Charlotte's Web

Post by **ShyViolet** » November 21st, 2006, 7:14 pm

I think I just came up with a way to get ShyVi to see "Charlotte's Web'":

The "Shrek the Third" teaser trailer. Wink

Hmmm.....that just might work.

(Is it really going to play with CW?)

Post by **Dacey** » November 21st, 2006, 7:19 pm

Well, I'm only making a prediction there.

Haven't heard anything official as of now.

Post by **Ben** » November 21st, 2006, 11:06 pm

Not that we've heard, though they are both Paramount movies (now).

CW will always be the cartoon to me. This new one seems star-heavy and will probably sink under all that weight.

Post by **Akiko** » November 23rd, 2006, 4:35 am

Not that impressed with the trailer, but I might rent it when it eventually comes to dvd just to give it a chance. I may even go see it if I change my mind, simply because I'm a sap for animal movies. I grew up watching the animated version of this movie, and I simply adored it. For those of you who haven't seen the sequel to it...well, don't. I caught half of it when it aired on cartoon network a while ago, and it’s horrible

This new movie looks a lot like Babe to me, and although I thought Babe was a great movie too, this just...doesn't feel like Charlotte's Web. As for Miss Fanning...cute kid, great actor, but perhaps not a good choice for Fern...and yes, she's popped up in far too many movies lately. Like others have said, the original animated movie will always be Charlotte's Web to me.

This is also my first post here, so hello everyone.

Post by **Ben** » November 23rd, 2006, 7:35 am

Welcome to the boards! We hope you enjoy yourself and stick around...we're a friendly bunch and don't bite.

Well, not often...

Post by **Daniel** » November 25th, 2006, 7:18 pm

(Sorry, it wouldnt let me quote for some reason)

I completly agree with Akiko about CW2, it is horrible.

I think my main gripe with the sequel was how all the characters were redrawn. I mean, why do that? They already had established designs.

IMO Fern was the worst. She no longer was the classic looking innocent girl, rather she was turned country hick with freckles, a pony tail and a chipped tooth to boot. She just looked like a new character, eww! Not to mention she didn't even sing once

Btw: Hi, and welcome to the boards Akiko

Post by **Meg** » December 9th, 2006, 12:59 pm

Holy crap, the early reviews aren't that bad!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/charlot ... /?show=all

It's not like they're saying it's the snazzle or anything, but I personally thought the critics would bash this film from left to right.

Post by **Ben** » December 9th, 2006, 1:07 pm

I was at a film thing last week and one of the guys there worked on the post for this and they had their studio screening a couple of weeks ago. When he mentioned it I said "Ohh, errr......" and he said "no, actually it's a really nice, sweet, well made film".

He hadn't seen the star name-packed teaser, which he admitted sounded awful and would have put him off too, agreed it was like many things seem before (Babe and the like) but says he was charmed and that it was probably the most magical "Christmas" like film to be coming out this Christmas.

He also said Night At The Museum was <I>awesome</I>!

Post by **Daniel** » December 9th, 2006, 4:47 pm

I guess that's a good thing

Well, as long as its not being overly bashed, I'll give it a shot! On dvd of course

I'm happy that it does have heart. The original is very heartfelt, so I'm hoping the theatrical movie can handle it well.

Post by **Dacey** » December 22nd, 2006, 4:08 pm

If you guys are wondering if this movie was done well, I saw it the other day, and I must say that it was done VERY well.

It's funny and it's charming. And even though they have all of those big name voices, it never has the over-the-top hipness of last year's "Racing Stripes" (thank goodness!).

The special effects are also extremely well-done. Timpleton the rat is just amazing. I never got over how real he looked. The same goes for the spider. And the mouths on the "Real animals" are perfectly in sync with the actor's voices.

But most importantly, it's moving. VERY moving. I mean, the last fifteen minutes or so are absolutely stunning. Seriously, I can tear up just thinking about this film's ending.

So, in other words, there will be no Razzies for this one. Trust me.

Post by **Daniel** » December 22nd, 2006, 4:42 pm

More moving than the cartoon?

Btw, you certanly helped ease my concern about the film

Post by **Ben** » December 22nd, 2006, 4:52 pm

This <I>is</I> sounding better and better all the time.

Post by **Dacey** » December 27th, 2006, 3:05 pm

Daniel Jake wrote:More moving than the cartoon?

I would say it is.

I think that the story means so much more when Charolette is actually a realistic spider instead of the "Cute" version of her that was in the animated version (with a human-like face, at that). In this one, she really is ugly. But, as Wilbur says, she's also beautiful.

Also, in this version, they didn't hold back from the emotion. In the original, if memory serves, they still had it, but it was more "Cheerful" overall. If you don't mind having something about the ending spoiled...

Post by **Daniel** » December 27th, 2006, 3:51 pm

Really? Well, from your spoiler, the original didn't have that all, Wilbur was just sad, and than Charlottes eggs hatched. it was sad, but this new ending actually sounds better?

I'm definetly catching this this on DVD!

Post by **Ben** » December 27th, 2006, 8:17 pm

Go see it in the theater Dan, where all (most?) movie belong...

Actually, anyone ever see/hear more on that double-pack book and DVD deal that Amazon had of the book and the original cartoon feature? Was that in widescreen or where they trying to palm off their extra foolscreen copies...!?