emulate the archetypal motifs of Sendak's book in their entirety - rather, he wanted, perhaps, to personify the implied idealism of Sendak's characters. To me, that's exactly what he did, and he did it well. Though I would've liked to have seen a more apparent development in Carrol - among others -, the film appropriately revolves around Max and how he progresses and learns. Thanks to this focus, the film's last few instants come to mean so much in retrospect (you'll see what I mean), and fulfills its proclaimed purpose of burdening Max with the privilege and curse of observing his own mannerisms in another - powerless to change it.

Well, I could go on about this stuff and the importance of free will and whatnot, but the point is that Jonze has done us viewers a great deed. Though the film isn't really directed at kids, I believe that certain elements of the film are intended to cater to all kinds of audiences. Ultimately, it seems that there's no archetypal ideal for children to grasp (and there really isn't, so far as I remember), but the film does conclude with an ending befitting of its adult audience; it overcomes the themes of bewilderment and pandemonium with a sincere smile.

Lol. True dat. New Moon and Twilight are... not that good. In fact, they're going to be looked down upon 2 years from now, and people are going to think otherwise. Hellboy 3 will come on, and rape the crap out of the box offices everywhere. And by the way, I have a girlfriend... I just said they can lug their douchey boyfriends around -.-.... What makes you think I don't have a girlfriend? I'm 18. Living by myself. Earning my way to become a great fireman. Don't ever imply that I need to get a life. >_> Tired of people that say it. I'm not trying to get on your bad side, F.Y.I., just standing up for myself.

miragebaby_x
10-21-2009, 06:55 PM
Transformers 2 imo was an ok movie, the graphics were awesomee. New Moon will literally rape box office, period. Robert Pattison is probably the most over-rated celebrity (sort of) atm.

:D

Bumblebee16
10-21-2009, 10:07 PM
Transformer 2 made over a hundred million it's opening weekend. Of course that doesn't mean it's the best movie, (which btw I did really like the movie, not as much as the first, but...) and I also think New Moon will make more than WTWTA because of 'certain actors' and all the attention it is getting.

I really like Where the Wild Things Are and am actually planning on seeing it this weekend. I loved the book as a kid, and still do now, so I hope it turns out to be a great movie.

Charbok
10-21-2009, 10:38 PM
Where The Wild Things Are was worse than Transformers 2, and the third (maybe fourth or fifth) worst movie I've ever seen.

-Holland-
10-22-2009, 01:25 AM
Transformer 2 made over a hundred million it's opening weekend. Of course that doesn't mean it's the best movie, (which btw I did really like the movie, not as much as the first, but...) and I also think New Moon will make more than WTWTA because of 'certain actors' and all the attention it is getting.

I really like Where the Wild Things Are and am actually planning on seeing it this weekend. I loved the book as a kid, and still do now, so I hope it turns out to be a great movie.

The film is a lot darker and more introspective than the book, though all of its subtleties and details are in the right places. I mean, adapting a ten-sentence book into a full length film isn't going to be very consistent. However, I feel that Jonze made quite a good film here. I'll admit that the dark undertones weren't really necessary (as there's nothing that seems to redeem Carrol and the others; Jonze implies that they're simply left to work through their sorrow and savagery), and the film probably would have been better received (or just better, really) if it was ultimately rather uplifting, but it's easy for that to give off the illusion of worn cliches, I guess. Regardless, Where the Wild Things Are is an innovative twist on a cliche anyway, and Spike Jonze is a wondrously imaginative director, so it's not like it could not have convincingly gone in another direction.

The ending is by no means bad, though. It's really quite a smoothly simple and poetic end to the story, and though it took me a while to realize it, I thought the film was quite good. Yeah, it didn't live up to my expectations, but that last film the really did that was Up. >_>

And, I'm sorry to hear that, Charbok. = [

karmachameleon
10-22-2009, 03:38 AM
Diarago, you explained Where the Wild Things are perfectly. It had a lot of effort put into it, but I'm going to have to agree with Charbok in that it was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The music during the happy, sugar rush moments when Max would frolick was terrible. The undertones going on throughout the movie dealing with childhood and its concept of right and wrong was somewhat interesting, but it never strayed from that one dynamic and got monotonous very fast. The jokes weren't funny, the only time I laughed was the first 10 or so minutes which was actually pretty well done. I wouldn't say that the movie was bad quality, I just didn't like it.

Powerman 6k
10-22-2009, 03:51 AM
Diarago, you explained Where the Wild Things are perfectly. It had a lot of effort put into it, but I'm going to have to agree with Charbok in that it was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The music during the happy, sugar rush moments when Max would frolick was terrible. The undertones going on throughout the movie dealing with childhood and its concept of right and wrong was somewhat interesting, but it never strayed from that one dynamic and got monotonous very fast. The jokes weren't funny, the only time I laughed was the first 10 or so minutes which was actually pretty well done. I wouldn't say that the movie was bad quality, I just didn't like it.

He's just too awesome, isn't he? I may see it this or next weekend, depending on the plans around my place. Uhm, yes, Spike Jonze is so imaginative. His films blow my mind, and since this is getting such positive feed back from you, Diargo, then this is surely his best.

@Charbok: Honestly, the movie was amazing and "so good", but it could have done without the BS love scenes, and the fast-paced camera, spinning in a 360 degree manner every two seconds. Michael Bay directed Independence Day. Where did he go wrong? The movie was good besides those flaws, but I guess it was to reach out to more fans. But still, what's more important? The hardcore Transformers cartoon fans (like me, for one, and if he does Beast Wars, and screws it up... -.-), or the douchey football players who go ga-ga over Meagan Fox's very large....... Ego? I loved the action, the comedy, the fact that Bumble Bee raped the bajeezus out of those two robots in the desert scene, near the end of the movie. But I just wish it were longer, with HARDLY any romance in it. Other than that, it was fantastic. But Where The Wild Things Are, despite the fact that Indie kids everywhere are swooning over it, is still going to be my favorite movie of all time. And I haven't even seen it yet. I just love the book, still do in fact. Thank you for your opinions, and I'm sorry if I've offended anyone, but thank you, again. This thread is NOT closed yet, though :D

@Karma: The movie wasn't supposed to be "excellent", it was based on a 20 (if that) page children's novel... FFS >_> It is, however, beautifully directed. I'm sure. Sure it isn't in your standards of good, but was Cloverfield any better....... Dx

Charbok
10-22-2009, 04:03 AM
Sure it isn't in your standards of good, but was Cloverfield any better....... Dx

Yes, Cloverfield was a lot better. WTWTA just didn't make any sense to me. I saw what they were trying to go for, but after that got dull and the dialogue became worse and worse, they started throwing in ridiculous things like what's-her-face throwing rocks at her friends, which didn't make sense. Then he ripped that bird's arm off, which meant nothing at all. Then Max hopped in that monster's mouth? All in all, I felt that the movie didn't make much sense, and tried to hard to be artistic and indie.

Seawolf
10-22-2009, 04:19 AM
But I just wish it were longer, with HARDLY any romance in it. Other than that, it was fantastic.

No. Had Transformers 2 been any longer than that (and it was already too long to begin with), I would have killed myself. The movie is a pure cinematic abortion.

I haven't seen Wild Things just yet, but I'm planning on seeing it with some friends. I loved the book, and I think the movie looks kinda fun.

In any case, it's certain to be a million times better than a movie that features robot testicles. :rolleyes:

Dragoness
10-22-2009, 04:34 AM
No. Had Transformers 2 been any longer than that (and it was already too long to begin with), I would have killed myself. The movie is a pure cinematic abortion.

I haven't seen Wild Things just yet, but I'm planning on seeing it with some friends. I loved the book, and I think the movie looks kinda fun.

In any case, it's certain to be a million times better than a movie that features robot testicles. :rolleyes:
I liked Transformers 2. The graphics were to die for and it was actually decent IMO.

As for "Where the Wild Things Are", I might see it, once it comes out on DVD. It looks alright, but honestly, I don't think I'll be spending my money going out to see it just yet.

-Holland-
10-22-2009, 06:56 AM
No. Had Transformers 2 been any longer than that (and it was already too long to begin with), I would have killed myself. The movie is a pure cinematic abortion.

...

In any case, it's certain to be a million times better than a movie that features robot testicles. :rolleyes:

It's good to have other members back me up on these things.

Diarago, you explained Where the Wild Things are perfectly. It had a lot of effort put into it, but I'm going to have to agree with Charbok in that it was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The music during the happy, sugar rush moments when Max would frolick was terrible. The undertones going on throughout the movie dealing with childhood and its concept of right and wrong was somewhat interesting, but it never strayed from that one dynamic and got monotonous very fast. The jokes weren't funny, the only time I laughed was the first 10 or so minutes which was actually pretty well done. I wouldn't say that the movie was bad quality, I just didn't like it.

Sometimes the editing for the music seemed so odd and unnatural. The cinematic editing was good and rather beautiful at times, but the way that certain tracks cut in and out either over-exaggerates the mood or kind of confounds you as a viewer because you'll view one scene as conveying one type of mood, and its music will suggest another. (I think this flaw was most noticeable when there's the dramatic booming sound after Max talks to Alexander about who he was at home. Sooo out of place, and though I liked the movie, I seriously did laugh, as did a couple of other people.)


*SPOILERS*

I can understand how you would take it as monotonous (especially in the latter half), though I just saw it as Max living within an allegory of himself. In the end, he realized that he provoked an unstoppable force unto an immovable object; it was something incomprehensible, without compromise and without scope of mind - pandemonium - that he found himself in, which is why he left so suddenly and without resolution. Nothing could be done as they were, which is precisely why Max ended up learning to understand those who take care of him - he severed the savagery of the past from his mind, and came to learn that future amends are worth waiting for. This, in turn, explains why he didn't get out of that boat even when Carrol came back to see him. That was reassurance that Carrol had learned the importance of an apology - that there was hope for his tolerance and courage to grow.

This film's definitely not for everyone. That was obvious when he first met Carrol and the others. It's not at all an eclectic type of film, nor is it comprehensive of the many differing views on childhood and psychological growth. This, in turn, makes it sort of a love it/hate it kind of film; there's only a sliver of middle ground here, if any at all.

scubasteveE
10-22-2009, 07:29 AM
Cloverfield was freaking awesome. (IMO) it was the best movie of 2008 if it wasn't for that damn batman movie >_>

But Where The Wild Thing Are is looking like one of those movies that has really deep meaning too it and if you get that meaning will decide rather you like it or not.(by the way, I haven't seen it yet :x)

Powerman 6k
10-23-2009, 06:04 AM
Cloverfield was freaking awesome. (IMO) it was the best movie of 2008 if it wasn't for that damn batman movie >_>

But Where The Wild Thing Are is looking like one of those movies that has really deep meaning too it and if you get that meaning will decide rather you like it or not.(by the way, I haven't seen it yet :x)

Ehh... Not really. The movie had too much hype before it was even out. Why? The movie was so dreadfully "original" and boring. And sure WTWTA is "Indie", but still. I'm sure it will be good enough for kids and their parents to adore. Sure it isn't the greatest movie of all time, but all originality is dead. Except for maybe Lady in the Water and movies from the 70s, 80s, and some in the 90s. Why do you think people are making movies based on old ones, books, and hell, even videogames. Why not? Whatever makes them and their creators money. But originality is dead in the filming, music and gaming industry. We're going to destroy all originality that we have and just get bored with everything. What will we do next? I honestly have no idea.

-Holland-
10-23-2009, 06:29 AM
Ehh... Not really. The movie had too much hype before it was even out. Why? The movie was so dreadfully "original" and boring. And sure WTWTA is "Indie", but still. I'm sure it will be good enough for kids and their parents to adore. Sure it isn't the greatest movie of all time, but all originality is dead. Except for maybe Lady in the Water and movies from the 70s, 80s, and some in the 90s. Why do you think people are making movies based on old ones, books, and hell, even videogames. Why not? Whatever makes them and their creators money. But originality is dead in the filming, music and gaming industry. We're going to destroy all originality that we have and just get bored with everything. What will we do next? I honestly have no idea.

Originality (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1139797/) isn't (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0327597/) dead (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1176740/), (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0838221/) my (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887912/) friend (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1156398/). (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1155056/)

A lot of directors just choose to ignore it because it isn't lucrative, and in the case of Swedish vampires, it isn't in English (or, at least, the dub is terrible). You can't be so quick to make a statement like that. A lot of filmmakers work so hard, yet go unnoticed because they can't reach out to the majority of simplistic audiences. If you ever go to a film festival in, say, Austin (Texas), New York or California, you won't think that ever again. You'll just be pissed that the industry of film yields very little success for the directors that really stick their necks out, simply because their material doesn't sell on a large scale.

Then again, originality doesn't necessitate good quality in a film. In the eyes of our modern society that's irked by the prevalence of well-worn cliches, originality assures promise, but it doesn't necessarily fulfill it. A film needs so much more than originality to really captivate a viewer. Sometimes emulation - as Wild Things does - is also a good medium; the one thing that will really stick with a viewer over time will be the authenticity and honest portrayal of a character, not convoluted plotlines and well-woven tales. I can probably fathom what it would've been like if, say, John Lasseter got a hold of Wild Things, but Jonze's portrayal is unique in that it doesn't seek what its viewers are primarily seeking - it conveys an altered, utterly confounded and naive portrayal of Max, and the film is much darker than expected to accommodate this. To me, for Jonze to expand the implications of the story as such is originality in and of itself.

scubasteveE
10-23-2009, 09:10 AM
Ehh... Not really. The movie had too much hype before it was even out. Why? The movie was so dreadfully "original" and boring. And sure WTWTA is "Indie", but still. I'm sure it will be good enough for kids and their parents to adore. Sure it isn't the greatest movie of all time, but all originality is dead. Except for maybe Lady in the Water and movies from the 70s, 80s, and some in the 90s. Why do you think people are making movies based on old ones, books, and hell, even videogames. Why not? Whatever makes them and their creators money. But originality is dead in the filming, music and gaming industry. We're going to destroy all originality that we have and just get bored with everything. What will we do next? I honestly have no idea.
See that's what is wrong with the film industry nowadays. Originality isn't dead, it's just that the good original films(like diarago said, originality isn't the only thing that makes a film good) don't get recognized. But when they do, they don't do as good. See I think it's strange because critics and viewers scream originality, but when they get it, they hardly ever like it.

Also on the film industry, yeah hollywood hasn't really helped with promoting this crappy movies(actually most movies I've liked this year has gone straight to dvd) but the critics and viewers aren't really helping either because, personally, I think we have the bar set too high.

[/rant]

!CeMAn
10-26-2009, 03:52 AM
I have never heard of these Wild Things in my life.
My roomate got hard about the movie because he loved it as a kid too and can't believe i've never heard of it. What's the big deal?

Vaughn
10-31-2009, 11:51 PM
Amazing movie.

I saw it this afternoon. !!!