Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
99% of the time when Hollywood gets a hold of what you might call a 'nostalgic' property, they turn out garbage. They bank on nostalgia doing all of the heavy lifting to sell tickets, and do not do anything to create a quality product. .
The Muppets - 96% Fresh
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs - 87% Fresh
Horton Hears a Who - 79% Fresh
Peabody & Mr. Sherman - 78% Fresh
Adventures of TinTin - 75% Fresh
Where the Wild Things Are - 73% Fresh
I dunno man. Those are just the ones I could quickly think of, but.....Hollywood seems to be doing okay with nostalgia.
I enjoyed the Muppets but I really didn't like the Tintin movie: it just didn't do it for me
Currently debating whether to study for my exams or paint some Deathwing
Its hard to describe the movie. IMO, it captures everything wonderful about the book, and in many ways better.
Max's imagination.
Max's isolation.
The allegory of being a 'wild thing' as a youth and eventually transitioning into a very adult 'jungle' as we grow. Etc... Etc...
The Where The Wild Things Are film is more for adults then kids. It is a very subtle meditation on the sad and melancholy nature of childhood, while also reveling in the chaotic freedoms, none of which makes a for a movie that kids tend to enjoy, and is fairly niche for adults.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Peanuts always sucked, it was nothing but schmaltzy gobbity goo with morals not applicable to real life. The animation blew and was bland.
THANK YOU!
The only strip more annoying and schmaltzy than the Peanuts was Family Circus.
I can't really comment on the Peanuts (I loved the Christmas special as a kid but I don't know if it would hold up to my currently maturer sensibilities) as I barely remember anything about it but Family Circus is just dreadful in how bland it is.
It probably wouldn't hold up. I remembered really enjoying the peanuts cartoon where they went to France as a child, but when I saw it again in college I couldn't make it through.
Ahtman wrote: Peanuts (a name Schultz hated) started out as wry and sarcastic but over the years sort of leveled out. If you look at the original strips and the later ones you wouldn't be remiss in thinking they were two completely different comics. It is hard to understand the influence it had because much of what was different at the time is status quo for us these days.
That strip evolved a lot. Even the art. Look at how clean the lines are in that strip...nothing like the shaky, sketchy lines in the later strips.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Peanuts always sucked, it was nothing but schmaltzy gobbity goo with morals not applicable to real life. The animation blew and was bland.
THANK YOU!
The only strip more annoying and schmaltzy than the Peanuts was Family Circus.
I can't really comment on the Peanuts (I loved the Christmas special as a kid but I don't know if it would hold up to my currently maturer sensibilities) as I barely remember anything about it but Family Circus is just dreadful in how bland it is.
Oh, I dunno.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/19 02:22:12
And if you're drinkin' well, you know that you're my friend and I say "I think I'll have myself a beer" 
