|
Post by babclayman on Jan 6, 2017 18:50:33 GMT -5
I admt, I do some times get puzzle about what Belchic's issue with the; "Live Action" "101 Dalmatians" is. It is still a Good Film, and many agre that Glenn Close is the definitive Cruella.
If it is a factor of how the Animals do not tlk, you do need to consider the time the Film is made in. This was back when Toy Story was barel a Year or so ol’, so C G I for Films was in its erly stge. This would probably make trying to C G I the Muzzles, a bit difficult. In any case, how the Dalmatians and other Animals act is able to tell us what they mean in a good manner. The Animal Training and Henson Work Shp pieces are imprssive.
If his issue is that it's set in Modrn Time, the Story itself is still relativel the sme, showing how well the Story works, and there have been a tn of Films set in Modrn Days, which work too. The Iron Man Film is set in Modrn times, with the Afghnistan Conflct, than the Sixties, with the Vietnm War, as it is in the Originl Comic. The Audience seems Okay with that one, though.
The Cast we have for the Film is good too. Like I claim, many claim that Glenn Close is the definitve Cruella.
It does make sense, they shall have her as the Producer for the Cruella Film, as she knows the Role of Cruella! Though, shall the possible Dalmatians or othr Animals in that Film be like the Animals in the; “Live Action” Jungle Book?
I did hear, some where, that Glenn Close was bsy doing Sunst Bulevard, when they ask her about playing Cruella, so they did consider Sigorny Weavr to play Cruella too. Glenn Close did get the time to play Cruella, though. ;3
I also hear, they did consider Hugh Grnt to play Roger, in the; “Live Action” “101 Dalmatians”. I do wonder, how that would have lookd. o.o What you think, if they have cast Hugh Grant as Roger, Pups? ;3
|
|
|
Post by Lucky on Jan 6, 2017 18:57:47 GMT -5
I'm actually confused on why he hates this film in general, I mean sure it's a remake, but I like how it's modernized, to show that it's in our time, but for Hugh Grant to be Roger, it'd probably be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Jan 6, 2017 19:27:41 GMT -5
I'm actually confused on why he hates this film in general, I mean sure it's a remake, but I like how it's modernized, to show that it's in our time, but for Hugh Grant to be Roger, it'd probably be interesting. Shawn, I have stated my reasons why I dislike this film countless times in this thread. I don't know how you keep missing that. I might also add that even the Nostalgia Critic felt this film was inferior to the original, and he doesn't even like the original.
|
|
|
Post by Lucky on Jan 7, 2017 18:41:36 GMT -5
I'm actually confused on why he hates this film in general, I mean sure it's a remake, but I like how it's modernized, to show that it's in our time, but for Hugh Grant to be Roger, it'd probably be interesting. Shawn, I have stated my reasons why I dislike this film countless times in this thread. I don't know how you keep missing that. I might also add that even the Nostalgia Critic felt this film was inferior to the original, and he doesn't even like the original. And I respect that, because that's his own opinion and I have a feeling that if he were on this board, he would respect ours as well, but I find the movies pretty good, regardless if people Critics or not like them, they have no control over what I can watch or what I can't watch, like for example people don't like the Alpha and Omega Films about a wolf pack, but I do, I think it's actually a cute film series. But I like the idea of both films, because they each have a different plot on how the Dalmatians escape Cruella De Vil, but I also am open to new characters as well, though I did wonder why Horace and Jasper didn't show up in the 102 Dalmatians Film, but I don't really care what the remakes hold, as long as they keep to the plot, Pongo and Perdita along with Roger and Anita meet, fall in love, have puppies, Cruella takes the puppies and Pongo and Perdita tries to do their best to rescue them. The only reason I wouldn't like the films is if Pongo's and Perdita's Pups were stolen and Roger, Anita, Nanny, Pongo and Perdita doesn't do anything about it and let their pups get turned into a fur coat. So to me, I wouldn't care if the show was modernize, and no, Belchic, I haven't missed you saying the reasons you don't like the film, but you need to understand that we didn't have the technology to have CGI Mouths on the animals, that's what I don't get is that Bab and I have been telling you that we don't believe that Disney had the technology or the money to have it done like they do now.
|
|
|
Post by Pepper101 on Feb 6, 2018 17:09:49 GMT -5
I think having the dalmatians speak wasn't even that necessary, as they were already shown to be pretty smart and capable of 'human thinking' as it was. When I first saw the film at the cinema I enjoyed it, but when I saw it again I thought it was a bit boring. I remember in early '00s the Disney website doing a poll of favourite Disney films and the live-action ranking really well, which I could not understand. I didn't watch it again for many years and then finally did a few years back and decided it was actually okay, after all. I do prefer the first half to the second; I tend to find 'chase sequences' near the end of films uninteresting. Cruella tripping up and falling in to some nasty liquid? Dull! Bit too cartoony for the live-action. The thing that struck me on recent watching was just how short the film is. In fairness, the 'second half' doesn't even last all that long!
|
|
Wizzer
New Pup
Im The Wiz and Im Awesome!
Posts: 43
|
Post by Wizzer on Mar 15, 2019 1:17:24 GMT -5
You know, since I recently watched 101 Dalmatians Live Action from 1996. I have to admit. It has not aged well. The only good things about the movie are Glenn Close as Cruella Devil. She was cast perfectly and was born for that role. Hugh Laurie as Jasper and Mark Williams as Horace were fantastic together and ironically they were like the only British actors in this film. Hugh Laurie who I will always love no matter what he is in, probably best known for being House on the hit medical show House M.D. and Mark Williams who has been so many things, Ron Weasley's Father, Rory's Dad from Doctor Who, and recently he has been playing Father Brown.
The other good things about this movie is obviously Whizzer, with the amount of screen time he receives and how he foils Horace and Jasper's plans. Also, there is the scene where Whizzer takes a big pee on Cruella Deville's magazine, even though if you pause at the right second, you can see it is clearly a water bottle right below the puppy that is simulating he is peeing. I have to say, seeing that scene now is kinda disappointing since now the water bottle is very visible and you cant unsee it now. I mean, would it have killed them to actually get Whizzer to go potty? If not, then CGI it to make it look real.
Now to the negatives. The Casting of Jeff Daniels as Roger was a very poor choice. Roger is supposed to be british for starters and not be a bumbling fool who is a failing video game designer. I mean in the original movie, Roger was a Semi/Successful Musician trying to compose the next big hit. Im sorry but to me Jeff Daniels is at his best when he plays goofy comedic characters like in Dumb and Dumber, not when he is supposed to be playing a serious role but instead he is being Fred Flintstoneish comedy character. The Casting of Anita was some what okay I guess. I mean Joely Richardson is a beautiful English actress but something seemed off about her character in this movie.
Joan Plowright as Nanny was a terrible choice in the long run. I mean she didnt even try to fight back against Horace and Jasper breaking in to the house and stealing the puppies like Nanny did in the original movie, instead she played being a helpless, bumbling elderly person. And when the Puppies were gone, she didnt even shout for help, she acted like it was just a minor inconvenience that they were gone. She was like "Oh no, the puppies are gone" instead of HELP SOMEONE THE PUPPIES THEY TOOK THE PUPPIES! POLICE! SOMEONE! HELP ME!!!
The scenes with the wild animals all fighting back against Cruella and The Gang were not needed at all. I mean what the heck were the directors thinking?! This isnt Doctor Dolittle!!! This is supposed to be about Pongo and Perdita getting their 15 Puppies back and rescuing the other 80 something puppies from Cruella. And the most Cardinal Sin the movie got wrong was not having the Dogs or Puppies talk at all! I mean that is inexcusable!! And dont anyone dare say that it couldnt be done with Live Animals yet. This Dalmatian movie came out in 1996. Maybe you guys have heard of Babe? You know the talking live action pig movie that came out in 1995, which is one year before this one!? And it wasnt even made by Disney, who are suppose to be the masters of making their characters as real as it gets with their magical and innovative studio techniques. Im sure there are more flaws I could point out but I can remember them all without doing a full film review.
The one other thing I really liked about this movie that actually got right versus the Original movie is that Cruella Deville actually gets arrested and justice is served and it prevails for the Dearlys. The original movie, for some reason, never showed Cruella getting arrested, instead it appears that she got away with it and is going to do more crime again when she regroups. In conclusion, I really hope that Disney does reboot this movie or franchise, since I would not mind it at all, however since Glenn Close was literally the perfect casting for Cruella Deville, it will be very difficult for Disney to replace her with another actress if she doesnt want to reprise her role. But I have faith in Disney, (Somewhat...cough Will Smith as Genie) to make the right choice as to who should play Cruella, as well as the other characters.
|
|
|
Post by Flowgli on Mar 15, 2019 14:14:09 GMT -5
There will be a new 101D movie coming soon. It’s a live-action movie, and It’ll center around Cruella, with the character to be played by Emma Stone. This had been stated somewhere in this forum before.
As for this movie, though, I like it. The plot is still basically the same as the animated version, and I found some things in there that are better than in the animated version. For one thing, Roger, Anita, Pongo, and Perdita going from first meeting each other at the park to getting married was rushed in the animated version, but they took the time to interact with each other before getting married in the live-action version. As a matter of fact, this is something in general I like in this movie, the increased roles of the human characters and the interactions between them. They’re more believable than what was seen from the human characters in the animated version, and they had to be in this movie, since the animal characters, specifically the Dalmatians, don’t talk at all in it.
Speaking of the animals not talking at all in this version, there’s actually absolutely nothing wrong with that. Now, I’ve seen Babe, and I think having animals talk in that movie works but having animals talk in this movie doesn’t. In this movie, for one thing, there are far too many animals for the people behind the movie to work with, and the puppies are constantly moving around too much. We don’t see them stay still enough to do any talking, if any talking was to be done there at all.
I also think that the defeat of Cruella, Jasper, and Horace is better in this one than it is in the animated version. In the animated version, Cruella called Jasper and Horace names and cried, and Jasper told her to shut up. In this movie, Cruella sarcastically congratulated them, as well as Skinner, for winning gold, silver, and bronze in the “Moron Olympics”, Horace tauntingly asked her who won the gold, and Cruella yelled at him to shut up and proceeded to insult the three men, and the defeat was increased with a skunk. From all that, the defeat in the animated version does seem pathetic, while the defeat in this movie is a clever improvement.
Also, a year after this movie was released, the actors who played Jasper and Horace, Hugh Laurie and Mark Williams, respectively, appeared together on a scene in The Borrowers as a police officer and an exterminator, respectively.
And even though there are people around here who don’t like this movie, I respect their opinions and can see where they’re coming from, but I have to say, right now, to everybody here, whether or not they like this movie, that if it wasn’t for this movie and the success and popularity that it had at the time, you guys wouldn’t have the TV series that premiered a year later that you like, love, and even obsess over so much. We wouldn’t have this forum, either, or any 101D fan stuff made and put up on the Internet. So, even if you don’t like this movie, you have to give it some credit for leaving an impact big enough for the next 101D thing to be made in the franchise.
Those are all just my thoughts on the subject here, and I hope everyone here will take it all into consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Apr 14, 2019 18:52:41 GMT -5
Shawn, I have stated my reasons why I dislike this film countless times in this thread. I don't know how you keep missing that. I might also add that even the Nostalgia Critic felt this film was inferior to the original, and he doesn't even like the original. And I respect that, because that's his own opinion and I have a feeling that if he were on this board, he would respect ours as well, but I find the movies pretty good, regardless if people Critics or not like them, they have no control over what I can watch or what I can't watch, like for example people don't like the Alpha and Omega Films about a wolf pack, but I do, I think it's actually a cute film series. But I like the idea of both films, because they each have a different plot on how the Dalmatians escape Cruella De Vil, but I also am open to new characters as well, though I did wonder why Horace and Jasper didn't show up in the 102 Dalmatians Film, but I don't really care what the remakes hold, as long as they keep to the plot, Pongo and Perdita along with Roger and Anita meet, fall in love, have puppies, Cruella takes the puppies and Pongo and Perdita tries to do their best to rescue them. The only reason I wouldn't like the films is if Pongo's and Perdita's Pups were stolen and Roger, Anita, Nanny, Pongo and Perdita doesn't do anything about it and let their pups get turned into a fur coat. So to me, I wouldn't care if the show was modernize, and no, Belchic, I haven't missed you saying the reasons you don't like the film, but you need to understand that we didn't have the technology to have CGI Mouths on the animals, that's what I don't get is that Bab and I have been telling you that we don't believe that Disney had the technology or the money to have it done like they do now. So...wait. Let me get this straight...You respect HIS opinion, but you don’t respect MINE? That doesn’t sound right to me.
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Apr 14, 2019 18:54:28 GMT -5
There will be a new 101D movie coming soon. It’s a live-action movie, and It’ll center around Cruella, with the character to be played by Emma Stone. This had been stated somewhere in this forum before. As for this movie, though, I like it. The plot is still basically the same as the animated version, and I found some things in there that are better than in the animated version. For one thing, Roger, Anita, Pongo, and Perdita going from first meeting each other at the park to getting married was rushed in the animated version, but they took the time to interact with each other before getting married in the live-action version. As a matter of fact, this is something in general I like in this movie, the increased roles of the human characters and the interactions between them. They’re more believable than what was seen from the human characters in the animated version, and they had to be in this movie, since the animal characters, specifically the Dalmatians, don’t talk at all in it. Speaking of the animals not talking at all in this version, there’s actually absolutely nothing wrong with that. Now, I’ve seen Babe, and I think having animals talk in that movie works but having animals talk in this movie doesn’t. In this movie, for one thing, there are far too many animals for the people behind the movie to work with, and the puppies are constantly moving around too much. We don’t see them stay still enough to do any talking, if any talking was to be done there at all. I also think that the defeat of Cruella, Jasper, and Horace is better in this one than it is in the animated version. In the animated version, Cruella called Jasper and Horace names and cried, and Jasper told her to shut up. In this movie, Cruella sarcastically congratulated them, as well as Skinner, for winning gold, silver, and bronze in the “Moron Olympics”, Horace tauntingly asked her who won the gold, and Cruella yelled at him to shut up and proceeded to insult the three men, and the defeat was increased with a skunk. From all that, the defeat in the animated version does seem pathetic, while the defeat in this movie is a clever improvement. Also, a year after this movie was released, the actors who played Jasper and Horace, Hugh Laurie and Mark Williams, respectively, appeared together on a scene in The Borrowers as a police officer and an exterminator, respectively. And even though there are people around here who don’t like this movie, I respect their opinions and can see where they’re coming from, but I have to say, right now, to everybody here, whether or not they like this movie, that if it wasn’t for this movie and the success and popularity that it had at the time, you guys wouldn’t have the TV series that premiered a year later that you like, love, and even obsess over so much. We wouldn’t have this forum, either, or any 101D fan stuff made and put up on the Internet. So, even if you don’t like this movie, you have to give it some credit for leaving an impact big enough for the next 101D thing to be made in the franchise. Those are all just my thoughts on the subject here, and I hope everyone here will take it all into consideration. Actually, Flo, we’ve known about that movie for a long time now. It’s been in production for years now. Though still to this day, we have no confirmed date on when it will be released. My guess is it’s going to be a Disney+ exclusive.
|
|
|
Post by Lucky on Apr 14, 2019 19:50:52 GMT -5
Belchic Let it go, dude, that post I made was a year ago, it's not a recent one.
|
|
|
Post by Flowgli on Apr 14, 2019 20:37:33 GMT -5
There will be a new 101D movie coming soon. It’s a live-action movie, and It’ll center around Cruella, with the character to be played by Emma Stone. This had been stated somewhere in this forum before. As for this movie, though, I like it. The plot is still basically the same as the animated version, and I found some things in there that are better than in the animated version. For one thing, Roger, Anita, Pongo, and Perdita going from first meeting each other at the park to getting married was rushed in the animated version, but they took the time to interact with each other before getting married in the live-action version. As a matter of fact, this is something in general I like in this movie, the increased roles of the human characters and the interactions between them. They’re more believable than what was seen from the human characters in the animated version, and they had to be in this movie, since the animal characters, specifically the Dalmatians, don’t talk at all in it. Speaking of the animals not talking at all in this version, there’s actually absolutely nothing wrong with that. Now, I’ve seen Babe, and I think having animals talk in that movie works but having animals talk in this movie doesn’t. In this movie, for one thing, there are far too many animals for the people behind the movie to work with, and the puppies are constantly moving around too much. We don’t see them stay still enough to do any talking, if any talking was to be done there at all. I also think that the defeat of Cruella, Jasper, and Horace is better in this one than it is in the animated version. In the animated version, Cruella called Jasper and Horace names and cried, and Jasper told her to shut up. In this movie, Cruella sarcastically congratulated them, as well as Skinner, for winning gold, silver, and bronze in the “Moron Olympics”, Horace tauntingly asked her who won the gold, and Cruella yelled at him to shut up and proceeded to insult the three men, and the defeat was increased with a skunk. From all that, the defeat in the animated version does seem pathetic, while the defeat in this movie is a clever improvement. Also, a year after this movie was released, the actors who played Jasper and Horace, Hugh Laurie and Mark Williams, respectively, appeared together on a scene in The Borrowers as a police officer and an exterminator, respectively. And even though there are people around here who don’t like this movie, I respect their opinions and can see where they’re coming from, but I have to say, right now, to everybody here, whether or not they like this movie, that if it wasn’t for this movie and the success and popularity that it had at the time, you guys wouldn’t have the TV series that premiered a year later that you like, love, and even obsess over so much. We wouldn’t have this forum, either, or any 101D fan stuff made and put up on the Internet. So, even if you don’t like this movie, you have to give it some credit for leaving an impact big enough for the next 101D thing to be made in the franchise. Those are all just my thoughts on the subject here, and I hope everyone here will take it all into consideration. Actually, Flo, we’ve known about that movie for a long time now. It’s been in production for years now. Though still to this day, we have no confirmed date on when it will be released. My guess is it’s going to be a Disney+ exclusive. I only explained this in response to what Wizzer said, Belchic.
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Jul 21, 2019 20:32:31 GMT -5
Now, before anyone gets on me about this: No, I am NOT showing this video to prove the movie is sh*t or anything like that! I just wanted to share someone’s review of it! Is that so wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Jul 21, 2019 23:54:39 GMT -5
Here's what I imagine is probably a reason why people like the 1996 remake as much as the original:
For one, it actually feels like a movie meant for kids.
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on May 17, 2021 12:43:49 GMT -5
Here's what I imagine is probably a reason why people like the 1996 remake as much as the original: For one, it actually feels like a movie meant for kids. That’s it? Are you implementing that the original movie is too dark for kids? That it has adult jokes and sexual innuendo? Well, I guess to some degree, it does, but it’s barely noticeable, and I’m sure the live action film has some too (it still involves Cruella wanting to kill the puppies, and that’s dark for sure). Look, I have explained countless times to you guys why I dislike this movie, and I still don’t understand why you still don’t get it. You need to understand, if you’re going to make a remake or an adaptation, it needs to be treated with TLC in order to work, and the live action “101 Dalmatians” has none of that. By putting in so much slapstick comedy, they only made the movie more childish. By modernizing it, they only made it more dated. By taking away all the aspects that made the original so memorable, it only showed that the creators of this film had no respect for the source material. These are all the same problems that god awful “Cat in the Hat” movie had. Now, granted, this movie is nowhere near as bad as that atrocity, but it’s still a very flawed movie. I want to watch “101 Dalmatians”, not “Home Alone”. That’s just my opinion. Like I’ve said a million times, if you guys like the movie, that’s totally fine. I just don’t care much for it, and I’ve stated my reasons.
|
|