#276
Posted: 7/20/19 at 8:25pm
Every time I see the picture of Hudson under the banner "Hot Stories" on the main page of this site, I think The Island of Dr. Moreau: The Musical!
CATS Film Adaptation Thread — Page 12
#277
Posted: 7/20/19 at 8:44pm
sueb1863 said: "They don't look anything like the stage costumes. The stage costumes had wigs which hid the actors' human ears and made the heads look more like cats' heads. They should have done that here, because these heads look like normal human heads without ears which is one of the reason they look so bizarre.
And they should have used makeup to make the faces look like cat faces. At the very least they could have drawn a vertical line between the bottom of the nose and the upper lip, like cats have. They could have done this with an eyeliner pencil for heaven's sake.
Yes, the scale is way off. The cats are too small, they look about the size of squirrels."
And they should have used makeup to make the faces look like cat faces. At the very least they could have drawn a vertical line between the bottom of the nose and the upper lip, like cats have. They could have done this with an eyeliner pencil for heaven's sake.
Yes, the scale is way off. The cats are too small, they look about the size of squirrels."
They look like the stage costumes in the sense that they look like bipedal humans in unitards. Morphing the faces to look more catlike or utilizing specific contrivances from the stage costumes like the wigs still would not work because that still doesn't solve the main problem with this whole thing, which is that it doesn't work on film to have a bunch of cat-human hybrids prancing around on two feet. The 1998 version had the excuse that it was merely a studio film of the stage production, but this is meant to be a traditional film. This just doesn't work as a film in any way.
#278
Posted: 7/20/19 at 8:50pm
MikeInTheDistrict said: "sueb1863 said: "They don't look anything like the stage costumes. The stage costumes had wigs which hid the actors' human ears and made the heads look more like cats' heads. They should have done that here, because these heads look like normal human heads without ears which is one of the reason they look so bizarre.
And they should have used makeup to make the faces look like cat faces. At the very least they could have drawn a vertical line between the bottom of the nose and the upper lip, like cats have. They could have done this with an eyeliner pencil for heaven's sake.
Yes, the scale is way off. The cats are too small, they look about the size of squirrels."
They look like the stage costumes in the sense that they look like bipedal humans in unitards. Morphing the faces to look more catlike or utilizing specific contrivances from the stage costumes like the wigs still would not work because that still doesn't solve the main problem with this whole thing, which is that it doesn't work on film to have a bunch of cat-human hybrids prancing around on two feet. The 1998 version had the excuse that it was merely a studio film of the stage production, but this is meant to be a traditional film. This just doesn't work as a film in any way."
Is the concept any more ridiculous than that of many other fantasy,sci-fi, or live-action musical films? People going into this movie know that they are going to see dancing and singing people made to look like cats. A large amount of suspension of disbelief is going to be used. It just needs to be done well, given the premise, not in spite of the premise.
Updated On: 7/20/19 at 08:50 PM
#279
Posted: 7/20/19 at 8:57pm
MadAboutTheBoy said: "Is the concept any more ridiculous than that of many other fantasy,sci-fi, or live-action musicalfilms?"
To me, personally, it is. The standard for realistic effects in sci-fi or fantasy films is very high these days. One of the most important parts of sci-fi, both in written and film/television form, is world-building. There has to be a plausible explanation for the laws of the universe in which the characters operate. As for musical films, I don't really know of a musical that would be analogous to this. Most musicals are about humans. Those that aren't are usually animated, like Disney's films. This just doesn't work for me. It's hard for me to take the stage-bound elements of humans-as-cats in film form. I think the sort of film you're talking about -- a version of the stage show shot on location -- might work for PBS or one of those live musical broadcasts, but I think people go into cinema with a completely different level of suspension of disbelief.
#280
Posted: 7/20/19 at 9:05pm
MikeInTheDistrict said: "MadAboutTheBoy said: "Is the concept any more ridiculous than that of many other fantasy,sci-fi, or live-action musicalfilms?"
To me, personally, it is. The standard for realistic effects in sci-fi or fantasy films is very high these days. One of the most important parts of sci-fi, both in written and film/television form, is world-building. There has to be a plausible explanation for the laws of the universe in which the characters operate. As for musical films, I don't really know of a musical that would be analogous to this. Most musicals are about humans. Those that aren't are usually animated, like Disney's films. This just doesn't work for me. It's hard for me to take the stage-bound elements of humans-as-cats in film form. I think the sort of film you're talking about -- a version of the stage show shot on location -- might work for PBS or one of those live musical broadcasts, but I think people go into cinema with a completely different level of suspension of disbelief."
I see your point, but we've seen something similar--although on a smaller scale--in "Beauty and the Beast" (singing and dancing candlesticks, clock, etc). Doesn't this compare?
I also wonder how this will be handled in the upcoming "The Little Mermaid." Will the supporting case be people in costumes, like the stage show? Will they be a hybrid like in this film?
Updated On: 7/20/19 at 09:05 PM
#281
Posted: 7/20/19 at 9:21pm
MadAboutTheBoy said: "I see your point, but we've seen something similar--although on a smaller scale--in "Beauty and the Beast" (singing and dancing candlesticks, clock, etc). Doesn't this compare?
I also wonder how this will be handled in the upcoming "The Little Mermaid." Will the supporting case be people in costumes, like the stage show? Will they be a hybrid like in this film?
"
I also wonder how this will be handled in the upcoming "The Little Mermaid." Will the supporting case be people in costumes, like the stage show? Will they be a hybrid like in this film?
"
I'd say Beauty and the Beast is different because they had an explanation: those characters were human beings turned into household objects by a witch's spell. If they have a similar explanation for why these cats look so much like humans in this movie, maybe that might work. (I don't know what explanation that would be. Are they aliens? Mutants? Is this a cult of cat-obsessed humans who dress up as casts and sacrifice one member every year?) But, from what I can tell, these are supposed to be actual cats. I'm guessing The Little Mermaid will either cut the animals or make them look realistic, ala Favreau's recent version of The Jungle Book, which combined a human actor and animal characters.
#282
Posted: 7/21/19 at 2:35am
Wind in the Willows, Alice in Wonderland, Charlotte’s Web all feature casts of talking animals (not to mention WICKED). Theater and film have found ways to make them work perfectly well before without falling into the uncanny valley that the CATS trailer obviously suffers from.
#283
Posted: 7/21/19 at 6:52am
MikeInTheDistrict said: "I don't know what explanation that would be. Are they aliens? Mutants? Is this a cult of cat-obsessed humans who dress up as casts and sacrifice one member every year?) But, from what I can tell, these are supposed to be actual cats. I'm guessing The Little Mermaid will either cut the animals or make them look realistic, ala Favreau's recent version of The Jungle Book, which combined a human actor and animal characters. "
Because the whole tone of the trailer is kind of creepy, as a way to somehow explain the horror I had seen I pondered if maybe Hooper put a new spin to the story and sort of set it as a Grimm’s tale in which naughty children get transformed into half-cats and only when they really regret their choices get to be transformed into humans again. But don’t really think he did that.
#284
Posted: 7/21/19 at 7:09am
Hudson’s cat is the one getting the most memes. She should’ve been the one they put in a costume. Her bobble head on top of the CGI doesn’t work. Everyone else is fine.
#285
Posted: 7/21/19 at 8:15am
Hudson's "Grizabella" looks like she was run over by a garbage truck and left for road kill. GRIZZLY!
#286
Posted: 7/21/19 at 8:33am
And now people are up in arms and accusing the filmmakers of "white washing" because they had the audacity to make "Victoria: - the white cat's fur white even though she is being played by Kenyan born dancer Francesca Hayward who is not white. SMDH.
Read the nonsense here
#287
Posted: 7/21/19 at 8:51am
This was a laugh-filled read. I agree with so much of it but especially:
65. If the buildings are called things like Royal Claws Hotel and Grand Feral Hotel, clearly the buildings were built by cats. So why is the furniture still so big? Can’t they just build all the furniture to fit their size?
Updated On: 7/21/19 at 08:51 AM
#288
Posted: 7/21/19 at 8:59am
Tom Hooper's CATS trailer has us all talking...which is the point of a trailer anyway isn't it?...when the movie comes out all our questions should and will be answered...now 7 million views on Youtube!
#289
Posted: 7/21/19 at 9:56am
I feel like this trailer speaks volumes on the state of the US/world right now. Everyone is so cynical of seeing something new and/or different. I'm not saying it's going to be the best movie ever or all of the visuals are appealing. I'm sure in some ways the first time audiences saw an animated animal speak or sing on screen it was unusual and took a bit of getting used to. I've always been interested in art (of any form) that makes me feel uncomfortable.
The other thing I keep thinking about, is that I'm not sure why people think it's such an awful thing that there is an element of fear in Cats. I always found elements of the musical to be creepy and I believed that was intended.
At any rate I'm kind of sick of movies just trying to make things look as 'real' as possible (the new Lion King) that I'm honestly just going to support this movie for going for a different approach.
#290
Posted: 7/21/19 at 10:57am
broadwaybabywannabe2 said: "Tom Hooper's CATS trailer has us all talking...which isthe point of a trailer anyway isn't it?...when the movie comes out all our questions should and will be answered...now 7 million views on Youtube!"
Yes, but I think they wanted people to talk positively about it - - - I doubt they are pleased with the negative reception this initial trailer has generated. Too late now, it's out there...morbid curiosity will bring people out to see it in it's initial week, but I predict this will tank after that...
#291
Posted: 7/21/19 at 11:10am
I just have one question before I exit this thread. Universal Pictures' marketing team has opted to go with "You Will Believe" as the film's tag line. What is it exactly that we are supposed to be believing in? That cats have human noses? That cats sport threaded eyebrows? That cats live on a completely separate planet all of their own with a milk bar and oversized objects or are they really asking us to suspend belief or disbelief and truly love and embrace this movie.
I'm asking for a friend....
MEOW!
#292
Posted: 7/21/19 at 11:17am
It's hard to tell what the reception will be. They're running the trailer in front of The Lion King and I've seen people on another board say that kids seem to be enjoying it while the adults are just confused.
And someone pointed out that the internet hated Will Smith's Genie, too, and that movie has made almost a billion dollars.
#293
Posted: 7/21/19 at 11:31am
Yes, and the internet also hated Sonic the Hedgehog so much that Sony pulled it and delayed the release date to next year so that Sonic could be completely redesigned and reanimated.
That old adage of "even bad publicity is good publicity" is complete bullish*t. No movie studio or star wants to be ripped apart the way that this trailer has been. Yes, it may have been viewed seven million times on YouTube, but how many of those views are coming from the trailer being embedded into negative articles? I would venture that it's a good proportion of those seven million views.
#294
Posted: 7/21/19 at 3:33pm
Yes, and the internet also hated Sonic the Hedgehog so much that Sony pulled it and delayed the release date to next year so that Sonic could be completely redesigned and reanimated.
See the difference about that is that Sonic has been a mess for the last 20 years in every respect. I wouldn't have been shocked if they planned on moving the date before they even put out the trailer. It's like the act of working on a Sonic Project automatically just makes you incredibly dumb and incapable of making the right decision that is staring you in the face.
#295
Posted: 7/21/19 at 3:59pm
I do hope they have a cat sitting on a shelf casually swapping things off with an unconcerned look!
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
#296
Posted: 7/21/19 at 5:25pm
ok I'm going to post this theory...what if the whole movie is a real cats catnip infused dream?...that way nothing makes sense and all is possible on screen...
let's just say the cat is watching a movie musical with its' owner and for some reason has too much catnip and falls asleep to dream what we end up seeing as the movie...
just a crazy idea to make everything we see on screen work!
#297
Posted: 7/21/19 at 6:11pm
One question that's been on my mind for years: Has the cat who gets chosen to go to the Heavyside Layer (Grizabella) expended all of his or her nine lives and so then goes into permanent retirement, never to be seen again? And what happens to the other cats who are not chosen? Or is the Heavyside Layer a regenerative limbo between each of a cat's nine lives? Why is the Heavyside Layer a desirable place to be?
Updated On: 7/21/19 at 06:11 PM
#298
Posted: 7/21/19 at 6:28pm
Cats don't have nine lives. The average lifespan of an indoor cat is 15 years. For a street cat, not much more than 2 years. The oldest any of my cat companions lived was 20. My pal "Maxie" is now 17 years old.
Updated On: 7/21/19 at 06:28 PM
#299
Posted: 7/21/19 at 7:18pm
#300
Posted: 7/21/19 at 7:36pm
MadAboutTheBoy said: "One question that's been on my mind for years: Hasthe cat who gets chosen to go to the Heavyside Layer (Grizabella) expended all of his or her nine lives and so then goes into permanent retirement, never to be seen again? And what happens to the other cats who are not chosen?Or is the Heavyside Layer a regenerative limbo between each of a cat's nine lives? Why is the Heavyside Layer a desirable place to be?"
They've never gone into any of those details. All that's ever said about the Heaviside Layer is that it's "full of wonders one Jellicle only will see". Sounds pretty lonely actually. Not sure if it's supposed to be Heaven or if it's just a super awesome cat wonderland. The chosen cat 'comes back to a different Jellicle life' but they don't say what that means, exactly. I wouldn't think the cat would die as that doesn't seem like something they'd be super eager to do. I guess the other cats just go home resolved to try again next year.
I don't think we were ever meant to really think about it too much. It's just a device pulled from Eliot's work to make up a plot to hang the songs on.
Updated On: 7/22/19 at 07:36 PM
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $60
Tickets From $71
