Yay! A Paddington Bear movie!

Cafe Society
1

I’ve loved the Paddington Bear stories ever since I was a kid and caught the wonderful Paddington shorts on Nickelodeon’s Pinwheel (the stop-motion ones with Sir Michael Hordern narrating). I always got a huge kick out of the way nobody in London thought a four-foot talking bear was the slightest bit weird. I’ve always wondered what has been taking them so long in making a Paddington movie.

Well, it seems like they’re finally doing it!

The synopsis sounds good. They are apparently going on an original script rather than do any one of the Michael Bond books. This makes sense when you consider that the books (like the Mary Poppins books) are very episodic, with each chapter being one of Paddington’s escapades. Like Disney realized when adapting Mary Poppins, they needed a story thread to carry a whole movie. This taxidermist storyline sounds as good as any. At least it seems as if they are keeping the basic backstory and structure, and that’s what’s important. (And I like the idea of Paddington listening to the BBC in Peru, and of Aunt Lucy being inspired by an English explorer who Paddington wants to meet.)

Oh, and they’ll be missing an opportunity if they don’t cast John Cleese as Mr. Curry…

2

Hope I’m not breaking any rules by bumping my own thread, but now that the teaser trailer’s been released, I thought it would be appropriate.

Looks cute, doesn’t it?

The cast is set…Colin Firth as the voice of Paddington, Hugh Bonneville (Downton Abbey) as Mr. Brown, Jim Broadbent as Mr. Gruber, Julie Walters as Mrs. Bird, Nicole Kidman as the wicked taxidermist who wants to make Paddington a part of her collection…and Peter Capaldi as grouchy neighbor Mr. Curry. (If it couldn’t have been John Cleese or Hugh Laurie, I’m glad it’s him. As long as he doesn’t go full Malcolm Tucker on Paddington…)

The production team includes David Heyman, one of the Harry Potter producers. So all the credentials look good.

Plus, from what I’ve read, they’ve been trying to give the movie a timeless look despite the fact that it takes place in the modern day. For example, they’ve re-created the look of Paddington Station from fifty years ago, despite the fact that the train we see looks modern.

But here’s what I don’t get. Some of the comments on pages where this trailer has been posted, or on the YouTube threads, squawk about how “Hollywood is going to ruin another part of my childhood! It’s going to be awful!”

This despite the fact that absolutely nothing in the trailer hints at any disrespect for the original whatsoever. So why the negativity?

(Some have sniffed over the fact that they’re using CGI. I mean, how DARE they use the latest movie technology in the latest movies! Is there something inherently bad about CGI?)

3

Its easier to guess that a hollywood offering is going to suck and ruin someones childhood memories, and then be pleasantly surprised if its great.

Declan

4

The only thing that makes me a tiny bit sad from watching the trailer is that I won’t get to see the movie with my mom.

She brought me several Paddington books and an 18" plush Paddington home from a trip to England in 1973. I still have the books. She read them to me, and I’ve reread them dozens of times. They’re just nice stories.

5

I saw the trailer this afternoon before Mr. Peabody and Sherman. (Hey, don’t laugh. It was actually pretty good.) The sprog thought the train station was King’s Cross because of the “Harry Potter” name, but all I had to see was “Peru” to know it wasn’t.

I’m really looking forward to this and it’ll be interesting to see if it can do the original Michael Bond stories justice.

6

…was just going to start a thread titled “Paddington Bear Trailer made me laugh out loud”, but saw this thread here and thought it would be better to bump this.

And it really did make me laugh out loud. Looks very British, and very funny.

7

The train is actually from the 70s, which just adds to the timelessness.

8

Hermione writes:

> . . . nobody in London thought a four-foot talking bear was the slightest bit
> weird . . .

Have you seen The Muppets or Ted?

9

I’m looking forward to it. I got a bunch of Paddington Bear and Olga da Polga books when I was sick with chicken pox as a child. Don’t know that I can recall individual stories at this point, but I have warm memories of them.

10

My reaction to the new trailer: mixed-to-good.

Some have complained about how they’ve upped the slapstick in this particular scene (which is based on one from the books). But it’s not as if the original books didn’t have more than their share of slapstick (tell me that wallpapering oneself into a room, getting a power mower stuck up a tree, or accidentally sawing a kitchen table in half wouldn’t be out of place in The Three Stooges!).

I can’t say I’m CRAZY about the earwax joke, but compared to some other examples of grossness that have been shoehorned into kids’ movies, it’s pretty tame. So is a non-scatological toilet joke (what some people don’t seem to realize is that “toilet humor” entails more than just the mere presence of a toilet).

So I’m not as down on moments like these as some commenters are, but I do hope that they’re not going to be indicative of the movie as a whole. Fortunately, if history’s any indicator, many early trailers AREN’T indicative of their movies. Just look at that first trailer for Frozen, for example! Or Disney’s 2009 A Christmas Carol. Would you have guessed, seeing its trailer, that it would be one of the darkest, most book-faithful adaptations there was? So as long as the over-the-top stuff moments are few and far between, I’ll take it.

What gets me are the commenters who complain about CGI as a matter of course. One said that the use of CGI instead of a puppet proved that “the industry has no soul”; another said that they should do it in stop-motion or not at all. Look, I’d have been happy to see Henson’s Creature Shop do Paddington, but I’m not going to write it off on principle because it’s CGI. It can be done well or badly…and so far this looks pretty good. I just hope the “NOTHING must change, EVER” crowd won’t hurt the movie.

The pluses: I like the look of Paddington. Some have said they don’t think he looks as Paddington should, but I disagree…if you look at Peggy Fortnum’s original illustrations, he seems to have the same proportions. I like his eyes and his facial expressions.

More to the point, I LOVE the bit about his misunderstanding the sign. That is VERY Paddington-ish and raises my hopes that the writers (an uncredited Emma Thompson among them) get Paddington. I also take heart in the fact that Michael Bond has given the script his seal of approval and has apparently filmed a cameo.

I also love this newest poster. This looks exactly like I’d have imagined a movie Paddington to look. He’s a bit cleaner and fluffier here…and THERE’S the duffle coat we know and love!

Now, when do we get to see a clip of Paddington interacting with Peter Capaldi’s Mr. Curry?

11

The may have been built in the 70s, but they are still very much in use, and I travelled in one of them out of Paddington station just last week. :slight_smile:

I think my problem with this (and my overall reaction to the trailer is about the same as yours) is that it presents Paddington in the guise of an ignorant bumbling yokel, something that he’s not. He’s a reasonably sophisticated bear, and isn’t in the business of wrecking bathrooms or not knowing what a toothbrush is. I also worry that it means much more slapstick humour in the final movie, rather than understated subtlety.

That one is brilliant. It absolutely made me snort out loud, and the expression, the timing, the viewpoint… just perfect!

12

Colin Firth is no longer doing the voice of Paddington. Colin Firth leaves Paddington Bear film - BBC News

Personally, I think this is a good move. Paddington is a young bear; he needs a youthful voice. Colin Firth sounds too old, IMHO.

13

That was my thought, too. The voice I heard in the trailer was completely inappropriate.

I’d go with someone small in stature to give the appropriate scale. Bob Hoskins would’ve been good, if he wasn’t unfortunately deceased. (nearest equivalent, Jason Statham… probably not quite right)

How about Tony Robinson? Or Michael Sheen? Or Andy Serkis.

14

It seems to me that it’s drawing on the original source material fairly faithfully.

15

The whole voice change is a bit of a surprise…just a few days ago the production team was praising Colin’s voice.

I love Colin Firth, but I’m not so sure I’d have liked him as the voice of Paddington…something about his pitch.

I wouldn’t mind seeing either of co-star Peter Capaldi’s immediate predecessors voice Paddington. Both David Tennant and Matt Smith have proven they can do childlike and innocent.

Or if you want to go even farther back, maybe Paul McGann or Peter Davison.

Hugh Laurie was apparently approached before to do the voice; maybe they’ll do so again. In his natural English accent, he can sound gentle and earnest. (Prince George, anyone?)

Then there’s Tom Hiddleston, who can also sound guileless, innocent and likable. After all, we are talking about the portrayer of a character who tried to kill his brother, tried to usurp a throne, mounted an alien invasion of Earth that was responsible for hundreds if not thousands of casualties…and swooning fangirls insist he’s just a misunderstood bunny rabbit. If THAT’S not someone who can play it gentle and likable, I don’t know what is.

What I can’t help but wonder is…why did they release that infamous Buckingham Palace still(the one that got morphed into the “Creepy Paddington” meme) first? It really doesn’t look anything like the finished product as we see it in the trailer(way too tall for one thing), and it looks awfully cheap and hastily put together. Why release something first that’s not overly indicative of the character’s look? If I’d been them, I’d have released that close-up poster I linked to upthread before the new trailer or anything else…Paddington looks much cuter and more appealing and people wouldn’t be going into the new trailer with “Creepy Paddington” on the brain.

16

Why not Tom Baker?

17

Well, since that isn’t the original source material, it shouldn’t be a basis for comparison! However, you are absolutely right in that it is actually a reasonable adaptation from the actual source. I’d forgotten about this incident, but it’s good to go back and read all of this. He most definitely does have a bathing accident, but nothing involving earwax or bathtubs down the stairs.

18

It’s Ben Whishaw.

Good choice IMO. As I said before, as much as I like Colin Firth, I had to do some mental stretching to imagine his voice as Paddington’s. But Ben has a more innocent, earnest sound to his voice that will serve the character well. I was rooting for Tom Hiddleston, but Ben is a good fit.

(But it makes me grin that Ben is apparently forever linked with the name “Bond”…)