This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"I am... very British."
11980 members | you are not logged in | 20 July 2018


November 12 2003

Michelle Trachtenberg, "caught in the act" in a big ol' Cat in the Hat hat. Huge news, I know.

Side note: Every time I see the ad for this movie, I think of Willow in Triangle, declaring that Anya is "the fish!"

OT a bit, but am I the only one thinking that this movie is an abomination? Then again, why should we expect anything else from a hollywood money vehicle. I grew up reading those books and (IMHO, of course) that is not even close to how they should be rendered on film.
I'm not that bothered by it. I grew up reading the Seuss books as well, AND loving the animated adaptations (Grinch, Cat in the Hat, the Lorax, Sneetches, Horton Hears a Who, et al). I actually enjoyed Ron Howard's live action Grinch film... all things considered it could have been much worse than it was, and in fact it was pretty good. Still, I was initially skeptical of the Cat remake, mostly because of the casting. I love Mike Myers, but he just didn't seem like a good match for the very tall, very lanky Cat.

But the latest bits I've seen make it look not-too-bad, so I'll probably end up seeing it. I mean c'mon, at least it's not Joel Schumacher or someone like that. There could have been NIPPLES on the Cat-suit. :\

[ edited by Haunt on 2003-11-12 16:22 ]
I'll reserve judgement until I've actually seen the movie, but, having seen Howard's Grinch and the preview for Cat, I am not even remotely in the neighborhood of optimistic.
I'm surprised ZachsMind hasn't commented on this news yet. :)
Okay, here it is. Animated versions of Seuss classics are excellent, and they were done by people with love for the material. They often did not stretch it, but rather, lovingly, brought the works to life. Ron Howard's The Grinch sucked ass. Why? They had to make a full length film, they added storylines that had nothing to do with the work, they took liberties (and not good ones) with the existing characters. And while this is all understandable under the banner of making a film of at least 90 minutes out of short works of fiction, the end result still sucked ass. While I like Mike Myers, and if he did a pass on the script, it's bound to at least be humorous, I hold little to no hope of this film being "good."
Hmm... well generally speaking I agree that short-stories or similar material being adapted into full length features tend to leave quite a bit to be desired. And the original Seuss stories were awesome, the animated versions were by-and-large great... and though it's not Oscar-worthy or anything, I have to DISagree that the Howard feature of Grinch "sucked ass". It wasn't an instant classic, but it was still entertaining.

On a completely unrelated topic however, I have to say that I love your nickname. James Robinson's Starman was one of the greatest comics series of the past decade(s).

(Cross your fingers that a live-action film is never made of THAT story... though personally I'd love to see it if handled right.)
Haunt, I've been waiting for anyone to pick up on the moniker. I love Starman. Rumor was that it was being developed for ABC with no input from Robinson or Tony Harris.

Back on subject, I have never been more disappointed in a film than The Grinch. I loved Jim Carrey in it, I hated everything else, from the happy Whos turned into money-grubbing jerks to the whole "why, oh why?" love story addition. I'm not saying I've never seen a worse film (come on, Battlefield Earth?) but I have never, NEVER, been more disappointed in a film than the Grinch.

This thread has been closed for new comments.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.

joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home