Is it just me, or was the movie blatantly missing an important scene?
It seems they cut a scene early on of Jon playing with a toy train set and Garfield showing that he knows how to use it to screw with the trains. Garfield actually mentions that Jon owns one during the train station scene, and it’s pretty easy to put the pieces together, but it’s hard to believe that they didn’t write a scene to support that.
That said, I wish they made Jon Arbuckle like he was in the comics – Breckin Meyer was still a fantastic choice for the role, but I would have at least liked to see him put on a polka-dot necktie and a plaid blazer for his date. The only real Jon-appropriate line in the movie was when Garfield said, “You went in for a date and came out with a dog? That’s bad even for you, Jon.”
Check out this fascinating article from Slate about the creation of Garfield. Turns out Jim Davis designed Garfield specifically to be unoffensive and marketable. And has been very clever about keeping Garfield from being over exposed. During the height of the Garfield suction cup plushy fad, he deliberately cut production in order not to provoke an anti-Garfield backlash.
There was an amusing storyline in the comic strip Pearls Before Swine a few weeks ago where the character of Rat holds the comic strip hostage. Rat threatens to read off horrible Garfield one-liners unless his demands are followed through. When that doesn’t work, he reads from “Cathy”.
I could have sworn that Garfield used to be funny and follow actual storylines. Either way, I would still rather read Garfield than Family Circus any day.
Cartoonist: How about this? We have Garfield on the table. One of the mice says something and Garfield, get this, says, “I hate Mondays”.
Davis: I love it! Let’s go with it.
The review I read* in the paper of this movie said that it was a very blatant rip off of Toy Story 2. The reviewer practically said the TS2 folks (Pixar?) should be suing over it.
vanilla (or daniel), if you’ve seen both, did you notice this?
*I enjoy reading reviews of movies that are so bad they get one or fewer stars.
Oh my…just saw the interview. Definitely one of the more bizarre “late night” interviews that I’ve seen. Something tells me that unless Stewart does some serious smooth talking behind the scenes, JLH won’t be coming back anytime soon. God, I was in stitches- and while I think Stewart’s rather odd humor was all in good fun, I can’t help but feel sorry for JLH.
Forgot about that. I just thought they did that to save money on the CGI budget by not having to render characters for a scene or two (same as when Garfield hid in the clothing of a woman at the dog show).
Actually, I think her main reaction was “shock” more than anything else. I mean, it appeared that she was trying to be a sport and laugh along, but it certainly seemed to me that she felt she was being ambushed. There was definitely some tension in the air. I wonder if Stewart had pre-planned his approach or if it was just a spur of the moment thing.
And I guess I’ll have to scratch out “My dog would like to eat your morbidly obese chihuahua” from my list of pick-up lines.
I saw that show too, and I thought she handled it with grace and good humor. She didn’t come right out and say “work is work”, but she said nothing to defend the movie either.
The clip they showed was nothing that would entice anyone to see the movie, although Garfield was cute. If we assume they chose a “good” clip, what can you think about the rest of the movie?
I’d like someone to answer Jon’s question. Why a Garfield movie now? Because they can?
Garfield isn’t over-exposed. Riiiiiiiiiiiight. If you want an example of a cartoonist who kept his characters from being over-exposed, you should consider Bill Watterson’s refusal to license his characters for ANYTHING.
Quoted from the linked article:
Am I the only one who finds Davis’ disdain for creating quality product mind-bogglingly sad?
There’s a difference between clutching your strip close to your chest and yelling “MINE!!!” and saying “People like this strip, and they will want merchandise. So there will be merchandise, but let’s try not to take it too far.”
Besides, the absence of Calvin and Hobbes merchandise is probably the sole reason the Milne estate and/or the House of Mouse haven’t sued the righteous fuck out of Watterson’s plagiaristic ass.
Not as sad as taking a third-party inference as a Gospel quote from Davis.
Nobody’s quoting gospel. I quoted an op/ed portion of an article that backs it up with a report that’s already been quoted in this thread, but here it is again for your benefit:
So until Slate publishes a retraction, I stand by my lament for lost creativity. And for the record, a great amount of what we ALL presume to know comes by third-hand account (if not fourth-hand, fifth-hand, etc.) You may recognize these instances as “books,” “news,” and “school.” But ironically, that doesn’t even apply in this case: I have read the strip myself (first-hand experience) and find it bland and utterly uncreative.
Before I rip this to shreds, I want to make sure that you are actually saying that this sums up Watterson’s motivations. Please advise, because I do know "the sole reason for the absence of Calvin & Hobbes merchandise and it ain’t what you think it is…
I can only presume you are under the assumption that Calvin imagining his stuffed toy to life was copied from Milne’s Pooh stories where Christopher Robin imagines his stuffed toys to life. If this is the case, (a) you are vastly underestimating the elements that make Watterson’s work what it is and (b) you don’t understand is that “ideas” are not protected under copyright law. and are therefore unable to be actionable in court. I don’t know why you think Disney would have any claim, unless you think that the pictoral representation of Tigger is basis for Hobbes. But I know even you would accede that if you don’t color a tiger—stuffed or otherwise—orange with black stripes, it ain’t going to look like a tiger.
You don’t know how the arrangement works or how great Davis’s part is in it. I wouldn’t be shocked if said other cartoonist is there as a jumpstarter, chucking basic ideas at Davis who then bats back a week’s worth of scripts. You, however, chose to read it as “the cartoonist brings Davis a load of finished product which he then okays”, despite there being no evidence for this and it not even being implicit in your quote.
It’s hard to stay fresh for 26 years no matter what you’re doing. OTOH, if you’re out to say that the 25th birthday celebration week where Garfield meets his 1978 self was “uncreative” then you’re wrong. As far as creativity goes, it’s in a rut but has flashes of brilliance.
Do you think you could perhaps take time out from your busy schedule of acting like a six-year-old and chanting “I know something you don’t know, nee ner nee ner nee ner!” to tell us, or would that be too much bother?
I’ve read Watterson’s work, and what it is IMHO is a load of tripe. It’s what the sadults had to lionise before they had Harry Potter.
Disney, probably not; they were an afterthought mentioned only because I’m not sure if they own the copyrights to the books as well as sole merchandising and screen rights. But the books themselves … as I said, I’ve leafed through a Calvin and Hobbes collection, and there was nothing I saw that wasn’t Christopher Robin and Tigger with the serial numbers filed off. Ideas can’t be copyrighted, but characters damn well can and are.
God, I was in stitches- and while I think Stewart’s rather odd humor was all in good fun, I can’t help but feel sorry for JLH.