See Coraline in theatres or your life is fucking forfeit.

[Matt]

Seriously.

And bear in mind, this is coming from me:

Fuck transformers 2, Fuck Star Trek, Fuck G.I. Joe.

If you see only one film this year, Coraline should be it. If you see no films this year, you had better find away to go back and time and see it because I swear to god, if you mis this, you have no right to continue living.

SEE IT.

IMMEDIATELY.

NO EXCUSES.

-m

[Sable]

When it comes here (in a couple of weeks, AAAAAARGH), yes.

You all need to read Coraline. Or your lives are fucking forfeit.

[Evil Jim]

Yeah well, it's not in theatres here until Friday. But believe me I will be there, in 3D.

[spartanhelmet]

I've never heard of Coraline (even the book), but it's either 6+ months away from distribution here... or not at all, like so many things.

[iEatNinjaZ]

Fuck transformers 2

-m

wow


ok i will then. but as long as you see inkheart.

[Graham]

I've seen Inkheart. I was really good. Surprisingly so.

But Coraline was absolutely amazing.

[Tensen01]

If you see only one film this year, Coraline should be it.

Crap... I've already seen Two movies this year... What do I do?

[Alja-Markir]

What's this?

Yet another foray into the realm of the wildly profitable cute/creepy aesthetic that dominates fringe culture conformity? Combining morbid and gothic imagery with symbols of innocence and childhood? How original and relevant!

I'd be bored to tears by this film, if not for my utter disdain for it and the people who make this kind of thing successful. I suppose there really is no accounting for taste, and that the universe is powered by unrealized irony.

~Alja~

[Graham]

Yet another foray into the realm of the wildly profitable cute/creepy aesthetic that dominates fringe culture conformity? Combining morbid and gothic imagery with symbols of innocence and childhood? How original and relevant!

Wow, that's overly hostile.
You do whatever you like, but you're missing out. Disney driving Nightmare Before Christmas merchandise into the ground makes me upset, but this is quite a different film.

Let's say that I think you're taking it at face value.

[Jillers]

What's this?

Yet another foray into the realm of the wildly profitable cute/creepy aesthetic that dominates fringe culture conformity? Combining morbid and gothic imagery with symbols of innocence and childhood? How original and relevant!

I'd be bored to tears by this film, if not for my utter disdain for it and the people who make this kind of thing successful. I suppose there really is no accounting for taste, and that the universe is powered by unrealized irony.

~Alja~

Have you read the book? I mean, I suppose it's a fair criticism (as far as judging a book by its cover is fair)...

I fully intend to see this as soon as I get a chance, which will probably be Monday, because I really liked the book, I really like Neil Gaiman, and Henry Selick deserves more mention for being a genius director.

[Matt]

What's this?

Yet another foray into the realm of the wildly profitable cute/creepy aesthetic that dominates fringe culture conformity? Combining morbid and gothic imagery with symbols of innocence and childhood? How original and relevant!

I'd be bored to tears by this film, if not for my utter disdain for it and the people who make this kind of thing successful. I suppose there really is no accounting for taste, and that the universe is powered by unrealized irony.

~Alja~

I was going to rebut this, but frankly, you're being a cynical wank and trying to justify your own aversion to a cultural trend by belittling my enjoyment of one of the most technically masterful films I've ever seen without even having seen it yourself.

If you haven't got anything nice to say, alja.

-m

[Alja-Markir]

Okay, I concede, a bit hostile.

But let me just see if I can shed some light on where I'm coming from. I've seen one trailer, the newer one linked by Sam Logan. I know pretty much nothing about this movie, but I'd like to make some predictions, based entirely on that one trailer.

* Unhappy child finds Magic / Paranormal Escape
* Escape at first seems Good, slowly proved Evil
* Evil tries to control child, child resists, but ineffectually
* Child receives aide from others, starts to outmaneuver Evil
* Finds Magical Artifact of European myth: crystal, wood, iron, stone, or fire.
* Artifact foils Evil, child attempts to escape.
* Evil appears defeated, all seems well, but Evil returns one last time
* Child defeats evil unaided, they live happily ever after

I'd very much like to see just how accurate that all is. Maybe they'll do something surprising, who knows. Maybe it's actually a worthwhile film and it does things differently, breaks conventions, and challenges the viewer.

I highly doubt it.

Now, the technical side of the film? Maybe it's a really, really, really impressive piece of animation. Maybe it's done fabulously well, and it has great cinematography, and it has spot on effects and details and so much care was put into making it that people weep at the sight of it.

Okay, fine. I'd be impressed by that. But from all my experience dealing with this sort of thing, it's all glitz and no substance. Maybe I'll absolutely love watching the 'Making Of' for the movie. I bet I actually would. But the story is, in all liklihood, going to be another recycling of a tired and worn genre that was never really all that worthwhile to begin with.

~Alja~

Addendum:

Have you read the book? I mean, I suppose it's a fair criticism (as far as judging a book by its cover is fair)...

No, actually, I haven't. This is the first I've ever heard of this. To be honest, though, telling me that it came from a book is just going to make me like it even less. Rarely you will find a film that does justice to a good piece of literature (assuming this is anything like a good piece of literature). Most book to film adaptations I cannot stand in the slightest.

Judging a book by it's cover, as unfair as it may seem, is sometimes just the most reasonable course of action. I'm not going to pick up a cheap looking romance novel titled "Satan's Kiss" and displaying a half-naked woman on the cover with gaudy block lettering and a prominantly displayed critic quotations. The cover tells you more than enough about a book to ascertain whether it is worth your time to read, or if it is simply something you are likely to find no enjoyment in perusing.

Similarly I'm probably not going to watch a film which looks to be geared towards gothicly inclined teenagers. I'm probably not going to expect much from the storyline if it superficially resembles every other storyline in the genre, even if it's actually quite different. First impressions count for a lot. In this day and age, you have to filter your intake of books, movies, and etc because there are simply too many to manage.

And just to be pendantic, I would like to point out that the phrase "don't judge a book by it's cover" originated in a time when covers were unadorned and did not advertise their contents, unlike books published today.

[Matt]

Okay, I concede, a bit hostile.

But let me just see if I can shed some light on where I'm coming from. I've seen one trailer, the newer one linked by Sam Logan. I know pretty much nothing about this movie, but I'd like to make some predictions.

* Unhappy child finds Magic / Paranormal Escape
* Escape at first seems Good, slowly proved Evil
* Evil tries to control child, child resists, but ineffectually
* Child receives aide from others, starts to outmaneuver Evil
* Finds Magical Artifact of European myth: crystal, wood, iron, stone, or fire.
* Artifact foils Evil, child attempts to escape.
* Evil appears defeated, all seems well, but Evil returns one last time
* Child defeats evil unaided, they live happily ever after

I'd very much like to see just how accurate that all is. Maybe they'll do something surprising, who knows. Maybe it's actually a worthwhile film and it does things differently, breaks conventions, and challenges the viewer.

I highly doubt it.

~Alja~

that's a real tough prediction you're making, dude. It's a fucking children's movie - no doubt the plot is formulaic. That doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. Virtually all films follow some established story formula, it's the details that seperate them - this is no different. Regardless, you're visciously undercutting everything else in the film on the grounds that "the story will be predictable".

The film is beautiful. Absolutely visually stunning. I have never seen stop motion animation of that calibre, ever. The visuals are lush and active (and for the most part drastically less "gothic" than you assume). The film also moves into the goddamn creepy. It pulls no punches for the children watching - it's like flashing back to Snow White, with toddlers leaving the theatre crying because of how scary it is.

I fucking LOVED it. LOVED it. It was one of the most intensely enjoybale films I have seen in ages. I will buy it the MOMENT it comes out on Blu-ray, and I don't even own Nightmare Before Christmas. We're a Month in and it's probably on my top ten films of the year. I succeeds on so many levels, and frankly, I think you're being way to hard on it based on a pre-concieved notion you have based on other genre films.

-m

[Graham]

Okay, I had a whole itemized list to rebut yours, but the fact is:

OH WOW you've managed to explain good story structure.
If you want to go against convention and make the most boring movie ever, go right ahead.

Did you think the Hobbits wouldn't destroy the Ring?
Was Luke not going to defeat Vader?

Wait... you say she lives happily at the end after defeating evil!?
I. AM. SHOCKED.

[Sable]

Alja. I like you. You're an intelligent, reasoned poster.

You have completely missed the point.

You couldn't have missed it any further. This is the Platonic ideal, the pinnacle, the absolute value of missing the point.

Read the book.

[Matt]

I have unrealistic expectations and therefore am disappointed by everything, because no one makes anything I consider worthy, and when things that might be worthy come along I write them off because they look like things I didn't like.

-m

[Alja-Markir]

I find it really strange how everyone in the thread before me essentially posted "This is awesome, see it" without giving reasons and no one spoke up, but the moment I express my (albeit unbridled) distaste for my impressions of the film, people leap to its defense.

That said, I'm sleep deprived, and yes being unfair, and yes making an arse of myself. It's not worth it, I'm just gonna retract my grumblings.

Graham, Matt, care to delete everything starting from my initial post on? The other forumites would probably vastly prefer the thread that way.

~Alja~

[Tim]

Let's keep this a discussion of the topic, not a discussion of each other's character.

I haven't even seen any of Tim Burton's claymation, afaik. It's not really my aesthetic.

[Jillers]

I have to go with what Matt and Graham are saying, it's not in the outcome (which is predictable - of course the child is going to win, of course there's going to be a happy ending), but it's in the execution of it. I haven't seen the movie, yet, but I'm extremely excited for it because I really enjoyed the book (Even though it is a children's book). It's not as though the book is ground-breaking in its plot, but it is a dark book intent on scaring kids, and I'm glad to hear that they didn't pull any punches on the movie.

Of course, while I think you're being unfairly harsh on the movie because of it's predictable nature, I'd say rent it when it comes out, because if you're at all like me, you're determined to not like this movie, and if you spend money on a movie ticket for it, you'll spend the whole time finding all the faults with it, proving yourself right.

[Graham]

I haven't even seen any of Tim Burton's claymation, afaik. It's not really my aesthetic.

It's not Tim Burton. I really don't like Tim Burton at all.
He has absolutely nothing to do with this movie. Nothing at all, and I'm glad.

[Matt]

I find it really strange how everyone in the thread before me essentially posted "This is awesome, see it" without giving reasons and no one spoke up, but the moment I express my (albeit unbridled) distaste for my impressions of the film, people leap to its defense.

That said, I'm sleep deprived, and yes being unfair, and yes making an arse of myself. It's not worth it, I'm just gonna retract my grumblings.

Graham, Matt, care to delete everything starting from my initial post on? The other forumites would probably vastly prefer the thread that way.

~Alja~

I'm not deleting anything.

That said, I came in as a dribbling moron because I didn't want to say anything about the film. I simply wanted to have as many people as possible get it in their heads that maybe they should go see it, because someone who has seen it was a dribbling moron over how good he thought it was.

We lept to it's defense because, frankly, you attacked it blindly, on a preconception, and in almost as many words said I had no taste for enjoying it or reccomending it to others.

if someon had asked "oh, why did you enjoy it?" I'd have given the same reasons to them as I gave to you in it's defense - but everyone else essentially responded with "way ahead of you, Matt, I was already planning to see it!".

If you didn't expect backlash from your post, I don't know what you would have been expecting - you came in with an air of belittlement and struck against something several people had already expressed passionate interest in. come on.

-m

[Cake]

[quote="Matt"]
If you see only one film this year, Coraline should be it./quote]

Gosh! Fine! And that's not an exaggeration. I usually do only see one movie in theaters per year.

[tamaness]

Huh. I wasn't going to see this. I liked the book, and saw the trailer when I watched Despereux. The trailer makes it out that the entire story was written by the screen writer. I didn't see Neil Gaiman's name attached to the trailer in any respect, and my first reaction was "he doesn't want to have his name associated with this."

Does it do justice to the book? I don't expect a word-for-word translation. I judge book-to-movie on the grounds of "If I had to cram the book into that timeframe, is that how I'd do it?" Most book-to-movie translations score pretty highly with me.

I'll be back home this coming weekend. I'll see if my parents want to see it. They're pretty big fans of Gaiman's books.

[Matt]

Huh. I wasn't going to see this. I liked the book, and saw the trailer when I watched Despereux. The trailer makes it out that the entire story was written by the screen writer. I didn't see Neil Gaiman's name attached to the trailer in any respect, and my first reaction was "he doesn't want to have his name associated with this."

Does it do justice to the book? I don't expect a word-for-word translation. I judge book-to-movie on the grounds of "If I had to cram the book into that timeframe, is that how I'd do it?" Most book-to-movie translations score pretty highly with me.

I'll be back home this coming weekend. I'll see if my parents want to see it. They're pretty big fans of Gaiman's books.

Tally, who went with us, had read the book, and according to her it was damn close, and when it deviated from the book it stayed in spirit 100%.

-m

[tamaness]

Cool. I'll toss it on my to-see list.