View Full Version : Where the Wild Things Are

03-26-2009, 01:30 AM
The first trailer for Spike Jonze's upcoming Where the Wild Things Are has hit Apple Trailers!



This is a film that's been a long time coming, and one that's recently seen a bit of turmoil. Spike Jonze turned in a film that the studio was a bit concerned over, being somewhat dark, with a main character who is at times thoroughly unlikable, and not at all your ordinary family film.

The author of the original book, Maurice Sendak, had approached Spike Jonze to do the film - Before Spike he had never quite found anyone fitting to do the book justice.

Trailer looks interesting to me. I love Arcade Fire too, so can't complain there.
It's not quite what I expected though - Somehow I was expecting a more quiet, haunting tone. Terrance Malick for Kids. The trailer paints the film to be something of a playground romp - lots of playing, lots of fun.

I can't wait for this film to come out. I'm an old fan of the book, and Spike Jonze is an extremely capable director. Looking forward to it!

03-26-2009, 01:34 AM
Oh yeah! This is one of the best childrens books ever! Man, this brings back memories...

03-26-2009, 03:38 AM
Really looking forward to this. The trailer is sweet!

03-26-2009, 08:39 AM
I'm very curious to see it, but I'm a bit skeptical.

Spike Jonze directing is why I'm holding out some hope.

03-26-2009, 11:13 AM
Looked the guy up on imdb ...

I loved "Being John Malkovich" and the "Sabotage" video - the former actually strikes me as relating quite nicely to the mood of the Wild Things book.

"Jack*ss" however is not my cup of tea at all - though I can see why some would love it, I'm probably just too old for that sort of thing.

Anyway, I haven't seen the trailer but I reckon it's likely to be cut in a fashion that will appeal to the young fun clientele.

03-27-2009, 03:23 AM
tameturtle, don't worry about Spike Jonze's ties with the jacka.ss (seriously? ******* is censored?) crowd being a sign of things to come in Wild Things. He's actually a highly-respected independent filmmaker who's been privelaged enough to be a regular director for possibly the most interesting screenwriter working today, Charlie Kaufman. Jonze was to be the original director of Synecdoche, New York, and collaborated with Kaufman to come up with some of the original concepts behind the movie. Because he was busy with Wild Things when the film came time to be shot, Kaufman made the movie his directorial debut. The guy's even been nominated for a Best Director oscar.

He's one of only a few directors who I feel would do right by this book and its author. He was the director-of-choice of the author himself, who's been in talks with getting this movie made since 1990 - but no director - until now - has ever been the right fit.

The more I watch this trailer, the more endearing it becomes to me. In a such a short trailer, it seems to do a spectacular job of capturing the fantasy of lonely childhood make-believe. This has climbed to the absolute top of my most-anticipated movie list.

03-27-2009, 06:02 PM
Jonze was to be the original director of Synecdoche, New York, and collaborated with Kaufman to come up with some of the original concepts behind the movie. Because he was busy with Wild Things when the film came time to be shot, Kaufman made the movie his directorial debut.

This movie is to blame for Kauffman directing Synecdoche? :mad:

Seriously, I wanted to like that movie, it was interesting, but I really didn't enjoy it. I might give this it s second chance to see the longer version Kauffman wanted. However, I think Kauffman should stick to screen writing, he's so **** good at it. (oh, and Michelle Gondry should stop writing, they should get back together, it worked once)

Back on topic: The trailer was very cute, but I remember the booking being pretty spooky, is that feeling going to be in the movie for more than 30 seconds?

03-31-2009, 07:36 PM
I don't think there IS a longer version of Synecdoche that Kaufman wanted. What you saw was his film. There were some rumors of a 4-hour cut or something to that effect, but he squashed those fast and furiously. There's no longer cut - There was never a 4 hour cut, though the initial assembly, which is never considered to be a working cut for anyone but the director and editor to see, came out to around 4 hours. It's pre-rough cut.

I do consider Synecdoche in the same category as The Science of Sleep and Inland Empire - movies that were not well-received critically, and that represent a fiercely independent vision of the filmmaker. Out of the 3, I think Synecdoche succeeded the most. What it does best is render an internal world for its main character, without voice over. We learn who he is by being locked inside his brain.

The problem with that is, and this is where most of the negative response comes from, he happens to be a pathologically depressed, bleak, self-centered wreck of a man. It's a hard brain to be trapped inside for 2 hours. A bit like Tideland - the unpleasantness can just get to be too much.

"Enjoyable" is one of the last things Synecdoche is. But I was mesmerized by it like I am with very few others. It did something very very few movies can do. I was swept away in this experience of a man dissolving completely, and told in such a new way, where we see his thoughts but don't hear any voice over.

And, to bring this thread back on topic:
big blue dong.
Whoops. Thought I was in the Watchmen forum.

Properly back on topic:
Jim Henson Company looks to be back in action in classic form with their work on this movie.

04-01-2009, 08:06 AM
I saw this trailer a couple of days ago! I loved it. As a comment I saw, and I quote, "PLEASE DONT SUCK!".

04-01-2009, 01:52 PM
I've got fairly high hopes for this film as well. Can't say it was a childhood favorite, but I certainly liked it. If anyone can pull it off it's Spike Jonze...

04-01-2009, 03:01 PM
Wait... do i know that book...
*nostalgic shock*
That's probably the best children book existing...


10-08-2009, 07:28 PM
Well we all seem to agree that Spike will likely do a great job with this (although I think there are other capable directors out there who could do the book justice as well). I love the book, and the effects team has really done a fantastic job re-creating them as living breathing creatures. Trailer 2 looks great as well.

10-08-2009, 10:46 PM
Haha, I forgot I even made this thread!

This is right around the corner now! And every new trailer I've seen has only gotten more more excited about it. I have a friend who's very skeptical, he sees the trailers and wonders "where is the conflict?", thinking it won't be a proper movie.

Meanwhile I'm thinking "PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't be a proper movie!!"
I'm sure Spike's got something special cooked up. I'm undoubtedly excited about this. I'm much more psyched about this year's upcoming movie releases than I am about upcoming videogame releases.

10-17-2009, 07:03 AM
Well I just got back from this movie. I feel like this is more for the grownups who grew up with the book, looking back on childhood, rather than being for children in the throes of it. I wonder what 9-year-old boys would think of it. The 9-year-old boy in me loved the first half and didn't care much for the second.

I feel like they missed a ton of opportunities, all of my favorite images from the book, and certainly the most striking and memorable ones, make no appearance whatsoever in the movie. They toned everything down to make it seem more real.

The kid playing Max did a great job, I thought. He reminded me of myself when I was 9, and I bet this happens to nearly everyone who sees the movie. He very rarely comes across seeming like he's acting - the only places are in the occasional area where he has to growl and snarl and be wild, and sometimes it seems like he's a bit uncomfortable doing it.

Anyway, overall this is a worthwhile movie. I'll be honest, it didn't blow me away. It starts to drag, and get bogged down in all the little conflicts among the beasties. This stuff was nowhere near the book. For a little kid's fantasy, there's a lot of grown-up dilemmas going on, which feels a little bit like padding to me. But then again, this is a 13-page book blown up into a feature length film, so I suppose you've got to expect some of that.

A lot of 20 and 30 somethings i've talked to really loved this movie, they just thought it was the most precious thing they've seen in years. So I'd say go see it, you might just love the thing to pieces. Worst-case scenario, you at least get a visually interesting movie with amazing Jim Henson effects and strong performances.

10-17-2009, 11:09 AM
Are the 20-30 somethings who loved it people who read the book or not? I haven't and I'm 20-30 something, is why I ask :p

10-17-2009, 11:31 AM
I'd never even heard of the book before is saw that trailer a while back but i think it looks amazing!

I can see myself getting really emotional over this movie because it's the kind of thing i'd always wished for during my childhood - watching the trailer alone is enough xD

10-17-2009, 08:26 PM
I haven't read that book in AGES, but I still really want to see the movie. I remember something about a boat (but that's from the commercial) and there was some gnashing of teeth at one point. Either way, I'm just waiting for an excuse to go see this.

10-17-2009, 11:53 PM
Are the 20-30 somethings who loved it people who read the book or not? I haven't and I'm 20-30 something, is why I ask :p

I think most of them have seen it. There's definitely a sense of nostalgia to it. Nowhere is there a single reference to the internet, to cell phones, to the things that define the line between today's youth and yesterday's. that being said, it doesn't seem to be a period movie, it just doesn't acknowledge these things - it's not making a comment on the times, it's attempting to be something of a timeless classic, I think. Whether that's what it becomes is not for me to say, but I don't really think it lives quite up to "timeless classic".

I live in the city, and Spike Jonze's adaptation of "Where the Wild Things Are" is basically hipster heaven - you couldn't conceive of a movie that hipsters would be more googly-eyed over. So the theater was just absolutely packed with 20-something hipsters who I think made up their mind on the movie before the coming attractions ended. People in paper crowns and monster horns.

One of my complaints with the movie is that it's really not all that funny. There's definitely humor to it, there are some slightly funny parts, but I didn't laugh out loud once through the whole movie. Which is a real shame, the movie should be jam-packed with humor.

10-20-2009, 01:12 AM
Saw it ... loved it. I laughed a few times... especially at the goats arm (which only a few people even got). Over all, I'm really pleased with the way it turned out... if not all that close to what I remember from the book as a child.

10-20-2009, 01:20 AM
The book was better ...

10-27-2009, 03:50 PM
I LOVED the book when I was little, although people are saying a lot of negatives about this movie. I'll still probably end up seeing it eventually.

10-27-2009, 03:53 PM
I liked the movie very entertaining. I used to love the book. The monsters look really nice. Although it feels like the movie drags on a bit but I can live with that. 9/10