"Widya Santoso" <wsantoso@nyx.net> wrote in message
news:1122192857.296415@irys.nyx.net...
"Dave Baranyi" <a_nospam.b_nospam@sym_nos_p_am_atico.ca> writes:

Hey! You came back too soon! The FMA movie starts this weekend! If I
hadn't
just bought a new car I might have been tempted to take a cheap flight to
Tokyo just to see it...<g

Dave Baranyi

(Don't think that I wasn't considering that for real for a little bit...)

Was your wife and daughter privvy to such discussion?

I mentioned it to my wife after I took delivery of the car. She's used to my
eccentricities and knows that I (usually) don't make really big decisions
without her being part of the process. For instance, I did take her along to
test drive the new car (a C230 Sports Coupe in "Mars Red") before I bought
it. <g

But let me tell you, if somebody at work needs to visit the Tokyo office
during the next few weeks, I'm definitely volunteering. <L

Dave Baranyi

"Valiant" opens this Friday. Let's see how well that film will do.

["Valiant"]

...And why do certain Paul Winchell cartoon themes always spring to mind
whenever I see the trailer?

Um, I don't get your reference.

...Ask somebody over 30.
(helping the 70's Saturday-morning deprived)

Well, I'm over 40 and you lost me altogether!

I know who Paul Winchell was, but what shows themes are you thinking
of?

Chalk it up to premature senior moment...

Captain Nerd wrote:

["Valiant"]

...And why do certain Paul Winchell cartoon themes always spring to mind
whenever I see the trailer?

Um, I don't get your reference.

...Ask somebody over 30.
(helping the 70's Saturday-morning deprived)

Well, I'm over 40 and you lost me altogether!

I know who Paul Winchell was, but what shows themes are you thinking
of?

Chalk it up to premature senior moment...

sigh> Never mind, I'll save the jokes about carrier pigeons till the
movie comes out. :/

Valiant drops a turd this weekend at the b.o.

Valiant
$6,090,000 on 2,014 screens
$3,023 per screen

Ouch. Of course, I forgot it was even coming out until Thursday

Information taken from Brandon Gray's
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

2 23 The Corpse Bride $19,145,480 +4,832.3% 3,204 +3,199 $5,975 $19,656,451
24 17 Valiant $322,782 -55.4% 541 -408 $596 $18,855,124
26 28 Madagascar $241,883 -11.4% 323 -1 $748 $192,664,956
99 101 Howl's Moving Castle $4,265 -8.1% 14 +3 $304 $4,705,184

A pretty good wide release debut for "The Corpse Bride", along with a
strong rating at rottentomatoes.com. Heck, it's already made more money than
"Valiant".

- Juan F. Lara
http://bellsouthpwp.net/l/a/lara6281/intro.html

Are Tim Burton's films still done with traditional stop motion
animation, or was this a CG film?

Terrence Briggs, noting how Jim Henson's troops probably scared
themselves looking at Monsters, Inc.

But I didn't like the story. The first part was all about haggling over
arranged marriages, about appropriate behavior, marriage etiquette, yawn. I
wondered if kids were getting bored with these dull topics. Emily the corpse
bride had no personality at all. She just walked through the film, giving
little idea as to what her motivations and feelings are. Also, I didn't know
beforehand that this was a production musical. With long unnecessary
production numbers ( the song Emily has about herself and the song right before
the dead rise up especially are big wastes of time ). Emily even has an
annoying sidekick! This movie then came off like a dinosaur thawed out from
the early 90's.

Ah, the NightmareBeforeChristmasSaurus, that they tried to revive and
replicate from fragments of DNA...

Not really. "The Nightmare Before Christmas" was more like an opera than
a production musical. The singing was nearly constant in that movie.

I also
don't recall any annoying sidekicks in "Nightmare". In contrast "The Corpse
Bride" felt like one of the standard production musicals that Ashman and Menken
did well from "The Little Mermaid" to "Aladdin", and then Disney repeatedly did
much too often after Ashman died.

Walt Disney had published its "Notre Dame de Paris". The whole
scenario is
derived from Victor Hugo work.

I've not seen one word reminding the autorship (I saw it years ago,
but it
struck me).
Did Disney people believe they were the creators of that scenario, or
did they
want to avoid reminding they were not the storytellers?

Scientology uses some artworks to sell better its scam services. I've
not seen
scientology reminding who was their author.

Exemple; Impact 48, page 6. Scientology is using M.C.
Escher famous "Night and Day" engraving, but does not ack its
authorship.
True enough, Escher was not a scientologist...
But at the end of the page, the usual "copyright" is... copyright c
1993, FSSO.
Therefore we must think that Escher's works are now scientology
property!


r

Odo 5435 wrote:

Miyazaki himself prefers dubbed versions of his films as he feels
the subtitles detract from the animation. But having only ever
seen dubbed versions it would be nice to make my own comparison.
Dubbed animation generally works better than in live action films
as lip syncing is not so great a problem.

I don't really understand this, because I cannot stand watching a
dubbed version of a foreign language movie. If the director has
gone through the trouble of finding appropriate actors for the
movie, why abandon them for second-rate foreign actors,

especially since they usually make the dialogue sound corny,

Well, since Miyazaki animated "The Hobbit", one of the
earliest Japanimation flicks,

Hayao Miyazaki is considered to be the "Walt Disney" of Japan

Conments like that illustrate how little thought goes into people's
appraisal of Walt Disney films, regardless of whether you include only the
films Walt himself was involved with. Miyazaki's films are sophisticated,
adult storytelling, even the ones often dismissed as "mere" children's
films
like Totoro. Disney films are simplistic. I would never equate the two.

Just as your response shows YOU'RE looking at this through rose color
glasses, and lack the true ability to "equate."

First off I said WALT DISNEY (period) as in the person who died in 1966, not
the company. In his heyday he was as cutting edge and ground breaking as
Miyazaki is now.