They ruined Paddington!! - Paddington (2015) Discussion

[–] jschillig 10 years ago

I can't say I was crazy about the earwax joke, but it wasn't the worst I've seen. Same with getting stuck in the toilet...at least it wasn't scatological.

More to the point, I liked the Paddington-y moments I did see...misunderstanding the sign, for one thing. That gives me hope (as does the fact that Michael Bond himself is apparently quite pleased with the movie itself).

Besides, you only have to google "misleading trailers" to see how many trailers have cherry-picked moments that aren't at all indicative of the movie as a whole. (Exhibit A: Bridge to Terabithia.)

So here's hoping that future trailers spotlight more book-faithful moments. I wouldn't write the movie off yet. If I'm wrong (and, as a reader of Paddington since childhood, I hope I'm not) I'll eat my words, but there are signs that it will be good.

(What gets me is those who complain that this Paddington looks "too much like a real bear." I get the feeling that if he didn't look quite so real, they'd complain he looks too fake and cartoony and draw comparisons to the Chipmunks and Garfield.)

reply

[–] captkirk_459 10 years ago

It is just that some of that was similar to the Hong Kong Phoey test footage. Only this was a full trailer.

reply

[–] red-rob 10 years ago

What gave me most concern wasn't the toothbrush gag but a couple of other things, one in the trailer, one not:

* The scene where Mr. Brown opens the door to the bathroom and a wall of water floods out, followed by a young bear in a bathtub.
* Reports that Nicole Kidman is to play an evil taxidermist (presumably intent on seeing Paddington stuffed).

The humour in the original books is gentle, largely based on misunderstandings and Paddington's well-meaning attempts to do the right thing. Cartoonish, over-the-top slapstick just doesn't fit into the original stories. Neither does a real villain - the closest the original comes is a grumpy Mr. Curry.

The thing is, when you have strong source material, why mess with it? I have nothing against hissable villains, slapstick or gross-out humour. But this isn't 101 Dalmatians, Kung Fu Panda or Shrek - it's supposed to be Paddington.

My Movies: http://uk.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=24218096

reply

[–] jschillig 10 years ago

Well, the thing is...the books were more like collections of short stories, so there needed to be SOME sort of storyline over and above "Paddington tries to do something and misunderstands it/messes it up." (Although all indications are there'll be plenty of THAT.)

I'd compare it to what needed to be done with the movie versions of Mary Poppins and Madeline. In both cases, there were what amounted to a bunch of separate, self-contained stories that were being made into one movie, so they needed a linking storyline and some sort of conflict, which meant upgrading supporting characters into antagonists (Mr. Banks and Lord Covington/"Cucuface", respectively).

So it is here. I have no problem myself with the plot as we know it because I figured all along that if they ever made a Paddington movie, they'd have to create some sort of through-line out of whole cloth.

And as for Mr. Curry, he may be an antagonist but he's not quite a villain (as you said). Even in the books, he shows some nicer moments on occasion.

I do, however, predict he's going to be the villain's dupe. The synopsis describes Millicent as "seductive", and a couple of set photos have shown her character with Peter Capaldi. My guess is that she's going to work her wiles on this lonely (bachelor? widower? Something tells me it's the latter) to get him to unwittingly help her.

reply

[–] red-rob 10 years ago

I'd compare it to what needed to be done with the movie versions of Mary Poppins and Madeline... [which] needed a linking storyline and some sort of conflict, which meant upgrading supporting characters into antagonists... So it is here. I have no problem myself with the plot as we know it because I figured all along that if they ever made a Paddington movie, they'd have to create some sort of through-line out of whole cloth.

I see the need for a linking storyline, but not terribly convinced by the need for added conflict (why does everything need to be so angsty?). And even allowing for conflict, does it require something so dark as dropping in a hom... erm, bearicidal taxidermist? There are movies which get by without a real antagonist, for example Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain (2001), where the main story is about our heroine's loneliness, and which features no-one more villainous than the rather Curry-ish M. Collignon, .

A couple of alternative ideas for the narrative arc could have been:

* After a few exasperating encounters with Paddington, Mr. Curry complains to the Council / RSPCA about the Browns "illegally" keeping a bear. Cue a court case, where several of the stories from the books are told in flashback as the characters' testimony. Mr. Curry, of course, loses; or:
* Initially happy living with the Browns, Paddington starts to miss Aunt Lucy more and more. Eventually, he decides to run away back to Peru. He's found trying to stow away on a ship, and a kindly police officer brings him back home. Mr. Brown arrange for Aunt Lucy to visit for Christmas, the end.

My Movies: http://uk.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=24218096

reply

[–] jschillig 10 years ago

Well, we'll see how it turns out. As long as they keep true to the character of Paddington, I don't think I'll have too many complaints.

I wouldn't want them to turn Mr. Curry into an out-and-out villain as in your first scenario. (That's why I hope I'm right about a My God What Have I Done moment for him in the movie.) It's funny, but as often happens when you re-read kids' books as an adult your perception of characters and situations can change. When you're a kid reading the Paddington books, all you see is this mean-tempered middle-aged miser being nasty to Paddington and trying to take advantage of him (although he did, as I said, have his nicer moments). When you're older, and have learned that a lot goes into making people what they are, you start to think that a man who's made it all the way to a ritzy area like Notting Hill and still pinches pennies must have had some serious poverty in childhood. You start to think that if a man lives alone in a house that's big enough for a family (it's described as being a duplicate of the Browns'), he must have shared it with someone at one point.

reply

[–] fatpie42 10 years ago

And now apparently everyone loves this movie. Was the bathroom scene actually not in the movie at all then...?

reply

[–] summeriris 10 years ago

It was, and it was hilarious.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply