Where the Wild Things Are

[dusematic]

Ya.

[Mattemeo]

But then you're just out and out banning him from necroing any discussion.

I'm struggling to see the negative side of that, right now.

[dusematic]

Basically I just had a pretty legit call out on a middle aged man who was WAY too excited about a film adaptation of one of the shittiest children's books ever written.  Better late than never.

[Broughden]

You probably hate Shel Silverstein too.

Me too. In the 70's growing up all these adults thought Silverstein was the shit and as a kid were convinced i should love him. I thought his poetry was stupid tripe.

[Abagadro]

I sense a sorting mechanism coming into play.

[dusematic]

Slytherin, Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, or Ravenclaw?

[Broughden]

I sense a sorting mechanism coming into play.

I was more into George Gordon Byron, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and John Keats as a child. Sorry but Silverstein doesnt even begin to compare.

Im pretty sure that makes me Gryffindor and you Hufflepuff. Silverstein comes off as genuinely Hufflepuffien.

[lamaros]

I sense a sorting mechanism coming into play.

I was more into George Gordon Byron, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and John Keats as a child. Sorry but Silverstein doesnt even begin to compare.

Im pretty sure that makes me Gryffindor and you Hufflepuff. Silverstein comes off as genuinely Hufflepuffien.

You should get together with sheepherder. I hear he's pretty chuffed about demonstrating irrelevent pretensions too.

[Yegolev]

But what the fuck do you see in Where The Wild Things Are?  I don't get it.  It's a childrens book, and a shitty one at that.  It doesn't even have a point.  The kid gets in trouble then has a fucked out dream and then his Mom gives him dinner anyway even though he didn't do shit.   There's no literary merit.  The pictures are cool, that's it.  It also does the fucked out kiddy book cop-out where they stretch out sentences ("And he sailed, and sailed, and sailed *FLIP THE PAGE* and sailed some more!")

My new theory is that your perpetual diarrhea has ejected from your body the unfertilized mass that was once your soul.

Not a Silverstein fan, but I don't hate him.  I think he might be a pirate, though.

[Mattemeo]

I was more into George Gordon Byron, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and John Keats as a child.

Wanda: You think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.

[dusematic]

But what the fuck do you see in Where The Wild Things Are?  I don't get it.  It's a childrens book, and a shitty one at that.  It doesn't even have a point.  The kid gets in trouble then has a fucked out dream and then his Mom gives him dinner anyway even though he didn't do shit.   There's no literary merit.  The pictures are cool, that's it.  It also does the fucked out kiddy book cop-out where they stretch out sentences ("And he sailed, and sailed, and sailed *FLIP THE PAGE* and sailed some more!")

My new theory is that your perpetual diarrhea has ejected from your body the unfertilized mass that was once your soul.

OK, now tell me why I'm wrong.  It's a a meaningless picture book.  Do you think the Wiggles started out in life to do music for children?  No.  They failed at making music for adults first for years.  The point is that no one starts out in life wanting to produce anything for children.  It's a cop out for when you've failed at doing shit for adults.  Anyway, I'm glad you have fond memories of this book.  I just liked the idea of someone talking about a director being "right for the material" when the book is just a bunch of  pictures with 5 words on each page.

[HaemishM]

Please stop talking now.

[dusematic]

Only because it was you who asked!  By the way, your online novel rocks dewd!

[Mattemeo]

So, what we've really ascertained is that Dusematic doesn't understand the synergy between the febrile style and sequential visual medium employed by a director, and the febrile style and sequential visual medium employed by an illustrator.

[Khaldun]

OK, now tell me why I'm wrong.  It's a a meaningless picture book.  Do you think the Wiggles started out in life to do music for children?  No.  They failed at making music for adults first for years.  The point is that no one starts out in life wanting to produce anything for children.  It's a cop out for when you've failed at doing shit for adults.  Anyway, I'm glad you have fond memories of this book.  I just liked the idea of someone talking about a director being "right for the material" when the book is just a bunch of  pictures with 5 words on each page.

This defines a whole new level of human failure. You can't even get being a curmudgeon or a misanthropist right.

[Prospero]

I'm not sure how I feel about the movie, but I quite enjoy the book. I read it daily, sometimes 10 times in a row. 

You're broken Duse, in every way a human can be.

[Merusk]

Pretty sure nothing that has the shits for 10 years is human.

[Lakov_Sanite]

OK, now tell me why I'm wrong.  It's a a meaningless post.  Do you think the Windupathiest started out in life to troll in game forums?  No.  They failed at making posts for adults first for years.  The point is that no one starts out in life wanting to write anything for assholes.  It's a cop out for when you've failed at writing shit for adults.  Anyway, I'm glad you have fond memories of this post.  I just liked the idea of someone talking about dusematic being "right for the material" when the post is just a bunch of trolls with 5 coherent words on each page.

[K9]

I eagerly await Dusematic's scything analysis of The Very Hungry Caterpillar.

[DraconianOne]

The Very Hungry Caterpillar is terrible.  I mean really - how can people say this is a classic compared to Dostoyevsky or Dan Brown? There's no decent characterization, no exploration of the human condition or pseudo-metanalogous philosophicating on the moral nature of being - all it is is a fucking caterpillar eating something every day.  And the pictures are crap - they look like something that would only appeal to children.

Don't even get me started on that Gruffalo piece of shit.

[Mrbloodworth]

Was this thread aboot a movie?

[dusematic]

They're just pissy because I think a children's book they like is crummy.  Do you guys want to tell me what great literature the Bearenstein Bears series is now?  Honestly.  OoOOoOo, an adult who thinks a meaningless picture book is shitty!  CONTROVERSY.  Get over yourselves, lol.

[WindupAtheist]

OK, now tell me why I'm wrong.  It's a a meaningless post.  Do you think the Windupathiest started out in life to troll in game forums?  No.  They failed at making posts for adults first for years.  The point is that no one starts out in life wanting to write anything for assholes.  It's a cop out for when you've failed at writing shit for adults.  Anyway, I'm glad you have fond memories of this post.  I just liked the idea of someone talking about dusematic being "right for the material" when the post is just a bunch of trolls with 5 coherent words on each page.

Did I just own your face in a completely different thread? I think I did.

[dusematic]

Wait, why did he bring you into this?  Are you a known sympathizer?  DO YOU BEAR THE SIGN OF THE BEAST?

[Lakov_Sanite]

Naw, simond is your true opponent. I just go for the low blows.

[Samwise]

Just saw this.  It wasn't bad, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a kid's movie.  It felt much more to me like a movie about childhood for adults.  Very different from the book, which I guess is inevitable if you're adapting a few sentences into something feature-length.

[Venkman]

I actually wouldn't be surprised if that was the intent. I think it was in some NPR interview where Spike or the guy who co-wrote the screenplay said something like this being an adult-targeted book about that adult being a kid.

I'm sure there's a shitload of psychoanalysis and allegories and all sorts of philosophical stuff that could go into reviewing source material. But none of that explains why they thought it'd make a good movie. A lot of folks I know were excited when the movie was announced. I instead had to dig up a copy of the book to see if I could figure out why. I couldn't. It's a picture book for, at most, 4 year olds, and the movie itself looks very much targeting 20-30 somethings.

I dunno, maybe it's a nostalgia play?

In any case, it's certainly nothing worth getting angry over. There's so many "beloved childhood classics" at this point they all come of as chum-scrubbing money plays when adapted to movies.

[Samwise]

I'd say the theme to both the book and the movie is early childhood angst.  In the book Max's sojourn into the land of the wild things is a picturesque representation of having a good stew when you're sent to your room and you don't feel like it was your fault.  The audience for the book isn't expected to understand this, but that's what the author is expressing.

The movie takes that basic theme and expands upon it, using the wild things as a way for Max to grow a little and understand what it's like for other people to deal with someone who's pissed off and irrational all the time.  At the same time, by showing a bit of Max's circumstances and motivations the audience is invited to see what it's like from his perspective, and remember what it's like to be a kid and feel alienated from those you love but not know how to make it better.  So it's trying to do a lot more than the book did.  IMO it's less entertaining for it, but I'm pretty sure I see what they were going for.

[lamaros]

You should read some of the papers out there on the book... people think the book is doing a lot more than you suggest.

(I read a few of them because I wrote a paper on the book a year or so ago. I'm not crazy.)

[Cheddar]

(I'm... crazy.)

[schild]

There's very little more annoying than when people chop up words to make shit not funny.

[dusematic]

I feel  like we've come full circle.  I feel invigorated and a little bit inspired.

[UnSub]

Not a Silverstein fan, but I don't hate him.  I think he might be a pirate, though.

I think we could play a game called "Children's Author Or International Terrorist?" with that photo.

My eldest son used to love The Giving Tree which I find the world's most fucking depressing book. Fortunately, now he only likes it for the part where the boy is young and we don't have to go through the allegory for how women appreciate being life's punching bags every time.

I look forward to Michael Gondry's "The Giving Tree" coming out in 2015.

[Sheepherder]

You should get together with sheepherder. I hear he's pretty chuffed about demonstrating irrelevent pretensions too.

I'm a monomaniacal asshole, not pretentious.  If I were pretentious I would be spewing shit out of my mouth about how great Pinot Noir is, the deep metaphor of Ayn Rand's vaginal pillaging scene, how valuable my time is that I pay others to do menial tasks, and generally be a douche.  I also wouldn't dare talk about how I've read a number of Tom Clancy books, or those Star Wars fanfiction EU books.

However, the Animal Farm bit was dead serious.  When I was young I got a lot of ideas on the next book to read by looking at what my brother was doing for school at the time, he is three years older than me.  Stuff like Where The Wild Things Are didn't actually last me too long before I got into novels.

EDIT:

I mean really - how can people say this is a classic compared to Dostoyevsky or Dan Brown?

No.  Though it's probably the position of pretentious people to shit on his work now that everyone likes it.  In all fairness, it isn't bad.

[dusematic]

Fuck Dan Brown and fuck you.  I need to go find a Mexican to pick me up a case of Pinot Noir.