As was mentioned in another post, Finding Nemo hits theatres on May 30th. Looks like a fun movie for aquatic fans... included in the cast is an octopus named Pearl. The official site is here:

Finding Nemo: The Official Website (http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/findingnemo/index.html)

Alas, it doesn't hit the shores of Australia until August.

I am a hugh fan of PIXAR and have been following their animation almost since they started. I remember watching a Luxor lamp amination many years ago on Sesame Street and thinking "that was brilliant!". Such a pity they had to combine with Disney - I just hope Disney keeps their claws out of the production ideas. The Disney ethics have destroyed many a good film.

The animation style of Nemo has a touch of the Aardman about it - the big eyes on the characters I think.

KRin (who never did finished cataloguing those medical thesis yesterday)

Anyone know what this film is about?

The official website was very pretty but didn't explain very much.

The synopsis I've heard is along the following lines (the technical version ;) ): baby-fish (Nemo) is captured and taken to an ?aquarium where bad aquarists and scientists want to do mean things to him (along the lines of Beethoven), while daddy-fish tries frantically to get him home safe.
I am also looking forward to it but suspect it will not be unmitigated good publicity for the likes of us... :|

:goldfish:

I am also looking forward to it but suspect it will not be unmitigated good publicity for the likes of us... :|

Probably won't do sharks any favors, either. Active predators are seldom the protagonists.

Unless they're human.

:roll:

Clem

Actually, from what I can glean from the trailers, I THINK the sharks (or at least some of them) are good guys in this one. One tiny clip in the trailers seems to imply the sharks have formed a support group for recovering fish-eaters... 8) As for any statement regarding the aquarium trade...I dunno... Hard to say. I'd think Pixar couldn't have made this movie without working closely with aquarists, but...maybe they haven't. Perhaps they spent a lot of time scuba diving. Or, perhaps it's meant to be encouraging captive breeding. I suppose it'll be pretty clear once we get to see it.

Of course, there is also the complete lack of reality in the notion of talking fish...so perhaps it's really not meant to say much of ANYTHING except "wow...isn't this a cool setting for a movie?"

rusty

Here's a (quite favorable) review for this movie that I came across today...

Finding Nemo Review (http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=200305262017000207674&dt=20030526201700&w=RTR&coview=)

Actually, from what I can glean from the trailers, I THINK the sharks (or at least some of them) are good guys in this one. One tiny clip in the trailers seems to imply the sharks have formed a support group for recovering fish-eaters...

Right: they can be protagonists, but only if they give up their predatory ways.

Of course, there is also the complete lack of reality in the notion of talking fish...

What do you mean?

PANSIES
(People Against Neutering Sharks in Entertaining Simulacra)

I checked the PIXAR site to see if it had more information than the pathetic Disney site. Also no. Both are as information poor as each other.
I had expetced more from PIXAR...

KRin

Hello KRin,

PIXAR and Disney are re-evaluating their relationship. It's always been a rather tense marriage; Disney likes to suck properties dry, producing ever more mediocre sequels to hits, and periodically removing films from circulation to artificially build up demand. PIXAR has needed Disney for it's distribution prowess, and has enjoyed a level of autonomy under the Disney umbrella they might not have enjoyed with another studio.

However, Disney's animation division has been in a steady decline; recently, only "Lilo & Stitch" has managed to break out. Aside from that film, only the PIXAR movies have been worthy of the Disney canon AND generated huge revenues, but the cultural differences between PIXAR and the House of Mouse are probably too great for the association to be sustained. I'm sure PIXAR would love to put up a terrific "Nemo" page, but probably couldn't do so without having the Disney marketing hacks breathing down their necks.

Good Lord, living in Los Angeles has finally proven useful. Only took three years.

Yours truly,

Clem

I had read somewhere that PIXAR and Disney are working on a Toy Story 3 for release in 2006... Andy donates the toys to his kindergarten or some such...

"Toy Story 3" may be the price of release from indentured servitude.

Here's a Business Week article from autumn 2001 about the PIXAR/Disney marriage:

Toy Story 3: Out for Blood (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2001/nf20010928_5607.htm)

Perhaps a "Finding Nemo 2" will involve a neurotic squid's attempt to rescue his paralarval offspring from NZ...

:roll:

Clem

Great article Clem! I favor Pixar's position. And all during this mess, my kids are missing out on another Buzz, Woody, Jessie and Bullseye tale. :x :evil: :yelling:

Wow, Clem! Do you know any more about the current status of the Disney/Pixar relationship? The article's dated late 2001... I was just sharing these concerns with an animation-loving friend of mine...I just see Disney sucking the life out of Pixar and generally messing them up badly. The details discussed in this article kind of support my fears. I'd much rather see Pixar independent or in a relationship with a (hopefully) better company.

I must confess...a "Toy Story 3" makes me awfully nervous. They managed to get away with a brilliant sequel, but...the novelty's completely gone now, sequels always make me nervous, and can they really manage yet another fascinating, fresh story? I guess they could. Nobody's perfect, so I know Pixar will fall on its face once or twice someday...I just hope that they don't suffer any real damage from it, like, oh, Disney deciding they should run the whole company. :shock: I'm not meaning to specifically bash Disney...but I sure don't like the way they have been running things lately.

rusty

Aloha Rusty,

Once PIXAR delivered "Finding Nemo" to Disney, it was free to start negotiating for a new deal, either with Disney or another studio. Warner Bros. is known to have conducted "informal" talks with Steve Jobs and PIXAR, while Eisner is said to remain confident that PIXAR will stick with them, perhaps in a new arrangement simillar to Lucasfilm's "Star Wars" deal with 20th Century Fox. Jobs and Eisner are said to be just barely on speaking terms, however, and Jobs wants PIXAR to own its creations. (This latest info is from Reuters and the NYTimes.)

I wonder if the plot of "Finding Nemo" is (in part) a veiled allusion to the Jobs vs Eisner struggle: neurotic parent attempts to rescue quirky child from greedy, thieving merchant.

:roll:

Clem

I confess that I still love the various Disney "heroine" animations -- I suppose that's the perennial little girl in me -- though admittedly on close inspection they all seem to be the same heroine in different guises: Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Ariel, Belle, Esmeralda, Jasmine, Pocahontas, Mulan, etc. Even Lady (of LADY AND THE TRAMP) was a classical Disney heroine in the body of a cocker spaniel! And of course FANTASIA is a true masterpiece (though from what I've heard Walt Disney hated it, probably too original for the old reactionary). Even FANTASIA 2000 had its moments: that charming "art deco" take on Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue", and the breathtaking, almost spiritual "flying whales" of Respighi's "Pines of Rome".

I also give Disney credit for bringing the magnificent SPIRITED AWAY to the awareness of western audiences. While TOTORO and MONONOKE did receive some attention in "art theaters" here, I suspect it was Disney Studio's involvement in SPIRITED AWAY that brought Miyazaki's brilliance to the attention of the general public in the English-speaking world.

That being said, I've always felt there was a sort of dark underbelly to the whole Disney thing. The standard Disney characters (Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy) leave me absolutely cold, with the possible exception of Mickey as Dukas' "Sorcerer's Apprentice" which worked pretty well. They seem positively bland beside the frenetic wit of the Warner Bros. "repertory players" -- Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, et al. Additionally, the "Disneyfication" of Milne's delightful WINNIE THE POOH destroyed much of its charm, turning each one of those lovely "toy philosophers" into just another Disney character.

I also wonder whether the premise of the clever ANTZ was plagiarized by Disney for its far less edgy A BUG'S LIFE. The common explanation given is that both filmmakers happened to have the same idea at the same time, but whenever Disney is involved there is always the suspicion of their "cannibalizing" the ideas of more creative filmmakers.

Finally, the history of the entire Disney concern is fraught with instances of suppression. In the middle and late '60s, men and boys with long hair (read: "hippies") were explicitly barred from entrance to Disneyland. Fast-forward several years to an incident of two young (gay) men who were thrown out of Disneyworld for simply dancing together at one of the clubs there. I imagine that all this has changed in recent years, but it still makes one wonder. (I find it ironic that nowadays, fundamentalists of various religions are opposed to Disney Studios for being "too liberal" -- I suspect these people would have felt perfectly at home in the "old Disney" era.)

Please forgive the rant (and a non-ceph-related one at that)! The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of the moderators or anyone else on TONMO, and I don't want to turn this thread into a sociopolitical controversy -- I just tend to get emotional over certain subjects, and I guess Disney is one of them :talker:

Getting serious for a change,
Tani

Additionally, the "Disneyfication" of Milne's delightful WINNIE THE POOH destroyed much of its charm, turning each one of those lovely "toy philosophers" into just another Disney character.
I don't disagree, but I should say that I agree with my wife's assessment that the Disney intepretation of the Pooh characters represent the best group of friends out of any children's characters anywhere, period. I can't think of any other children's program where friendships between the characters are so strong.

Speaking of Pooh and Disney lawsuits, there was one not to long ago where Milne's family sued claiming Disney didn't have rights for merchandizing, etc., etc. Their victory in court would theoretically translate to the tearing down of any Pooh likenesses at Disney World, etc. etc. etc. Not sure where that one left off... Clem? :)

And, BTW, don't you feel that this is pertinent discussion? This particular forum is one of my personal favorites, because I've always been fascinated by the entertainment industry's interpretations of octopuses, for children and adults alike. Therefore, any analysis of Disney (either its characters or the corporation itself) is quite welcome and enlightening in my book, especially in the context of this Finding Nemo release. 8)

Tani--check out Clem's earlier link, and also this one:

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/mc/20030527/105402660000.html

Clem can clear me up if I'm wrong about some of this...I don't know all the details, but it seems clear that Pixar has been HIGHLY independent from the beginning. Not for lack of trying on Disney's part, but these stories strongly suggest Pixar has kept itself effectively clean of Disney influence. They are NOT owned by Disney, but rather have a contract with them requiring them to make movies which Disney then owns...the benefit to Pixar being that they have a great resource for distributing/marketing their movies, something Pixar can't do themselves. Their respective CEOs (Eisner and Jobs) hate one another, and there have been constant struggles over how much influence Disney can exert. I get the distinct impression that such influence is basically nil, and that Disney is not pleased about that--hence, their own efforts at building a CGI animation house, as seen in Dinosaur.

Currently Disney and Pixar are negotiating a new contract, as Finding Nemo was the last Pixar had to deliver under contract. I would assume that the terms of this contract would be crucial to how independent Pixar can remain. Frankly, I don't trust Disney to not mess Pixar up if they somehow gained control, so I wouldn't mind seeing them sign with someone else, or perhaps even finding a way to do everything Disney used to do for them themselves.

All this seriousness before watching such a fun flick! :shock: :heee:

rusty

I also wonder whether the premise of the clever ANTZ was plagiarized by Disney for its far less edgy A BUG'S LIFE. The common explanation given is that both filmmakers happened to have the same idea at the same time, but whenever Disney is involved there is always the suspicion of their "cannibalizing" the ideas of more creative filmmakers.

Taningia,

(My/space-bar/is/broken.)

"A/Bug's/Life"/was/a/PIXAR/ creation./Dreamworks/ripped/ the/premise /off/for/"Antz."/ Katzenberg/was/still/at/Disney/ while/"Bug's/Life"/ was/gestating/at/ PIXAR,/and/ rushed/"Antz"/into/production/ at/Dreamworks/so/they/could/ beat/"Bug's/Life"/to/ the/theaters/ (and/screw/Eisner,/Katzenberg's/ nemesis)."Antz"/was/much /less/visually/ accomplished/than/"Bugs"/in/part/because /speed/was/of/ the/essence.

These/guys/make/Mesonychoteuthis/look/amiable.

Tony/I/don't/know/if/the/Pooh/has/fled/the/Kingdom/yet.

Worst/space-bar/ever.

Clem

SpaceMan to the rescue! :bonk: Um, I had to throw a few spaces in there to allow the line to break once in a while... :roll:

I don't disagree, but I should say that I agree with my wife's assessment that the Disney intepretation of the Pooh characters represent the best group of friends out of any children's characters anywhere, period. I can't think of any other children's program where friendships between the characters are so strong.


Hi Tony --

I can understand that, especially if one sees the cartoons before reading the books. In that context, the Disney version is certainly a positive and pleasant one.

However, I read WINNIE-THE-POOH and HOUSE AT POOH CORNER for the first time as an adult, before seeing the Disney cartoons. In fact, my first experience with the books was reading them aloud to my (then) toddler squidling at bedtime, one chapter per night. So in effect, he and I were reading them, and looking at the charming pictures, together. We were enchanted by them, and I suppose seeing the cartoon interpretation was a bit of a comedown, by contrast, for both of us.

Later on, BTW, I read two marvelous books about Pooh written for adults: THE TAO OF POOH and THE TE OF PIGLET, both by Benjamin Hoff. Hoff relates the Milne books and their characters to Taoist thought (similar to Zen), demonstrating Milne's philosophical depth while at the same time retaining his playful, whimsical style -- rather like STAR WARS' "Yoda". :yinyang: The Hoff books are absolutely wonderful for grown-ups who are also big kids at heart (like Yours Truly), but to derive the full benefit of them, it's best to read the original Milne books first.


Speaking of Pooh and Disney lawsuits, there was one not to long ago where Milne's family sued claiming Disney didn't have rights for merchandizing, etc., etc. Their victory in court would theoretically translate to the tearing down of any Pooh likenesses at Disney World, etc. etc. etc. Not sure where that one left off... Clem? :)


Hmmm, that's a tough call. I'd like to hear the status of that one too. While I still contend that the Milne version is the best, I'd hate to see kids deprived of Pooh in any form. I know that there are still kids' products and clothes called "Classic Pooh", which use images from the books' original artwork rather than from the Disney version. I'd like to think there is enough room in the world for two Poohs.

(Notice how I carefully avoided the temptation to say "Chacun à son Pooh"? :P )


And, BTW, don't you feel that this is pertinent discussion? This particular forum is one of my personal favorites, because I've always been fascinated by the entertainment industry's interpretations of octopuses, for children and adults alike. Therefore, any analysis of Disney (either its characters or the corporation itself) is quite welcome and enlightening in my book, especially in the context of this Finding Nemo release. 8)

Thanks for the imprimatur (or would that be nihil obstat?), Tony :wink: I figure as long as Disney makes the occasional aquatic film, they're OK in this were-squid's book.

Looking forward to FINDING NEMO,
The Tanster

(Notice how I carefully avoided the temptation to say "Chacun à son Pooh"? )
No, I missed that. :)

Thanks for the imprimatur (or would that be nihil obstat?), Tony :wink:
Oh, heh! That's no problem! No problem at all.......

*zips off to Google*

I love animation but this will be hard for me to keep on topic. Tani, I agree that Disney heroines are historically unspectacular, but they go along a progression from really passive - Sleeping Beauty is ASLEEP! So is Snow White. - to less and less passive, with The Little Mermaid's Ariel even becoming disobedient. The villains, not the heroines, intrigue me more. Wouldn't you rather wear Maleficent's horns and cape in Sleeping Beauty? Ursula the Octopus in The Little Mermaid brings us back to cephalopods.

Someone at Disney, possibly Eisner himself, made a non-discrimination policy including gays and lesbians, so Disney is not in good graces with the religious right. I'd make the same choice, I'd rather go to a disco than a church picnic myself.

Are there any cephs in the old Warner Bros. cartoons? I don't recall any, much as I adore Michigan J. Frog, he's no squid.

Melissa

Are there any cephs in the old Warner Bros. cartoons? I don't recall any, much as I adore Michigan J. Frog, he's no squid.
Good question! Have a look at the TONMO.com email Newsletter issue 99 (http://www.tonmo.com/MyMail/archive.php?id=1&issueID=99), item number two. Tiny print, but it answers your question... not sure of any others...

Actually, item number one there is pertinent to this discussion as well.

there was that evil octo in the hanna barbara cartoons, but i cant seem to remember his name.....

I love animation but this will be hard for me to keep on topic. Tani, I agree that Disney heroines are historically unspectacular, but they go along a progression from really passive - Sleeping Beauty is ASLEEP! So is Snow White. - to less and less passive, with The Little Mermaid's Ariel even becoming disobedient. The villains, not the heroines, intrigue me more. Wouldn't you rather wear Maleficent's horns and cape in Sleeping Beauty? Ursula the Octopus in The Little Mermaid brings us back to cephalopods.


That is true, about the increasing "liberation" of the Disney heroines. Personally, I identify the most with Belle -- I saw the film with a friend when our sons were little, and when the Beast brought Belle into his incredibly huge personal library, my friend leaned over to me and whispered, "Hey, that's your fantasy, isn't it?"

Of course, Esmeralda (THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME) and Mulan were also fighters who could kick butt with the best of them.

Maleficent had a great wardrobe but was otherwise a standard Disney villain. Ursula, on the other hand, was great! Her song, "Poor Unfortunate Souls", was one of the best I've heard in a Disney 'toon. And of course she was the only "mer-ceph" in the history of filmdom until DAGON's Priestess Uxia came along.



Someone at Disney, possibly Eisner himself, made a non-discrimination policy including gays and lesbians....


About time they moved into the 21st Century!




Are there any cephs in the old Warner Bros. cartoons? I don't recall any, much as I adore Michigan J. Frog, he's no squid.



But I've yet to see a Messie do a better rendition of "Hello My Baby" :wink:

Tani,

"Spirited Away", or as I saw it "Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi" (yeah, "Spirited Away" is a heck of a lot easier on a marquee!) is a masterpiece. Disney has an active contract with Studio Ghibli to bring a few films to the U.S., and I hope that they take full advantage of it. As a big anime fan (note my avatar), I have seen cephs in a lot of Japanese pop culture. I hope to get photos and things to post, but all in due time. If ayone wants a good anime list, its probably my collection...

"Finding Nemo" is technologically brilliant. They have actually captured the look of water with CGI. That's brilliant work, up there with Squaresoft's "The Animatrix: Final Flight of the Osiris"

Sushi and sake, but hold the Tako-yaki

John

Off of the animation a bit, but in the same area: Nemo seems to be causing a bit of an odd turn in the aquarium stores here...(there was a thread last week in the same vein) all of the stores are stocking up on clownfish and pufferfish, and running specials on 30 long salt setups...so, here is a film about the evils of fishcollection, and all of these people are going to rush out and buy fishtanks. Hmmm. Do you want to bet how many of the kids name their little perculas "nemo" ???? It's going to be as bad as when captive bred burmese pythons hit it big out here...every single one was named "monty", followed by a chuckle and the comment "isn't that cool?" Yikes. Oh well. I am sure that in two months, I will be able to buy a lot of "used" setups for a song, after the dads get tired of doing water changes! Hopefully, some of the kids will actually get into keeping and learning about sealife...hey, maybe some future TONMO members!
My, I do run on....
Greg

Greg,

That's both a good and bad thing... Salt water aquarium keeping is hard work, and most parents will flip out rather than buy a kid clown fish. I just hope it doesn't lead to the "dalmation rush" (people started buying dalmations by the boatload when Disney released "101 Dalmations") style of pet buying and neglect you tend to see here in the States when a new animal movie comes out.

Then again, some kids may have the knack... We'll see, won't we?

John

Dalmations! Hah! A friend of mine owns a reptile store here in town, and actually started selling a speckled variety of kingsnake as "dalmation" kings 'cause so many people wanted anything with the name dalmation for their kids as pets...trust me, we are going to see quite a few perculas or ocellaris clowns at the stores for a while now...hopefully, some good will come of it...I guess my fascination with fish started at an early age at a pet store too!
We should all pray. To Cthulhu, of course. :notworth:
Greg

Tani,

""Spirited Away", or as I saw it "Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi" (yeah, "Spirited Away" is a heck of a lot easier on a marquee!) is a masterpiece."

Spirited Away is released here on June 16th, I have been trying to buy a copy for days but the web site I want to use keeps crashing. I might have to resort to going into a shop!

re: Disney

WARNING : EXTREME OPINION FOLLOWS: I loathe Disney and think Walt Disney should have been shot at birth. A rather exteme opinion I know and it is MY opinion ONLY. I don't expect anyone else to share it.

Could someone explain the plot line of Gasaraki to me in plain english please? I'm at episode 16 and still not sure what is going on!

KRin

Are you watching it subtitled or dubbed?

I loathe Disney and think Walt Disney should have been shot at birth. A rather exteme opinion I know and it is MY opinion ONLY. I don't expect anyone else to share it.

Good.

I'm not so sure about shooting Walt at birth, but I don't care much for his empire either. But I do appreciate your EXTREME OPINION WARNING! :lol:

Has anyone seen Finding Nemo yet?

So Walt Disney made a lot of bucks...boohoo. I don't really think he was evil incarnate or has some weird twisted plot to rule the world from his icy coffin, either. I like a lot of the Disney stuff...my attitude has always been, "if you don't like it, don't watch it."
Besides my dad is a freemason too, and he only sacrifices virgins now and again...of course, they are hard to find in Sedona!! :)
Personally, I prefer live action to animation...but my other half loves anime, so I am forced to watch it now and again...that's ok, I make her watch re-runs of Babylon 5! Hey, how about the corpse-eating cthulhu looking things that live in down-below??? Now THAT is entertainment!!!
Greg

"mr.middle-of-the-road about the animation issue"

i used to be one of the most anit disney people you could find....i still dont care for the stuff from the 80/90s and havent watched any of the pixar movies, but some of the old stuff is pretty good (mainly dumbo)..... personally i think i was more anti disney fans than anti disney, but if the company went under, i wouldnt shed a tear....

my :twocents:

:cthulhu: :heart: :beer:

Sorry, but I thought Aladdin was a good flick...and I took some friends kids to see the Lion King and they dug it big time...hey, no matter what, they are JUST MOVIES!!!!! I got on a soapbox a couple of years ago, and refused to see the screening of Shrek, on the grounds that animation was a silly format for serious film...then, later on, I saw the film...and guess what? I liked it quite a lot! So, I have since learned to temper my opinion and just let things roll where they will...Walt had some weirdness to him, but so does Michael J. and I still like his music, whether or not I care for his habits or sexual preferences (which are still a mystery)...I could go on and on about artists and their eccentricities...hey, I am one too!
Film at 11.
Greg

In my opinion there are only two really good Disney films;
Robin Hood, the one with Robin as the fox with Sir Hiss the python, and "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea". Can't think why.

That Nautilus design is perfect and fantastic. And James Mason as Nemo looking tortured whils playing on the organ........'nuff said!

Oddly enough, 20,000 lgs was one of the films I didn't like...I guess because it is my favorite book, and I was so enamoured of the scientific angle as a kid, the movie came off to campy for me...I did like how they did the nautilus though...there is a fantastic model of it for sale...waaaay to much $$ for me though (Shanlyn would kill me).
Greg

In my opinion there are only two really good Disney films;
Robin Hood, the one with Robin as the fox with Sir Hiss the python, and "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea". Can't think why.


both good stuff....i cant bevleive i forgot about robin hood.....


:cthulhu: :heart: :beer:

Are you watching it subtitled or dubbed?
Dubbed. I just don't get the all the stuff with Kai's, and the TA's and the large robot thing with the feather head-dress.

I also had trouble with Gundam Wing but that was because I was only seeing every second epsiode.

KRin

So Walt Disney made a lot of bucks...boohoo.
It's nothing to do with the amount of money he made. Good luck to him for being in the right place at the right time. I don't really think this is the forum for me to go into my reasons for my dislike of Disney. Like him or not, I have no trouble with that, I respect your opinions.

"my attitude has always been, "if you don't like it, don't watch it."

I don't, although I was forced to watch "Lion King" with the 3 year old next door!

"so I am forced to watch it now and again...that's ok, I make her watch re-runs of Babylon 5! Hey, how about the corpse-eating cthulhu looking things that live in down-below??? Now THAT is entertainment!!!"

Have watched all of Babylon 5 over my time, even met what-his-name that wrote it. I'm a long time SF fan. I will watch almost anything once so I can have an opinion on it, rather than depend on others. I do try and like most things. Honest.

KRin

what was the name of that race??? all I can think of is dilgor and drazzi...heck! now I am going to be thinking of that all day long...
Greg

what was the name of that race??? all I can think of is dilgor and drazzi...heck! now I am going to be thinking of that all day long...

Which one are you thinking of?

So many to chose from? Narn, Centauri, Drazi, Minbari, Vorlon, Shadow, Drakh, Braqiri.......need I go on?

Come to think about it, the Vorlon cruisers were the most squid-looking ships in sci-fi that I can think of, apart from anime (of which I have only seen Akira). Babylon 5 was great, wasn't it?

B5 is a fantastic show, and I strongly encourage everyone here to run to the store and buy multiple copies of the DVDs, on shelves now! :mrgreen: Anything to support the show... Season 3 is out August 12th in the US.

The race with the Cthulhuesque appearance is the Pak'Ma'Ra. I remember the carrion/corpse eating race reference, but I can't remember which race that was.

The squidlike appearance of the Vorlon ships was apparently something of a mistake, or at least was not the original inspiration of the design. They were originally inspired by a garlic bulb. I don't know what the official inspiration was, but I swear the Shadow ships look a lot like sea urchin pluteus (sp?) larvae.

Yeah, I found Nemo. I now swear from this point on that I will do all in my power to see a movie in digital projection, especially Pixar movies. The movie suffered noticeably on film, there was a lot of "coolness" that I just couldn't see. Watching clips on TV and the internet, I can see a huge difference. Maybe not everyone is so touchy about it, but to me it was a BIG shame that such a fantastic CGI effort looked so muted.

Very good movie overall, I thought. The plot is a bit more traditional (almost Disney...arg,) but still fresh, with the focus on the father-son relationship not typically done quite this way. A bit scarier than normal. Great humor, pretty, etc. The story doesn't flow quite like the previous movies...I think that's by design, but it makes me like it slightly less. Good story, but...I dunno, Toy Story and the like were just RELENTLESS story-wise, whereas this one is a bit calmer, a bit more laid-back...something. The pacing just isn't the same, and that threw me off a bit. The short is one from their early days, "KnickKnack," and there's a trailer for The Incredibles, due out november next year.

I thought the octopus characters were TERRIBLY disappointing. They basically were dog squeaky toys. They did get inking right, but... I'm guessing they didn't do realistic octos to avoid scariness (they're "good guys" in this one) and to avoid the intense amount of animation a proper octo would require. But there were some VERY good jellyfish. And the clownfish-anemone relationship was shown remarkably well, I thought, yet still blended carefully with the behavior of the characters. Perhaps most notable to me was a panning camera shot of a fish from the outside of a tank...as the camera moves along, around the front of the tank and around the corner, the refraction of the glass is reproduced perfectly. It's always little details like that (both in CGI and in story) that make me love Pixar...

rusty

Are you watching it subtitled or dubbed?
Dubbed. I just don't get the all the stuff with Kai's, and the TA's and the large robot thing with the feather head-dress.

I also had trouble with Gundam Wing but that was because I was only seeing every second epsiode.

KRin

Gasaraki and Gundam (All of them) are a bit confusing because they rely heavily on political intrigue. Its been awhile since I've seen Gasaraki, but its pretty much about the use of ancient armor-clad demons being used in modern warfare.

[
Gasaraki and Gundam (All of them) are a bit confusing because they rely heavily on political intrigue. Its been awhile since I've seen Gasaraki, but its pretty much about the use of ancient armor-clad demons being used in modern warfare.

I finally ordered "Spirited Away" on video last night - it's out here in June 16th :D

I have a huge facination with Japan and its culture. I have managed one overnight stay in Japan - got to walk around the hotel!

Thanks for the political lead - I'll do some reading up and see if it helps. Half knowledge can be more of a bother at times! I understood the emotional story line but it was the deeper storyline that I was misunderstanding.

Does "Gasaraki" actually mean anythign in Japanese.

KRin

BABYLON 5 was incredible! The Big Calamari and I got hooked on it when it appeared in reruns on the Sci-Fi Channel. It was more consistently good than ST: VOYAGER, and infinitely better than ENTERPRISE, which IMHO ran out of creative ideas after the one where Trip was impregnated by the alien woman (one of the few truly interesting episodes of that steadily flagging series). On the other hand, B5 was often positively spiritual, which I loved.

KRin, I would like to hear about when you met the head writer of B5 -- I don't remember his name, but I would consider him a genius for creating such a complex, believable future universe.

I also enjoyed the first two seasons of Sci-Fi's FARSCAPE, though I lost interest after the magnificent "blue priestess" Zhann went away. (Do you detect a penchant for all things spiritual on the were-squid's part? Yes, you do :D ) And then there was Sci-Fi's LEXX -- off the wall, over the top, raunchy as hell, and lots of fun even though half the time I had no idea what was going on!

My favorite animated Disney feature? Hard to say. (If imports are included, I'd pick SPIRITED AWAY, though Disney Studios were more agents than creators in that case.) Probably the original FANTASIA, though THE LION KING would be way up there -- the opening of the film alone ("Circle of Life") was one of the most beautiful I've ever seen. And the Respighi "Pines of Rome" segment of FANTASIA 2000 (the one with the flying whales).

I think of Walt Disney as the entertainment equivalent of Bill Gates. He had some talent himself, but his real forté was finding, encouraging, and exploiting the exceptional talents of others.... i.e., a master headhunter.

:twocents: from your friendly neighborhood
Tani

KRin, I would like to hear about when you met the head writer of B5 -- I don't remember his name, but I would consider him a genius for creating such a complex, believable future universe.



J Michael Stransinski was his name. I'm not sure that I should admit this publically, but I met him too. It was in Blackpool about six years ago and sadly? have his autograph. I totally agree that it was the best sci-fi series ever made as it really was a novel conceived for TV with a beginning, middle and end. Characters evolved and developed, empires rose and fell, and it all came to decent conclusion. Pity the last year was so drawn out, but this was a fault of the politics behind the programme, a bit too detailed to go into here, but still great viewing.

Voyager........oh I'm sorry, I'm nodding off.

It was in Blackpool about six years ago and sadly? have his autograph.


Why "sadly"? Is he no longer among the living? Just curious....

TD

J. Michael Straczinski is dead?! Wow... I had no idea... Sad, really.

As for Walt Disney, everyone does know that he has been dead for millenia now, right?

As far as "Finding Nemo": Its good. Its fun. Thumbs up from yours truly

Sushi and Sake,

John

J. Michael Straczinski is dead?! Wow... I had no idea...

Er......JMS certainly isn't dead. He's currently working on a new series and is scripting a series of comic books.

I mean't sadly as in boasting of owning sci-fi stars autographs is a bit, well, nerdy! :lol:

Better scotch that rumour!

I don't think me and my family will be going to see Nemo, but we will catch it on video.

From what I heard from a neighbor -- as Disney tends to do, they once again forgot that an audience of 3 and 5 year olds are not as jaded as the rest of the world. Read no further if you don't want the spoiler! (i.e., if you don't want to be told about part of the story before you've had the chance to see it)... Not much of a spoiler I don't think, but always like to warn...

I guess an early scene has a family / school of fish happily swimming along and enjoying the day. Before you know it, a shark swoops in and eats the entire family except one.

End spoiler!

This is HEAVY stuff for young kids. I don't understand why Disney simply can't make a movie that *is* fun, all the way through. Well, I guess I do -- it's all about the $$$. But all I can tell you that I know my kids would enjoy a completely "happy fun" movie far more than the extreme drama that they subject young kids to today -- if only for the reason that it would be such a rarity. Most parents don't realize, or don't care, thus fueling the indifference that ultimately translates into adulthood! Some children's TV shows do it well (eg, Blue's Clues or Oswald the Octopus -- always calm, pleasant, with minor, interesting problems for the characters to work out. Not scenes of shocking, tragic death).

Disney has done this over and over agian. The Lion King probably did it with the most grace (the death of Simba's father), and I think it is among the few death-scene movies that I'm comfortable having my kids watch because it's really such a great movie and the death of Mufasa served as Simba's full inspiration, so it was quite pertinent and poignant.

Like I said, we'll get it on video, because I'm sure my kids will ultimately enjoy it -- and of course balance is healthy.... Goes back to the discussion of why good things should possibly increase, but mediocre things should stay constant. (if you didn't see that thread then nevermind) :)

But I can see it in their eyes when Disney gives their scenes their famously macabre touch -- they don't fully understand it and sometimes it scares them a little too much -- and that's not fun. Growing up is hard enough without Disney subjecting them to complex and confusing (even for adults) emotional issues.

There's a line somewhere between being an over-protective, oppressive parent vs. not protecting/supporting your child enough from things that they are not yet equipped for (and really don't need to be, but even if they do, I don't believe I want Disney to be the educator in that arena).

~ Fin ~

Hmmm...some interesting points regarding Disney's macabre touch...I certainly can't talk from experience (yet) about the effect on kids due to a cartoon death. I was going to say that I grew up watching violent cartoons, and reading Grimms fairy tales, etc...and look at me!
Kind of shooting myself in the foot though, right? :lol:
I certainly agree with not letting life get "bambified" (that is a technical term, I am sure any academics out there will understand) it is disconcerting to have children believing that the wild kingdom is some sort of la-la land...that's why we have things like the little girl who was bitten by a western diamondback rattlesnake last month, she just wanted to talk to it!
Yikes!
Kids shows like "croc hunter" or its spinoffs seem to do a good job though...except every little girl in the second grade class I went to give a talk to last week had a crush on Steve Irwin!
Greg

it is disconcerting to have children believing that the wild kingdom is some sort of la-la land...
Oh yeah, I definitely agree there. Which makes an argument for both sides, really. Meaning, I don't want my kids to watch "happy fun talking bunny" movies all the time, either. It's no more healthy than being inundated with disturbing scenes such as when bambi's mother was shot dead (off "camera", mercifully -- actually, I guess that scene was done quite tastefully as well... that scene is probably one of the prototype ingredients in the "Disney Formula").

Death and pain are an important, real subjects and I certainly don't want my kids to think that bad things don't happen (although I still believe that they should stop happening - ha). I guess I just don't want Disney being the primary source of "education" on that subject.

I suppose a good argument could be made that such movies can serve as a healthy frame of reference for a discussion with your children about such subjects after the movie... But I'm afraid the visual impressions made by animated films are so strong, that they may overshadow any attempt at an "intellectual" (if you will) discussion about the subject.

Ebay Happy Meal (http://www.qksrv.net/click-1120004-5463217?loc=http%3A//cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll%3FViewItem%26item%3D313387 6636%26category%3D2521)
A small pink octo from the golden arches, with seven other Nemo toys.

:ammonite:

Note: eBay link edited by tonmo to make it TONMO.com-friendly :)

I guess an early scene has a family / school of fish happily swimming along and enjoying the day. Before you know it, a shark swoops in and eats the entire family except one.

Hooray!

This is a fine discussion to have. Yet, like so many discussions of child- rearing and psychology, it is being conducted without the input of the nominal objects of concern: children. American adults love to talk about what's best for children, but seldom ask them the sorts of direct questions that they are fully equipped to answer (and much prefer to the drawn-out, allusive investigations that characterize the adults of the species).

Kids are as curious about death as they are about all the life-pocesses they observe (and participate in). Depictions of death, be they fictional or actual, may very well upset them, but condescension tends to upset them just as much. I suspect that American parents who fulminate about incidences of sex, death and profanity in the culture are less concerned with their perceived impact on children, than they are with the "burden" parents must bear in explaining them.

Besides, a shark eating fishies is greatly more comprehensible than the abstract human butchery that permeates our "entertainments" and leads our news-broadcasts.

I'm holding off on viewing "Nemo" for another reason: they somehow failed to include a giant squid. A scandalous omission.

:x

Clem

This is a fine discussion to have. Yet, like so many discussions of child- rearing and psychology, it is being conducted without the input of the nominal objects of concern: children.
Fair enough... kids, chime in! :-)

I will say though that this is not commentary without interaction with kids... FWIW, I do get the direct feedback from my own (both in words and other forms of communication), which is what I base this opinion on.

Condescension tends to upset them just as much.
I agree... condescension doesn't work anywhere. But I think we're talking about a slightly older age group -- my concerns with Disney are with the very young. There is a tremendous world of difference (emotionally) between a 2 year old, a 5 year old and an 8 year old. In fact, the difference is stark from year to year.

Some parents even take their 3 year olds to go see Harry Potter, or the Star Wars movies, which I'm sure even the directors of those films would say is not such a hot idea. Kids at that age are pretty much along for the ride. They (correctly) count on their parents to steer them in the right direction.

The older kids get, the more independence they have, and that's all good. IMO they should be encouraged to explore whatever interests them, within certain boundries of course. (Sex, drugs, etc. -- those boundries are there not because of the burden of explaining (though your point is taken) -- but because it does pose serious dangers for the kids).

I think a lot of parents see "Disney animated feature" and think "great family event for my young children!" -- which is precisely Disney's aim... I personally believe that Disney continues to evolve in such a way that it embraces more and more "adult" (for lack of a better word) themes.

Besides, a shark eating fishies is greatly more comprehensible than the abstract human butchery that permeates our "entertainments" and leads our news-broadcasts.
Agreed 100%. But that of course doesn't make it OK, and doesn't diminish the fact that a shark devouring fish (well, more than just fish -- this was a family of human characters in fish form) is disturbing to a 4 year old. Maybe not every 4 year old, but I'd bet a whole lot of them.

The news and "entertainment" programs you allude to shouldn't come within a mile of very young children, IMO. I'm not suggesting there should necessarily be some kind of "cut off" age for any of these things... for the most part I say it's best left up to the family unit to determine what works for their lifestyle. But overall, parents should definitely be discerning about "children's" movies and entertainment, IMO....

I'm holding off on viewing "Nemo" for another reason: they somehow failed to include a giant squid. A scandalous omission.
And you would think they could have squeezed in a Mesonychoteuthis somewhere before the final cut. But they deserve some props for Pearl the octopus...
:octopus: :meso:

Tony,

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with subject matter that disturbs small children, or with exposing small children to such things. I do take issue with subjecting the very young to violent, upsetting imagery devoid of emotional consequence.

It might be helpful to look at the Japanese example. Japanese children see an awful lot of violent, scary imagery in anime and manga, but that imagery is usually not consequence-free. When people die, the survivors experience anger, grief and loss. Significantly, Japanese society is far less lethally violent than our own, owing to a host of factors, but the twinning of violence and consequence in their fictional media probably has something to do with it.

I'm not surprised that you engage your children directly when choosing entertainments, but I'd venture to say that most American parents don't. What draws my ire is the process by which the best, most sophisticated children's cinema (and literature) is bowdlerized to coddle the sensibilities of adults.

A four year-old will (probably) be upset by the stunningly swift annihilation of a fish-family by a shark, but that upset has a complementary component: if that four year-old's best friend's family is wiped out by a drunk driver, he or she will have an emotional reference point for an otherwise incomprehensible event; as a consequence, they'll be better able to comfort their friend. To paraphrase Thomas Harris: if random violence is a virus, than it's depiction in art may be the vaccine we use to defend ourselves. Frankly, I'm for giving children all the tools they can get their hands on.

As for the absence of huge squid in "Nemo," perhaps even PIXAR couldn't come up with a way to make 'em cute.

:roll:

Clem

A four year-old will (probably) be upset by the stunningly swift annihilation of a fish-family by a shark, but that upset has a complementary component: if that four year-old's best friend's family is wiped out by a drunk driver, he or she will have an emotional reference point for an otherwise incomprehensible event; as a consequence, they'll be better able to comfort their friend.
Great point and well said! However... To reiterate an earlier point of my own, I don't think I want my kids to have Disney as a frame of reference for such events. I'm not sure I fully agree with Disney's simplified sense of justice and their depiction of certain "bad" and "good" characters. Life is much more complicated than Disney presents it to be. And I'm sure Nemo swam off to a happy sunset of sorts, and in real life, that 4-year-old's best friend whose family was just wiped out by a drunk driver will not have his/her larger problems resolved within 90 minutes as Nemo did.

There are some valuable lessons in kid's entertainment, but a lot of them are a far too distilled, compacted and simplified to fit the medium's mold, not to fit reality. I suppose it wouldn't be so bad if kids weren't bombarded with such images and themes several times a day via TV, merchandising and the like. It's just too much IMO.

Also, to an earlier point I believe by Greg, I watched lots of Bugs, Daffy, Wiley Coyote, Tom & Jerry and Woody Woodpecker growing up, to name just a few. To Greg's point, I did not drop anvils on my sisters' heads or put explosives in my dad's mouth and masked it as a cigar, however, one of my sisters did jump off the roof of our house with an umbrella in hand in the infamous attempt to emulate Mary Poppins. :roll:

I had a friend a while ago who let his kid play DOOM with him, while listening to Rage Against the Machine, of all things. The 6-year-old would sing the song (if you know it) "Eff you I won't do what you tell me!" over and over again... but he knew it was a bad word, and he'd just kind of mumble the "eff" part (and RATM does no such cloaking or mumbling).

I thought that was quite a bit much... especially considering DOOM... remember what happens when you send a rocket launcher into an oil barrel with one of those monkey-men standing next to it? :shock: :yuck:

...except every little girl in the second grade class I went to give a talk to last week had a crush on Steve Irwin!
Greg

Ahem.... some 53-year-old little girls have a crush on him too :oops:

On the subject of violence and kids: A very complicated subject. I don't think there is a "one size fits all" answer -- it depends upon the kid. Against my wishes, my husband let our son play such computer games as DOOM and SPEAR OF DESTINY when he was quite young, and a few years ago he (our son) was very much into WWF (now WWE, thanks to a suit by the World Wildlife Foundation!) Wrestling on TV, which we used to watch together (I found it absolutely hilarious).

The upshot was that our squidling grew up to be one of the most non-violent adolescents in existence. In middle school he was physically harassed by bullies (who did so after school so the teachers couldn't be called to intervene) and he didn't even want to fight back until we told him it was OK to defend himself. Ironically -- though he was a brown belt in Tae Kwon Do -- he said that it was the wrestling holds he learned by watching WWF which helped him to defend himself successfully against the bad kids!

So, again, it depends upon the child's background. I took my son -- now 15 -- to see 8 MILE (the Eminem pic) in the theater this year, because he wanted to see it but with its R-rating he couldn't go alone. It had sex scenes, violence, and (of course) lots and lots of explicit language, in both dialogue and rap songs. Believe it or not, we both loved the film, which had a lot more depth and intelligence than its press might indicate. One of the things, for example, that my son commented on was the fact that -- although Eminem has been accused of homophobia -- in the film he cleverly defends a gay friend from his harassers by coming up with a perfect spontaneous comeback (in rap, naturally). We also talked about how Eminem took the wind out of a rap rival's sails by admitting (again, in a rap) all the things that the rival planned to use against him as a putdown.

My point is, perhaps a 15-year-old with a different upbringing might see the film as an incentive to curse out strangers, get into unprovoked fights, or have random unprotected sex. But a film of any kind includes more than what is seen onscreen -- it also includes what the viewer brings to it. That's why I believe in age restrictions but am opposed to censorship (with the exception of child porn or non-consensual sex) -- I believe it is the responsibility of the parent to judge what is or isn't appropriate for their child, because that always varies according to the child him/herself.

As for Disney animations, they are usually watered-down from the original versions. From what I gather, Grimm's fairy tales in their uncensored forms are pretty.... well, grim. On the other hand, every once in a while Disney throws in some dark stuff as well. In THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, the most shocking (to a child, anyway) song was a number called "Hellfire", in which the bad-guy judge confesses his sexual obsession with the Gypsy heroine Esmeralda. In mood and concept, it is almost identical to a song from SWEENEY TODD -- sometimes censored out of the stage version -- where the bad guy (also a judge!) flagellates himself with a whip while fantasizing about his young ward Johanna. I suspect -- again, depending upon the child and his/her age -- that a straightforward duel scene would be far less disturbing to a child than the very adult psychology behind "Hellfire".

A very important and interesting issue, though rather off-topic.

Have a ceph, anyone? :nautilus: :octopus: :squid: :meso: :ammonite:

The Tanster

I still say it's on-topic! :P

And regarding Hellfire, yes, most definitely! That was a creepy one. :goofysca:

This is all very interesting. I may have a faintly jaded point of view on these things, never having had children and lets face it, I probably never will now.

I see no problem with TV and film depicting death in childrens films providing it is tastefully done. I think children quickly recover from on-screen unpleasant events if they are presented with an element of hope and triumph over the fall. I remember being upset by Ben Kenobis' death on seeing Star Wars when I was seven years old in 1977 yet it was quickly forgotten by the time of the next action sequence. Bambi's mothers death was sad too for a child, yet the rest of the film was entertaining. Goodness knows how many on-screen deaths there were in Dr Who, a staple of seventies viewing for most of the children at school, yet in all these cases there was an element of hope. We knew that come the end, the main protagonist would survive and overcome the odds.

On-screen deaths certainly did not create a generation of psychopathic children in the seventies, and I don't think Disney's trend of including death should be necessarily loooked upon as a bad thing. Indeed, far more damage is done in the school playground through bullying and taunting, coupled with breakdown of relationships at home. It seems to me that children need to be exposed to a certain amount of darkness at an early age in order to begin to deal with real-world problems when they begin to arise. (I know I am speaking the obvious here). :grad:

In addition, Disneys films are primarily fantastical and are divorced from reality yet have to appeal to a discerning family audience. They require a modicum of dark imagery to appeal to the adults who are going to have to sit through an hour and a half of otherwise childish fare. How many adults would willingly take their children to see something like 'The Smurfs Movie' over 'Anastasia'. Adults probably generate so much of Disney's revenue that some adult material is a prerequisite!

Having said that, did anyone see Disneys Atlantis? Now that was a weird film. One character died from an internal haemorrage! It tried to be too ambitious, IMHO, and despite being a 'family' film somehow failed to really appeal to either adults or children. I really could not see exactly who that was aimed at! :goofysca:

Having said that, did anyone see Disneys Atlantis? Now that was a weird film. One character died from an internal haemorrage! It tried to be too ambitious, IMHO, and despite being a 'family' film somehow failed to really appeal to either adults or children. I really could not see exactly who that was aimed at! :goofysca:

I think it was aimed at all the Michael J. Fox fans -- present company included -- who were glad to at least hear him do a voiceover, since unfortunately it is doubtful he will ever be able to do a live-action film again. :cry:

Speaking of unexpected tragedies onscreen and offscreen, has anyone here ever seen the film HOOK, with Dustin Hoffman as the eponymous Captain and Robin Williams as a very grownup Peter Pan? (SPOILER WARNING ahead for anyone who hasn't yet seen the film and intends to rent it.)

For about three-quarters of the way through HOOK, all the bad stuff that happens to characters is of the fantasy-comedy type. However, towards the end, during a battle scene on the pirate ship, the leader of the Lost Boys -- a handsome teen named Rufio -- is fatally stabbed by Captain Hook. It was especially shocking, even for adult viewers, because the Rufio character was both appealing and youthful, and there was nothing earlier in the film to prepare the viewer for such an event.

This was quite different from a film such as, say, THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK, where it is common knowledge that the young girl and her family will ultimately fall into the hands of the Nazis; while tragic, it is not unexpected in the film's context. In the lighthearted, fantasy context of HOOK, however, the very realistic stabbing was practically an assault on the viewers, especially if they were young children.

This "shock tactic" can be used to great effect, but IMHO should only be done in a film directed towards an adult audience. (An example of the appropriate use of this technique occurs in the "mutant shark" adventure DEEP BLUE SEA, where at one point in the film something so unexpected happened that the entire audience jumped up and spilled their popcorn at the same time!)

I'm enjoying this discussion immensely, even though we should probably re-name the thread "A TONMO Garden of Non-Sequiturs"....

how about just calling it "Finding Other Things to Talk About"? :D


:cthulhu: :heart: :beer:

KRin, I would like to hear about when you met the head writer of B5 -- I don't remember his name, but I would consider him a genius for creating such a complex, believable future universe.
Tani

As I have a memory like one of those things with holes in it... and a damn cold... I think it was at the Science Fiction Worldcon in Melbourne in 1999. I be honest, the man was a bit of a tosser! Yes, B5 was a great show but I'm not sure it was a brilliant was he was making out! You have to remember he also wrote "Captain Power and the Rangers of the Universe" (or something like that).

I was more impressed to meet William Gibson in 1995 - I was his minder at another convention.

KRin (more tablets, more cough mixture please)

Regarding Finding Nemo: Just to clarify a couple things (clem might have pointed this out): Pixar is NOT Disney! Disney merely distributes their movies, and gets most of the ownership privileges of the movies. That’s one reason they’re different enough from traditional Disney stuff to be better. That’s also probably why this one got a bit edgier. Pixar is NOT Disney, has been VERY independent from day one, aggressively resists influence from Disney, and is currently trying to decide whether it even wants to continue its distribution partnership with Disney.

SPOILER ALERT:

The scene in question is the very opening scene. It involves Marlin (Nemo’s dad) and Coral (Nemo’s mom) discussing their new anemone on the edge of the reef–much like new parents discussing their brand new house, and their plans for the future, with a mixture of excitement and trepidation. We see that they’re expectant parents...there’s several hundred eggs stashed away in a little cove beneath the anemone. We know immediately this is a Bad Thing, because this movie is only about Marlin and Nemo. Sure enough, a barracuda, not a shark, appears. After a brief tense standoff, Coral attempts to rush to the eggs to guard them, Marlin attempts to stop her, Marlin gets slapped hard and knocked, unconscious, into his anemone, and we go black. He wakes up to find no Coral, and no eggs...save one, that miraculously is left behind. This is Nemo.

This is, I agree, remarkably scary for certain ages. But I must stress, we never SEE anything. It’s all through implication–scary toothy barracuda, you know Coral’s going to rush to the eggs, then everyone moves at once–and we wake up with the eggs and Coral gone. I don’t see it as THAT much more intense than the Bambi’s mother scene. But the movie has several other bits about equally scary. Some “on the wagon” sharks are present, and one loses control when he gets a whiff of Dory’s blood–a scary chase scene ensues. The deep-ocean anglerfish scene is very cool...but again, scary. The jellyfish scene is also scary. I don’t think Pixar failed to realize this was a notch higher in scariness than Toy Story, but I think they were confident enough that reviews and word-of-mouth like this would be sufficient to warn parents about very young kids. But I am NOT a parent...maybe that’s not enough for parents, yet I’m not sure how else parents can be better informed than to do as we are here. I’d rather not say “Pixar, Disney, Dreamworks, etc, you can’t make slightly edgier kids’ movies.” I think they should be able to if they want. Any ideas?

rusty

Regarding B5: Uh-oh...NOW the gloves are off! :twisted: :bonk: I confess my isolated American perspective limits my ability to understand words such as "tosser" but I gather from the context it's not precisely a compliment.

JMS is indeed brilliant...to a point. No one could have pulled off the little miracle that is B5 without a certain degree of genius. Through low budget, bleeding edge and often therefore questionable CGI, often mediocre acting, and repeated attempts by studios to just plain kill it (plus a run of remarkably bad luck) the show shone, primarily because it had such a persistent focus on a good story, maniacally enforced by JMS.

As for the quality of other shows...well, if YOU were asked to do Captain Power, what would YOU do? As a writer/director/producer, you’re always limited by what freedom you’re allowed, and you can’t just refuse to do anything except a B5-style project–you gotta eat, and you need practice anyway. Further, we all know from example that sometimes, a “genius” makes a movie...or...let’s say, THREE movies...movies about battles amongst the stars...that just plain blow us away, and then never really manage to do so again. So even if JMS’s other stuff before and after B5 (none of which I’ve seen) is not great, that doesn’t diminish my opinion of the show, or of him. I suspect Ridley Scott is this way...he CAN make really great movies, but it’s very hit-and-miss–the good movies seem almost accidental.

Now...I will say that from my readings on the subject (TONS of useful information and commentary from JMS himself can be found on The Lurker’s Guide to Babylon 5, at: http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/lurker.html ) I get the impression that JMS is not superficially warm. The way he responds to certain questions, and criticisms, and just general comments from him give me the impression that, although he’s not a jerk, one might think so upon a brief meeting. He'll speak his mind without too much diplomacy. I can’t explain it terribly well here. So I wouldn't be surprised if he's unimpressive upon meeting.

rusty

I’d rather not say “Pixar, Disney, Dreamworks, etc, you can’t make slightly edgier kids’ movies.” I think they should be able to if they want. Any ideas?
Oh yeah, definitely -- let me quickly say that I'm not suggesting that any regulations should be enforced or anything like that that would prevent these companies and their creatives from doing pretty much whatever they want. We do have that movie ratings organization (can't remember the acronym, something like RAII) to keep them in check and to inform parents whether it's appropriate for their kids, so that's all fine... and it's totally up to the parents to determine whether they want to subject their kids to such intensities or not. (However, there could be an argument that perhaps there's now a need for something lower than a "G" rating).

ANOTHER SPOILER ALERT:

Now, I haven't seen this movie, so I realize I'm producing quite a bit of hot air over something I've never seen, but here we are. But another neighbor told us that she took her 3 year old to see Nemo -- he was scared at various parts and sat on his mom's lap during certain parts. Apparently there's one idea that all sink, tub and toilet water leads to the ocean, so Nemo tries to find a way to get flushed to escape the pet store he's in (or some such). Eventually, I guess he does, and goes flushing through some dank, scary pipes. So the 3-year-old after the movie was crying/whining "please don't send me down the sink!!"

Well, I dunno what to make of that I guess. Kids have imaginations and they're going to see things that might scare them, in movies or in real life or wherever. It's up to the parent to soothe them, reassure them, and/or teach them to be careful.

Guess my point is that I believe a lot of parents / movie producers underestimate the psychological impact and effect that such imagery has on young children. They soak stuff in at that age and it is important to them, and makes a big impression, and does help formulate their thoughts. The whole idea with movies, IMO, is to entertain your kids, not to freak them out by exploiting the extremities of their emotions. That's why I think that the younger the child, the more "calming" programming they should be presented with. With every year of age, that bar can be lifted slightly higher, because we gain confidence and can do a better job at compartmentalizing and rationalizing as we get older.

*shrug!*

i had been thinking something for a couple months and then a week or two ago a movie critic hit it on the head.... the mpaa has gotten a bit liberal with its ratings, particularly with pg-13.... i know this isnt the same as a g, but i think theres a certain amount of trickle down.... as for something below a 'g' movie, once in a blue moon dont NR (not rated) movies come out? of course this could be on either extreme....

It's probably a pain to introduce or modify a rating system. Yet, toys often come with recommended ages on them, voluntarily done by the manufacturers. Dunno... "Rated G6?" "G" but preferably for kids 6 and older? Teletubbies would be G1, I suppose.

Yes, the ratings have drifted a bit in appropriateness. There's tremendous pressure to achieve or avoid a certain rating, as the movie industry has very specific knowledge of how many viewers they gain or lose based on a rating. Generally, lower (less than "R") is better, so LOTS of movies get shoehorned into PG13 that really should be R.

rusty

The matter of ratings is a tricky one, at least here in the US. For a long time here, parents would get all upset about nudity and sex in cinema, while casually taking their kids to see, e.g., blood-soaked RAMBO films. I personally am of the opinion that it is a lot healthier for kids to see a tasteful onscreen presentation of loving, consensual sex, than seeing those same people getting their throats slashed or their heads blown off.

I remember the big furor in 1968 (yes, I'm dating myself again :heee: ) over the brief nude scene in Zeffirelli's ROMEO AND JULIET, never mind that the young Verona couple were supposed to be married and so in love that in the end, of course, they give their lives for each other. I find it ridiculous that any parent would forbid their young son or daughter to see that beautiful interpretation of a Shakespeare tragedy -- unless they had a problem with the romanticization of suicide (which is an entirely separate, and not unreasonable, concern).

Fortunately, nowadays film violence is subject to ratings commensurate with those for film sex. But again, I believe that even in the context of violence, the individual parent should consider the effect on their child as an individual, as well as the overall value of the film. In historical films about war, it would be unrealistic and even reprehensible to sugar-coat man's appalling inhumanity to man. Unlike the RAMBO films in which the violence was merely gratuitous, in a brilliant Civil War film such as GLORY, both the violence and the racism accurately reflect the nature of the historical period, and make the heroism of the "colored" Union brigade that much more apparent.

:twocents: from a mom and movie fan,
Tani

Regarding B5: Uh-oh...NOW the gloves are off! :twisted: :bonk: I confess my isolated American perspective limits my ability to understand words such as "tosser" but I gather from the context it's not precisely a compliment.

He'll speak his mind without too much diplomacy. I can’t explain it terribly well here. So I wouldn't be surprised if he's unimpressive upon meeting.

rusty

Well, no, tosser is not a compliement but I do have a little more than one brief meeting to make that my opinion. Two friends of mine were the people who ran the B5 fan club here in Australia and had many dealings with the man. He was just a little pompous, thats all. Nice enough guy, but I just felt he looks down on the fans just a little. Yes he did create a series that was head and shoulders over anything avaialbale at the time in the science fiction TV field. I'll leave myself wide open here and say I prefer LEXX myself... (KRin runs for cover) :cyclops:

I'll leave myself wide open here and say I prefer LEXX myself... (KRin runs for cover) :cyclops:

No need to run for cover, KRin, you are not alone. :D LEXX was a hoot, even when it was difficult to determine exactly what was going on (or who was doing what to whom). For starters, Michael McManus and Xenia Seeberg were among the most breathtakingly beautiful human beings of either sex I've ever seen. (I don't know if there's any way to be objective about this, but if I were a guy I'd rather be stranded on a desert planet with "Xev" than with "Zev".) Also, Brian Downey's "Stanley Tweedle" was consistently hilarious, as was that endearingly annoying robot head "790". The plots were often incomprehensible, but always fun to watch.

IMHO there was a subtext to LEXX that went far beyond the surface of softcore space porn. The fact is that of the four main characters, each was the exact opposite of what their identities suggested. For example, Stanley -- the captain (by default) of a spectacularly powerful starship -- was in reality a petulant, cowardly wannabe, a slave to his hormones, lacking power or heroism. Kai, a walking corpse supposedly devoid of compassion and trained to kill without mercy, regularly performed acts of heroism and kindness on behalf of his fellow crewmembers. Xev, a gorgeous "love slave" whose body distracted most men (and occasionally women) from any of her other qualities, was often the most intelligent, resourceful, and fair-minded of all the characters. And "790" -- a disembodied electronic head whom one would expect to be a passionless calculator -- was a bundle of irrational emotions ranging from obsessive love to vengeful jealousy to whining sarcasm.

So, yes, there was redeeming social value in LEXX.... and even for those who couldn't grasp it, there was always that great theme song!

"V'yo hey ho, yo vaha ray...." (or something like that) :band:

this headline caught my eye:

Kids Be Warned: Don't Flush Your Fish
By The Associated Press
published 08:31 AM - JUNE 06, 2003 Eastern Time

Kids be warned: Flushing your pet fish down the drain will not send it safely into the ocean as depicted in the new computer-animated movie "Finding Nemo."

A company that manufactures equipment used to process sewage issued a news release Thursday warning that drain pipes do lead to the ocean - eventually - but first the fluid goes through powerful machines that "shred solids into tiny particles."

"In truth, no one would ever find Nemo and the movie would be called 'Grinding Nemo,'" wrote the JWC Environmental company, which makes the trademarked "Muffin Monster" shredding pumps.

In the unlikely event Nemo survived the deadly machines, the company added, he would probably be killed by the chlorine disinfection.


:goofysca: i smell a Pixar cross-over....Muffin Monsters Inc.


:cthulhu: :heart: :beer:

Grinding Nemo! LOL! :lol:

YEah, I did find the sewage treatment bit somewhat...farfetched. Ah well.

Krin...yup. That's the kind of impression I got. Wish I'd be able to get to know him anyway, but that's fandom for you... :bonk: I confess I'm just totally unfamiliar with LEXX...this was a cable show, I take it? I refuse to pay for the cable channels I really want...hence, I don't get them!

rusty

Lexx was on the scifi channel...should be on basic cable...call your provider and throw a fit!
Greg

I confess I'm just totally unfamiliar with LEXX...this was a cable show, I take it? I refuse to pay for the cable channels I really want...hence, I don't get them!

rusty

Hi Rusty --

Unfortunately, some of the best channels and shows are on cable (e.g., Discovery, Animal Planet, Sci-Fi, National Geographic, History, etc.) I assume that's because the increased income from individual subscribers allows the production values, scripts, and subject matter to be far better than those of network TV.

That being said, the fact is that -- similarly to network TV -- 90% of cable TV is garbage. (Of course, to quote the late s.f. master Theodore Sturgeon, "90% of everything is garbage.") And even some of the "good 10%" of cable shows would not have been possible to show on the networks, for various reasons.

In the specific case of LEXX, it simply wouldn't have gotten past the censors on network TV. I've seen network shows rated "M" (mature audiences only), and LEXX pushed the envelope way beyond that rating. Many of the episodes, if they were theater films, would have been rated somewhere between "R" and "NC-17". (The show was a joint Canadian-German effort, and I get the feeling that the media are a lot more liberal in those countries than they are here.)

Unfortunately, LEXX is no longer seen here -- I don't know if it was because they simply stopped making episodes, or what. The show is definitely an "acquired taste". However, if it's ever aired in re-runs, I would recommend it enthusiastically to those with open minds, strong stomachs, and a particularly twisted sense of humor. :twisted:

Kai's My Guy,
Tani

I confess I'm just totally unfamiliar with LEXX...this was a cable show, I take it? I refuse to pay for the cable channels I really want...hence, I don't get them!

rusty

Commercial TV here in Australian is worse than dreadful. I love my cable TV - it keeps me sane. Discovery Channel and The National Geograpgic Channel are my life savers.

That being said, the fact is that -- similarly to network TV -- 90% of cable TV is garbage. (Of course, to quote the late s.f. master Theodore Sturgeon, "90% of everything is garbage.") And even some of the "good 10%" of cable shows would not have been possible to show on the networks, for various reasons.

There are cable TV stations I have never watched. I get a basic package of about 15 channels.

(The show was a joint Canadian-German effort, and I get the feeling that the media are a lot more liberal in those countries than they are here.)

First series of 4 films was German-Canadian co-production. Season 4 was co - Canadian and English and was total garbage. Season 2 and 3 were made by the Donovan brothers from Halifax with support from Aliance-Atlantis

Unfortunately, LEXX is no longer seen here -- I don't know if it was because they simply stopped making episodes, or what.

Yep. Season 4 was the last and was made at the insistence of the Sci-Fi channel was a waste of film. The studio in Halifax was sold.

The show is definitely an "acquired taste". However, if it's ever aired in re-runs, I would recommend it enthusiastically to those with open minds, strong stomachs, and a particularly twisted sense of humor. :twisted:

I got into LEXX after watching a day of Star Trek: Next Generation episodes. In LEXX there are people having sex, eating, going to the loo and basically being human. It was just what I needed at the time!

I do apologise as I seem to have chopped off the original posters names.

KRin

Heya,

A little more on Anime/Manga... (:twocents:)

I am a HUGE anime and manga fan. I have spent more on Anime DVDs and Manga than I care to say. Much of my collection is Studio Ghibli films ("My Neighbor Totoro", "Spirited Away"), series such as "Cowboy Bebop", "Trigun", "Vision of Escaflowne", "Serial Experiments: Lain", movies such as "Jin-Roh", Osamu Tezuka's "Metropolis", and "Cardcaptor Sakura". I have seen many, many more series, so I have a unique perspective on it.

Its true that anime tends to show death as a pretty harsh subject, even when the villain him/herself dies. Violence is seldom ever gratuitous, even though this is not always the case. In the case of Disney, they walk a razor's edge when dealing with violence, and don't always do it well.

Animation is a funny thing. Its an art form that is seldom given the respect it deserves, even though it pushes the boundaries of reality in cinema. I used to watch anime for the look. Now I watch animation when the story is good. Pixar has good writers. To a lesser extent, so does Disney. But all pale to Studio Ghibli.

For those of you with children (small ones), I would suggest "My Neighbor Totoro" or "Kiki's Delivery Service". For those who are older, you might try "Spirited Away" or "Princess Mononoke" (major violence in the latter). I simply think you shouldn't always have to leave a theatre with your brain turned off.

"Nemo" sounds like a kick! I have to see it.

Sushi and Sake,

John

i liked trigun, even if the story is a bit short....havent gotten around to finishing jin roh....not a huge fan of cowboy bebop but defiitely see what your saying about the violence.... is metropolis in anyway related to the fritz lang movie?

:cthulhu: :heart: :beer:

Saw "Finding Nemo"... Loved it!

Anyone else notice that one of Nemo's buddies was a cirrate octo? 8)

Sushi and Sake,

John

Saw "Finding Nemo"... Loved it!

Anyone else notice that one of Nemo's buddies was a cirrate octo? 8)

Sushi and Sake,

John

Just saw it today, and yes, the little guy was in fact a Dumbo Octopus (Grimpoteuthis). Almost -- but not quite -- as cute as the real thing. Hmmm.... wonder if the inclusion of a Dumbo was an hommage to the eponymous elephant of Disney fame?

Tano :goldfish:

Tani,

Sweet! That's what I thought! I have a "Grimpy" poster at home... Oh! I forgot: I also have a Grimpoteuthis beanie that I bought at the Monterey Bay Aquarium a few years back. It has a friend - a Vampyrotheuthis beanie. I'll post the photos when I get home from Texas, if anyone wants to see them.

Grab shell dudes!

Crickey! Crocodile Hunter Live! This week on Animal Planet... I wonder if he's ever hit his head on a sea turtle? I have... It hurts... :bugout:

Sushi and Sake,

John[/i]

Heya,

A little more on Anime/Manga... (:twocents:)

I am a HUGE anime and manga fan. I have spent more on Anime DVDs and Manga than I care to say. Much of my collection is Studio Ghibli films ("My Neighbor Totoro",

I've just ordered another copy of this as my copy had faded to green and white, it was clear as a bell, just no colour!

"Spirited Away"), series such as "Cowboy Bebop"

I adore Cowboy Beebop! I'm watching it on cable and its close to the end, I think I'll buy the movie.

, "Trigun", "Vision of Escaflowne", "Serial Experiments: Lain", movies such as "Jin-Roh", Osamu Tezuka's "Metropolis", and "Cardcaptor Sakura".

Watched this just the other night on cable!

For those of you with children (small ones), I would suggest "My Neighbor Totoro" or "Kiki's Delivery Service". For those who are older, you might try "Spirited Away" or "Princess Mononoke"

I've just ordered this as well in the last week. It's on its way to me as I write.

John

I saw the "Matrix Reloaded" on Monday - it was an hour too long, the story was a little thin on the ground and there weren't enough squids in it.

KRin -who has tried to reply to the message within the message so my lines are in the above quote. Darn

there weren't enough squids in it.


250k isnt enough? picky picky picky :)

Hey there John!

I was watching some of CROC HUNTER LIVE last week, and it was great fun. One of the best surprises was when Dame Edna Everage showed up as a special guest. "She" is still going strong, purple Big Hair wig and all! Steve, completely straight-faced (I don't know how he did it!), introduced "her" as his "Auntie", and s/he greeted him with a big hug and a kiss. Not surprisingly, Dame Edna managed to get some hysterical double-entendres past the ANIMAL PLANET censors (obviously when they repeated the broadcast, nobody at the network bothered listening to what s/he was saying). I'd better not repeat them here -- just keep your fingers crossed that the censors don't catch on before they show it in re-runs. :wink:

Now believe it or not, there is a FINDING NEMO tie-in here: The voice of tough-guy Bruce, the shark who "falls off the fish wagon", is done by none other than Barry Humphries -- the male alter ego (well, actually, the other way around) of Dame Edna Everage. Talk about versatility!

Regarding Miyazaki: The first film of his I saw was MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO. It was many years ago when a friend of mine bought it for her little daughter, and I came over so that my son (just slightly older) could see it too. My friend and I also fell in love with it. I especially loved the references to Shinto (which appear to be in all Miyazaki's animé), e.g. the scene where the "big daddy Totoro" and his friends do a ritual to make the tree grow.

Subsequently, when PRINCESS MONONOKE came out, I rented it also. While it was quite beautifully animated, the plot was so convoluted that by the end of the film I had no idea what was going on. All I can think of is that the Japanese script lost something in the translation. Anyway, I wasn't as impressed as I was with TOTORO.

Later on, I found a copy of KIKI'S DELIVERY SERVICE on sale at a local variety store, and picked it up as I heard such good things about it. I liked it much better than PRINCESS MONONOKE -- it was a lot less ponderous and more comprehensible.

Most recently, I fell completely in love with SPIRITED AWAY. I consider it the second finest animated feature in the history of the medium (the first being Disney's FANTASIA). In addition to the magnificent artwork and animation, the story had the sort of depth and archetypal truth that one finds in an ancient myth or fairy tale. There were definite elements of ALICE IN WONDERLAND / THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS (another pair of books with profound meaning beneath the fanciful surface), and a brilliant coming-of-age theme that might have been straight out of Japanese classical mythology. The only problem I had with SPIRITED AWAY was that I wish there had been subtitled translations of all the signs and other Japanese writing seen in the film -- I get the feeling that information would have enhanced the meaning and subtler aspects of the story.

Anyway, I am now the delighted owner of a brand-new VHS copy of SPIRITED AWAY. I rarely buy videos (I'm much more of a book buyer), but since this one meant so much to me -- and since I had accumulated enough B&N Reward Points to get it 100% gratis -- there's no way I could have passed it up.

Later, 'gators....
Tani

Saw "Finding Nemo"... Loved it!

Nemo doesn't come out here until AUGUST!!!! Wah!!!

:x :x :x

Awwww.... :P

I think you'll like Nemo... It was a great Father's Day movie, and a lot of fun.

I have never seen a Miyazaki film I didn't like. Another Studio Ghibli director you might like is Isao Takahara, who has done wonderful films like Grave of the Fireflies, Heisei Tanuki Gassen Pon Poko (The Heisei-Era Tanuki War Pon Poko), and the enjoyable Only Yesterday. Takahata's works tend to be more serious in nature, but are wonderful films.

Anime can appeal to pretty much all age groups, but do exercise caution: Japanese animation covers the ENTIRE cinematographic spectrum. There are WONDERFUL children's films, great dramas, comedy... And yes, pornography as well. Those films are called "Hentai" or "Ecchi" (a Japanese phonetic approximation of the letter "H"). These are best avoided.

Happy film-watching!

Sushi and Sake,

John (The Tanuki Gessenden)

Oh, oops...

HI THERE TANI!!! :lol:

Sushi and Sake,

John

T -- August!? I think my kids will be old enough to see it by then... :D

Heh heh... Might be out on DVD by then.... :P

AAAARGH, mean, mean, mean!!! :evil:

Of course it's only fair that some marine stuff should happen in the Northern Hemisphere first, I suppose... :P

Uh... SOME?!?!? :shock:

Maybe its too cold for you out in my neck of the woods, but there are discoveries yet to be made in the cold, dark depths! :heee:

What?! Not going to let a little hypothermia risk stop you from diving out here, are you?

Suhsi and Sake (to warm you up after a cold northwest dive)

John

I was watching some of CROC HUNTER LIVE last week... One of the best surprises was when Dame Edna Everage showed up as a special ....
Tani
ON behalf of all Australian, I apologise for the Crocodile Hunter and we can only hope that he is one day eaten by one of the poor creatures he has been poking.

We are not all like that - some of us can even manage to speak a form of English understood by those overseas.

Do I suffer from cultural cringe? You bet.

KRin

ON behalf of all Australian, I apologise for the Crocodile Hunter and we can only hope that he is one day eaten by one of the poor creatures he has been poking

KRin,

There's no need to apologize for Mr. Irwin. Just the other night he supplied a well-needed laugh, as he was bitten repeatedly by a snake. Few things cheer me more than the sight of an annoying human being bitten repeatedly.

I wonder if elements of the Australian press and public will take umbrage at "Finding Nemo." Locating the plot's heart of darkness in Sydney(!) was an unusually specific choice. When the film opens down there, please let us know if it raises any hackles. If the Australian government retaliates by re-naming American cheese "Freedom cheese," let us know about that, too.

:wink:

Clem

i think the only reason to watch him is hoping he gets bit....maybe im a being a tad morbid, but at least i admit i look at crashes along the road, at least when im not behind schedule...

Heh! Freedom cheese...good one...

I think they chose Sidney just because they wanted a nice fancy reef and a familair-to-their-main-audience location. Either that, or they just wanted to work in the opera house... :wink:

rusty

Oh, oops...

HI THERE TANI!!! :lol:

Sushi and Sake,

John

HIYA JOHN!

Don't worry, I didn't think you'd forgotten about me. Anyway, I was just posting intentionally annoying stuff to the Haiku thread and hoping that Steve-O' doesn't see it till tomorrow when I can come up with some good retorts....

:wink: