There's greatness in you.
Tom Wood
with wonderful characters, brought up to date so that today's young people
can connect with it. It's dying.
TW
Jeff Newman
space looks dumb.
I, too, think it's a great story, and updating it to space was a great idea.
But they should have used space ships.
They shouldn't have screamed "This is Treasure Island in space!" with every
frame.
They should have just used the premise, characters (adjusted somewhat) and much
of the plot, and then put it into the new arena.
No matter how they may justify it in the movie itself, just the idea and look
of ocean-going sailing ships in outer space looks and sounds dumb.
Jeff Newman
Brevity
wrote:
To me, the sight of sailing ships traveling through space was just too
far for my mind to go. I think they kept too much of the old
film\story and just tried to dress it up with some science fiction
aspects. They might have done better if they had fully advanced the
same story into the future, and left the sailing ships in the past . .
.but had replaced them with rocket ships. Kids today, I think, (I
hope) are far too sophisticated about space travel to buy the concept.
Roger Ebert pretty much said the same thing, for whatever that's worth
to anyone.
One opinion. Others will differ.
-Bob
(remove x to reply by email)
Brevity
Bingo! I should have read ahead before posting.
Great minds . . .and all that.
Jacques E. Bouchard
news:t36tuu4b6tbe1kul1...@4ax.com:
> To me, the sight of sailing ships traveling through space was just
too
> far for my mind to go. I think they kept too much of the old
> film\story and just tried to dress it up with some science fiction
> aspects. They might have done better if they had fully advanced the
> same story into the future, and left the sailing ships in the past .
.
> .but had replaced them with rocket ships. Kids today, I think, (I
> hope) are far too sophisticated about space travel to buy the
concept.
It isn't just that. Ships in space is how a grown-up would
imagine a sci-fi remake of "Treasure Island". A kid would not. Pirate
ships were an element of childhood fantasy 30 years ago, they're
irrelevent to a kid nowadays. They would have related to rocket ships.
Not galleons.
jaybee
Clay Heery
to do nothing wrong, now they can do nothing right.
It occured to me that the difference, very possibly, was Katzenberg, Eisner's
"little midget." Now Dreamworks is doing some of the best animation ever, like
"Shrek."
--C.
Gene Harris
In addition to what others have said, off the top of my head, I'd give
three other reasons: Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and very little
marketing -- at least that I've noticed. Don't Disney releases at
Christmas usually come with a saturation marketing effort? I've seen
little or nothing about Treasure Planet.
Gene
RonB
Ah, not to worry. I'm sure Eisner will get his nice big bonus at the end
of the year anyhow.
What happens when Pixar is done with their contractual obligations to
Disney and moves over to Dreamworks -- or whomever else is willing to
pay them what they're worth?
--
RonB
"there's a story there...somewhere"
Tom Wood
story with wonderful characters, brought up to date so that today's young
people can connect with it. It's dying."
Bob: "To me, the sight of sailing ships traveling through space was just too
far for my mind to go. I think they kept too much of the old film\story and
just tried to dress it up with some science fiction aspects. They might
have done better if they had fully advanced the same story into the future,
and left the sailing ships in the past . . .but had replaced them with
rocket ships. Kids today, I think, (I hope) are far too sophisticated about
space travel to buy the concept."
"The winds of the ethereum..." Maybe they didn't want everybody wearing
spacesuits because that would hide the characters. So they ignored the whole
issue and went with the original adventure. It's a flight of fantasy. We've
seen Hollywood spaceships, they are boring. It was a risk and I am saddened
that audiences are not going with it.
John Silver is a well shaded character, torn between murder and mentorship.
He sees a part of himself in the young man, and can't bring himself to shoot
Jim in the back. It's a tragedy if audiences are insisting on black and
white.
I think they took a gamble and lost. Which is a shame because it means that
the audience didn't pick up on the core value of the original story.
"There's greatness in you." That's a powerful theme.
TW
Ovum
>Pirate
>ships were an element of childhood fantasy 30 years ago
Must have been a lot longer than 30 years ago! I was a kid who read the
classics: Charlotte's Web, Willy Wonka, Harriet the Spy, etc. I never read
Treasure Island. I don't think any of my friends read Treasure Island. If I
had kids, trying to sell me on this movie by referencing an unfamiliar novel
wouldn't work.
Disney should have focus-grouped this one better. Unless they were going for
that growing demo of grandparents who are raising their kid's kids (two million
U.S. grandparents have custody of their grandkids). Or grandparents who take
their grandkids to the movies over the holidays.
But even then Disney should have known better. Grandparent to kid: "Want to go
see Treasure Planet, honey?" Kid: "Naw! Let's go see the new Lord of the
Rings!" End of negotiation.
Maybe what Disney should have done is come out with Treasure Planet for
Playstation first. Build the audience, then spin off the movie.
Lois
------------------------------------------------
Step Two: "Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us
to sanity."
Brevity
I don't watch much TV, but I've seen quite a few commercials for
Treasure Island. I don't think it's lack of marketing, I think it's a
faulty concept, as several of us have said. It looks uninteresting to
kids and adults. It's fantasy with no fans.
Jeff Newman
>Maybe they didn't want everybody wearing
>spacesuits because that would hide the characters.
If they had used space ships, they wouldn't need space suits within the ship.
And if they wanted to capture the sense of being on deck and seeing the open
air ... er, space ... and allow the characters to experience the vessel moving
... then part of the ship could have been made out of a glass-like, transparent
metal, so they could see out (and we could see them from an exterior shot) ...
and no space suits needed. The whole top part of the ship could have been a
transparent "bubble."
>We've
>seen Hollywood spaceships, they are boring.
Only if you have unimaginative artists.
>John Silver is a well shaded character, torn between murder and mentorship.
>He sees a part of himself in the young man, and can't bring himself to shoot
>Jim in the back. It's a tragedy if audiences are insisting on black and
>white.
It may well be true that Silver in the movie is a great character. It may well
be a great movie. It's just ... first, you have to get people inside the
theater. And most didn't want to, based on the look of it. I'm sure the
audiences would fully accept the complexity, duality, and contradictions of his
character, and his internal conflict regarding desires and values. Those who
have gone to see it probably accept that readily -- that's not what's keeping
people away.
>I think they took a gamble and lost. Which is a shame because it means that
>the audience didn't pick up on the core value of the original story.
>"There's greatness in you." That's a powerful theme.
It is a shame, because it's a wonderful story, and it sounds like they've
developed an excellent theme to go with it.
But you can't beat up on audiences for seeing the visual concept and thinking
"this is stupid."
The creators weren't thinking like audience members when they made the "galleon
in space" decision.
Don't any of them have kids? Didn't they show them the early color sketches to
get their reaction?
Or to their spouses or friends, for that matter?
You can berate the audiences for not going, but ... they saw the look and
visual concept, and didn't like it. No use saying they *should* have gone,
anyway. The audience spoke ... by staying away.
Another factor: doing it as an animated feature may have been a mistake. I
think the blackness and depth of space lends itself better to live action than
animation. And live-action makes the gizmos and battle stuff seem ... more
like fantasy brought to life, instead of just fantasy.
But the main mistake ... them damn sailing ships in space.
You can say we should have looked past that ... but that's ignoring reality.
You can beat your head against a brick wall and keep saying "it shouldn't be
there!" But after a while, your head will be a bloody pulp, and the wall will
still be there.
Accept the audience's judgment. It's the folks who made the film you should be
mad at ... they're the ones who screwed up what could have been ... and
probably in many ways still is ... a wonderful movie.
Jeff N.
PJ Browning
"Tom Wood" <tomw...@flash.net> wrote:
I haven't seen it and likely won't. Everything that I see about it gives
me the impression that it's terrible. The original story is a great one
but I don't have any confidence is the 'updating' of it by putting it in
space. Especially not with what look like surfboards.
Ron
<moviewriter-6047...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
PJ Browning <movie...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I haven't seen it and likely won't. Everything that I see about it gives
> me the impression that it's terrible. The original story is a great one
> but I don't have any confidence is the 'updating' of it by putting it in
> space. Especially not with what look like surfboards.
Yeah...
I haven't seen it. But the reason that I won't is that it looks like
just another animated bastardization of a good story, complete with the
whole Disney formula. Yawn.
In it's golden age, Disney did great versions of classic stories (Snow
White, etc...). They had a nice renneasance with "The Little Mermaid,"
"Beauty and the Beast" and "Lion King" but after that they really seem
to have gone down hill. The movies have gotten dumber--I remember being
surprised when I saw "The Little Mermaid" just how well-made and smart a
movie it was. No, it's not Citizen Kane, but it's a good story well told.
Now it seems like it's talking-sidekick mania. Tarzan, Hercules...these
look like over-focus-grouped formulaic movies without much in the way of
brains. Was there any reason for an animated "The King and I?" (I know
lots of adults who, as kids, loved the old live-action King and I with
Yule Brenner. Why not let kids watch real actors, singers, and dancers?
What's next, an animated "Sound of Music?") "Treasure Planet" looks,
from the ads and trailer, like nothign more than another dumbed-down
remake that didn't need to happen.
No wonder people aren't lining up to go see it.
Clay Heery
>go
>see Treasure Planet, honey?" Kid: "Naw! Let's go see the new Lord of the
>Rings!" End of negotiation.
You may have something there. "Harry Potter II" is about 2 hours 45 minutes
long -- PLUS an additional half hour for previews and commercials (I've timed
that) -- so if you're looking for something to babysit the grandkids with, it's
a no-brainer to go for the 3+ hour feature as opposed to the 90 minute Disney
flick.
--C.
nmstevens
Along the lines above, a number of years ago, I wrote a screenplay
called, "Star Pirates" - this is what I put on the very first page"
A NOTE ON STAR PIRATES:
There are real Pirates in the world today. They don't wear eye
patches, floppy pirate hats, fly the skull and crossbones, have
parrots on their shoulders, or go "Arrrr" like Robert Newton. They
wear jeans and tee shirts and sunglasses, carry automatic weapons and
travel in high-powered motor boats. Contemporary pirates are embedded
in our contemporary culture the same way pirates of the 1700's were
embedded in theirs. In the same way, the Pirates of our Future World
DON'T wear eye patches, floppy pirate hats, have the skull and
crossbones on their space ships, robot parrots on their shoulders, or
go "Arrrr" like Robert Newton. They are embedded in their culture as
Pirates throughout history have been. In the look of the sets,
costumes, and props, there should be NO EXPICIT REFERENCE to pirates
of the Blackbeard vintage. No steering wheels. No cutlasses. No baggy
pirate shirts. No skull and crossbones. No visual reference, whatever,
to sailing ships or things nautical.
However, the world of STAR PIRATES isn't a hi-tech future. The
technology is there, but not overtly visible. Rather we glimpse it,
here and there, peeking out from behind the clutter - a holoscreen, an
input device, a com station, or a lightstrip along a wall. Rooms will
have walls made of wood or plaster or tile. People will have pictures
on the walls of their rooms, knick-knacks on their shelves, and
clothes hanging over their furniture (which will not have any
resemblance to "modern" furniture). If they don't dress in pirate
clothes, neither do they dress in tin foil or glitter. The Pirates, at
home aboard their ships, will wear ragged casual clothes, old
uniforms, or whatever kind of garment reflects their history and
personality. If you're a Pirate, you don't have to dress up. You get
to wear whatever you want.
This is an "old" future. Pirates don't get the new stuff straight
from the factory. What they own, they steal, and what they steal is
generally used and not always in ideal condition. Their ships, even if
reasonably deadly, are all fifty or a hundred years old. They DON'T go
faster than the latest "ship of the fleet."
For the STAR PIRATES, as with Pirates of all generations, their world
is a patched-together one, reflecting bits and pieces of many
different cultures, histories, technologies and personalities. But,
please, no eye patches.
-- Of course, it still hasn't sold.
NMS
stace
> In article <8KvH9.1620$Ym2...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Tom Wood" <tomw...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>> Why isn't TREASURE PLANET connecting with audiences? This is a great story
>> with wonderful characters, brought up to date so that today's young people
>> can connect with it. It's dying.
Well, kids are like "What the hell is a pirate?"
Also, it's Disney. Disney=Singing. Singing=Puke.
stace
--
You can access MWS and screenwriting FAQs at
http://www.communicator.com/faqs.html; brought to you by Rich Wilson.
Before asking the group a question, check the archives:
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search and typing
misc.writing.screenplays in the Newsgroup field, in addition to your
Keyword.
WRabkin
When they were selling Lilo and Stitch, they knew they had a unfamiliar
property, so much of the advertising went into selling what the film was about.
I never saw it, but I know it was about an obnoxious little girl who adopts and
even more obnoxious alien as her pet, and they have adventures.
But with Treasure Planet, they show a few shots of sailing space ships, and a
couple of jokes with aliens -- because they assume they know their audience
will know what Treasure Island is about.
Fact is, kids aren't reading a lot of Robert Louis Stevenson these days. And
there hasn't been a significant Treasure Island movie in decades.
So if there's a compelling story to this movie, no one's going to know about it
-- except, as someone here said, grandparents.
Janek Czekaj
island with Anne Heche(?), which ended up a bit naff as the pirates in that
were all jolly roger, eye-patches, etc.
I personally felt that Steven Spielberg's 'Hook' failed for much the same
reason - the pirates were too pirately of a Time long gone and had little
relevance to the modern age. The story of 'Peter Pan' had been modernised -
Williams as a banker complete with mobile 'phones and ulcer - but the
pirates, IMPO, had nothing that modern days kids would associate with... Or
maybe I am drifting off-line here.
Janek.
"nmstevens" <nmst...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:a8f80314.02120...@posting.google.com...
Janek Czekaj
TV-series called 'Return To Treasure Island' where, basically, they took the
original story, most of the original characters and added one or two new
ones.
They then created, well, a fantastic fun and adventure-filled romp based
around the concept of what would happen if some of the original characters
had to go back to Tresure Island - um, the title - and it was superb.
Janek.
"Ovum" <ov...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021204221813...@mb-mh.aol.com...
Jamie.
loving this as a little one. It had a Long John Silver and an imperilled kid
onboard a saucer. The bridge was secured the old-fashioned way with big iron
plates over the window in the door. Does anyone remember it? They landed on
a planet, and took over the craft. That's all I recall, apart from the fact
that Long John had silver hair, and kept toying with the kid's trust. It
must have been quite an expensive mini-series (US) ? Max 12-15 years ago.
--
Want honest answers to honest questions about scoops on qvc?
Q: I just heard the Amazing Rotating Super Styler with patented polishing
and anti-tangling technology is Sweeping Through Hollywood. - Is this true?
A: Yes. It's bobing and debobing waitresses' mops throughout the Wood.
(Results not typical.)
--
"Janek Czekaj" <janekNOSPAM...@hotmail.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:0ARH9.4903$qa6.1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
Dena Jo
> I mention once again the Treasure Island In Space TV series. I remember
> loving this as a little one.
I think maybe you're confusing this with Lost in Space, which was a TV
series from the '60s that was basically the Swiss Family Robinson set in
outer space. A father, the mother, two daughters, a son (the youngest
child), one other crew member, and a stowaway, Dr. Smith. Oh, and a robot.
--
Dena Jo
Jamie.
returned to earth, but no one believed them, because they were wearing
silver suits?
"Let's sleep under the shield."
Anyway, that was in b/w!
--
Want honest answers to honest questions about scoops on qvc?
Q: I just heard the Amazing Rotating Super Styler with patented polishing
and anti-tangling technology is Sweeping Through Hollywood. - Is this true?
A: Yes. It's bobing and debobing waitresses' mops throughout the Wood.
(Results not typical.)
--
"Dena Jo" <den...@csNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92DBB345D9F53d...@130.133.1.4...
Dena Jo
> I think not. That was my *all time favourite*.
I went to the same elementary school as Billy Mumy, but he was in my
sister's class.
--
Dena Jo
Ovum
from a Navy PR guy:
--------------
*** Weekly Piracy Report:
07.11.2002 at 0001 UTC in position: 12:22N - 054:45E, Gulf of Aden.
Two pirates armed with knives boarded a bulk carrier underway from a
boat. They ransacked master's cabin, held him hostage and demanded money
and safe key. When master refused, they beat him up severely until he
became unconscious. Master received extensive injuries and his speech
became impaired. Pirates stole USD33,028 from ship's safe together with
personal property and escaped.
06.11.2002 at 0340 LT at pier no.1 east, Rio Haina port, Dominican
Republic.
Five pirates armed with knives and wooden battens boarded a bulk carrier
from forecastle. They assaulted and tide-up 2nd officer and hit duty A/B
on the head when he raised alarm. Pirates destroyed life raft, stole
ship's stores, property, and crew belongings and escaped. Master
informed authorities and navy who boarded ship for investigation. 2nd
officer and A/B sustained injuries and were sent ashore for treatment.
04.11.2002 at 0005 LT in position 00:52.6N - 105:07.1E, vicinity of
Bintan island, Indonesia.
About eight pirates armed with long knives boarded a container ship
underway and overpowered 3rd mate and tied-up his hands with rope and
taped his mouth. Pirates forced 3rd mate to phone master to come to the
bridge. When master entered bridge, he was taken hostage and assaulted
with a knife. His hands were tied-up with ropes and he was taken to his
cabin where pirates stole cash from crew and ship's safe in excess of
USD7,000. They then jumped into the water and escaped.
-------------
Jeaibe
>Wasn't there a Harrison Ford movie a few years back, where he crashed on an
>island with Anne Heche(?), which ended up a bit naff as the pirates in that
>were all jolly roger, eye-patches, etc.
>
I just saw that movie last week. What a dog. What was Harrison Ford thinking?
But, the pirates were not the jolly roger type. They wore jeans and shot
people in cold blood.
Paulo Joe Jingy
"Jamie." <c...@t.com> wrote in message
news:asos0b$gcb$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> I mention once again the Treasure Island In Space TV series. I remember
> loving this as a little one.
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0179577
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Janek Czekaj
whisky you come into contact with! :-)
Anyone know if they saved Private Ryan? :-)
Janek.
"Jeaibe" <jea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021205220659...@mb-ml.aol.com...
Jamie.
nazardo
> Why isn't TREASURE PLANET connecting with audiences? This is a great story
> with wonderful characters, brought up to date so that today's young people
> can connect with it. It's dying.
>
It's dying because there is only room in space for one great pirate
movie, and unfortunately for Treasure Planet, it was made many moons
ago:
THE ICE PIRATES
Best damn space pirate move ever!
Tom Wood
"nazardo" <steven...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ca647f45.02120...@posting.google.com...
What about SPACE TRUCKERS?
mpspi...@aol.com
> If I
> had kids, trying to sell me on this movie by referencing an unfamiliar novel
> wouldn't work.
The fact that you consider Treasure Island an "unfamiliar novel" says
much more about your level of cultural literacy than it does about
Disney's creative choices.
Alex Fink
<mpspi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bca74ae.02120...@posting.google.com...
I don't think anyone should be taken to task because they failed to read a
novel written in the century before last, no matter how great it is.
When Demi Moore commented on her version of "The Scarlet Letter's"
boneheaded rearrangement of the story, she said something like "Hey, no
one's read the book." I was initially offended because I was in the middle
of reading the book for my high school English class, but when I gave it
some thought I realized that I was an honors student (just in English, I
sucked at everything else) and that out of the literally hundreds of people
I knew, maybe two dozen people could tell me about Hester Prynn's crime, let
alone her name and other details.
A lot of people know the story of Jeckyll and Hyde. How many of them have
actually read "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?" How many
people have read Stephen King's "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank
Redemption," and how does that number compare to the masses who've seen the
movie? And that novella's in a bestseller by an unbelievably popular,
living author.
I've read pretty much everything by Shakespeare, a lot of Melleville, some
of Calvino's more challenging stuff, and more Joyce than I ever wanted to.
But I've never read Treasure Island or seen any of the film versions, and
the only reason I know the protagonist's name is because I've read up on
"Treasure Planet."
So what I'm saying is I think you should quit waving that righteous
indignation around, it's likely to go off and hurt someone. I don't know
that the world would be a better place if everyone had read more Stevenson.
I'd like it if I could talk to anyone I knew about "The Confidence Man," but
I can't because even my more literary friends don't know what the hell it
is. When I chose to read Melleville rather than Tom Clancy or Nelson
DeMille I knew what I was getting into. You might be able to judge people
by certain things they haven't done, but I doubt that reading Victorian
adventure novels are among those crucial accomplishments.
Whew. That helped me slack off on my teen comedy for about twenty minutes.
Alex
...
Hercule Platini
Jeff Newman <story...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021204181227...@mb-fu.aol.com...
> I think it's nothing more than the idea of what looks like ocean-going
ships in
> space looks dumb.
Those who care about such things (which doesn't really include me) might
care to know that the "legendary" BBC TV series "Doctor Who" did feature a
story about galleons in outer space. If memory serves, it was called
"Enlightenment". And it was probably very dumb indeed, even by the
standards of latter-day Doctor Who (and they weren't high) as viewed by an
undiscriminating teenager.
--
Richard Street
Jacques E. Bouchard
news:bca74ae.02120...@posting.google.com:
"Cultural literacy"? I apologize for ruining your little self-
satisfied snide trip, but culture is all about generation, not about
some checklist that pretentious asses keep tucked in their pocket just
to make sure they've got the "right" curriculum to impress others. Like
people who think "culture" is only classical music and the Mona Lisa,
because they're old and therefore a safe bet.
Young people nowadays have never read "Treasure Island" because
it's irrelevant to them, and they have their own new classics to deal
with.
jaybee
Ovum
>The fact that you consider Treasure Island an "unfamiliar novel" says
>much more about your level of cultural literacy than it does about
>Disney's creative choices.
I'd bet my level of cultural literacy could whup yours. Blindfolded. With its
shoelaces tied together. Every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.
Lois
Dena Jo
>
> The fact that you consider Treasure Island an "unfamiliar novel" says
> much more about your level of cultural literacy than it does about
> Disney's creative choices.
It says nothing about Lois's level of cultural literacy at all. She's
simply commenting on the level of cultural awareness among kids today as
she sees it. Whether she's right or wrong is another issue entirely.
--
Dena Jo
PJ Browning
"Jacques E. Bouchard" <jacques_...@NOSPAMhotpop.com> wrote:
> Young people nowadays have never read "Treasure Island" because
> it's irrelevant to them, and they have their own new classics to deal
> with.
Then you don't know much about kids. Many of them have read "Treasure
Island" as well as many other 'classics' either because they have to in
school or because they simply wanted to.
MwsReader
> But I've never read Treasure Island or seen any of the film versions, and
> the only reason I know the protagonist's name is because I've read up on
> "Treasure Planet."
So now's your time to make up for it! The full novel and *wonderful*
illustrations by N.C. Wyeth are at:
http://ferncanyonpress.com/pirates/treasure/island.shtml
Sure was one of my faves as a kid! It's great adventure storytelling.
(If nothing else, go look at the pix.)
Ken
Jamie.
LOL.
America On-Line, huh? (no disrespect to AOL users, just illustrating a
point)
FYI 'Treasure Island' is not really considered to be a genuinne 'classic'
outside of the United States, where it is usually seen near the words
"children's" and "book", rather than "literary" and "novel", "classic" and
"cultural", unless "children's" feature among them, as in "Children's
Classic".
Jacques E. Bouchard
news:moviewriter-6ACF...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com:
> In article <Xns92DD607D4F6FCj...@66.11.168.195>,
> "Jacques E. Bouchard" <jacques_...@NOSPAMhotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> Young people nowadays have never read "Treasure Island"
>> because
>> it's irrelevant to them, and they have their own new classics to
deal
>> with.
>
> Then you don't know much about kids.
I know plenty about kids, PJ, but I'll admit that I have
committed the inexcusable sin of having had a different experience from
yours.
My nieces and nephews have never read "Treasure Island. I have
never read the book myself, because I did not grow up in an American
culture.
How about that, PJ. Different cultures. Who would have thunk?
Are you having a particularly bad day that's making you more
irascible than usual, or are oyu always this grating and
confrontational?
jaybee
mpspi...@aol.com
> I'd bet my level of cultural literacy could whup yours. Blindfolded. With its
> shoelaces tied together. Every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.
Your original post remains noted as evidence to the contrary.
Jacques E. Bouchard
> ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote in message
And your original post remains noted as the pretentious eruction
of a self-important snob who wouldn't know true culture unless it's of
the type that is plainly and clearly identified as such for the benefit
of other self-pretentious snobs.
jaybee
PJ Browning
"Jacques E. Bouchard" <jacques_...@NOSPAMhotpop.com> wrote:
> Are you having a particularly bad day that's making you more
> irascible than usual, or are oyu always this grating and
> confrontational?
I just have a thing against folks that make grand statements that read
as "this is 100% true" when it is not.
Jacques E. Bouchard
You mean kinda like saying that only your own personal experience
and the kids YOU know are valid? You mean like that, PJ?
I wasn't the only one to call "Treasure Planet" irtrelevent to
the experience of today's youth. You'd have to be pretty blind to claim
otherwise. One simple look at today's youth (i.e. normal, conmtemporary
youth) to see that pirates and treasures are not relevent to their
experience.
jaybee
Alex Fink
"MwsReader" <mwsr...@aol.com.eatspam> wrote in message
news:20021207141348...@mb-ch.aol.com...
Hell, I read "King Jesus," "I, Claudius" and "The White Goddess" in one
year. I owe myself a fun read.
...
Ovum
>Your original post remains noted as evidence to the contrary.
>
Well, at least you didn't post your reading resume or spout arcane trivia as
*your* "evidence to the contrary." However, you did make at least one glaring
error which tells me everything I need to know about your level of "cultural
literacy."
You never defined the time, place, or socio-economic strata of the culture(s)
in which you claim to have superior literacy.
Are you literate in Chinese culture during the Ming dynasty, or Chinese culture
now? Are you talking about Mexican culture pre-Spanish invasion, or in the
late 1800s?
If you said you were literate in Iraqi culture, you would need to define
whether you were discussing the northern Kurdish culture, or the culture of
Bagdad. If you said you were literate in 21st-century Guatemalan culture, you
would need to define whether you meant the Garifuna culture (they are the
descendants of shipwrecked African slaves -- but you probably knew that,
right?) or the culture of the Mayan Indians.
Not to mention the need to define socio-economic class. The aristocracy have a
different culture than those who are working class or poor.
You didn't, by any chance, mean 21st-century U.S. culture, did you Mpspillers?
Because then you'd need to define in which sub-culture you are literate. Are
you talking about Amish, survivalist, militia, Hasidic, hip-hop, rural farming,
urban Latino gang, Italian mafia, Chinese mafia, military (with sub-sub
cultures by branch), goth, Southern Old Money, traditional Native American,
Hmong, gay, or Neo Nazi? There must be at least 250 sub-cultures in this
country. And that's before you throw in gender.
Then, Mpspillers, you didn't define what you meant by the word "literacy" in
the phrase "cultural literacy." I take it you meant "familiarity with the
conventions of" and/or "conversant about." I hope you didn't mean "the
literature of."
Some cultures rely on oral history and therefore don't have a body of
"literature." That doesn't make their myths, legends and stories any less
compelling than those of cultures who have written theirs down -- or filmed
them.
And don't even get me started on the word "literature!" Better minds than ours
have long debated what constitutes "literature" and what does not.
The point is, since you didn't reference ANY of this before you flamed me, I
know that you are not as "culturally literate" as you claim to be.
Tom Wood
irrelevent to the experience of today's youth. You'd have to be pretty blind
to claim otherwise. One simple look at today's youth (i.e. normal,
their experience."
But that's not what the story is about. It's a coming of age story set in a
fantasy. My kids are normal contemporary youth and my 16 year old daughter
has seen it three times already. Treasure Planet is about cutting loose
parental bonds and setting your own course, which is exactly the
psychological/emotional experience that a 16 year old is experiencing. I
think that also explains the movie's failure at the box office. Teenagers
don't want to go on a date to a Disney cartoon, and, being a teen coming of
age story, the story is aimed above the heads of children. Disney can't
reach their market. I'm pretty sure my daughter would not have asked to go
see it, I was the one that insisted. Now she loves it. As far as pirates
and treasure not being relevant to today, I point to ENRON and the rest of
them.
TW
PJ Browning
"Jacques E. Bouchard" <jacques_...@NOSPAMhotpop.com> wrote:
> You mean kinda like saying that only your own personal experience
> and the kids YOU know are valid? You mean like that, PJ?
>
I have never claimed to have absolute knowledge of what every kid in the
world is reading or find relevant.
Let's compare:
You wrote:
"Young people nowadays have never read "Treasure Island" because
it's irrelevant to them, and they have their own new classics to deal
with."
A statement that implies that NO human being under the age of 18 has
read Treasure Island.
And I countered with:
"Many of them have read "Treasure
Island" as well as many other 'classics' either because they have to in
school or because they simply wanted to."
I know this to be fact because I sell 3-4 copies of the book a week and
at least 2 of them are for a child, at that child's request. If you paid
attention to folks comments for something other than fodder for your
cheap shots, then you would know that I work days in a major Los Angeles
bookstore. So I think I have the personal experience to know that there
are some kids that are reading the book.
And by the by, not all of my customers are Americans or American born,
so that whole 'different cultures' line doesn't hold much water for me.
Especially since I just sold a stack of so called AMERICAN classics to a
French couple that was taking them back to their kids in Paris. And
guess what, Treasure Island was one of them.
Jacques E. Bouchard
> I have never claimed to have absolute knowledge of what every kid in
> the world is reading or find relevant.
Is that so? Then what the hell DID you mean when I claimed that
"Treasure Island" was not relevant to kids nowadays, and you replied
"Then you don't know much about kids"?
Was it code for something else? Or did you just give free reign
(once more) to your usual snideness, and now find yourself back-
pedalling to retract what you've said?
> "Young people nowadays have never read "Treasure Island" because
> it's irrelevant to them, and they have their own new classics to deal
> with."
>
> A statement that implies that NO human being under the age of 18 has
> read Treasure Island.
No, PJ, it's a generalization. Look up the word. Now, you may be
free to disagree and tell me that MOST young people HAVE read "Treasure
Island", and at this point I wouldn't put it past you just to get the
last word.
> And I countered with:
> "Many of them have read "Treasure
> Island" as well as many other 'classics' either because they have to
> in school or because they simply wanted to."
"Many of them" is not a majority, PJ, and this is at the heart of
the discussion about why the animated remake failed. "Many" people
liked tghe remake, but "most" did not.
Many people put mayonnaise on their fries. Do you think that
would make it a hit if McDonald's served it?
> I know this to be fact because I sell 3-4 copies of the book a week
> and at least 2 of them are for a child, at that child's request. If
> you paid attention to folks comments for something other than fodder
> for your cheap shots, then you would know that I work days in a major
> Los Angeles bookstore. So I think I have the personal experience to
> know that there are some kids that are reading the book.
Good for you. I have no idea whatsowever why you think that I
should somehow know this. Was I supposed to make a note and tape it to
my monitor last time you made a public announcement?
BTW, how many copies do you sell in a year? I'm asking, of
course, to make a point about "some" vs. "most", although I'm sure
you'll find a way to dance around that issue as well.
As for personal experience, I can only speak as someone who grew
up outside the United States, as did his friends and family, and who
buys books for nieces and nephews. Granted, however, my experience is
only representative of a whole nation. It does not speak for the
experience of a clerk in a corner bookstore.
And before you give me lip about my "cheap shots", I think you
need to take a good, long, hard look at yourself in a mirror. It was
your cheap shot ("Then you don't know much about kids") that started
the whole thing. If you don't like it, then maybe - just maybe - you
should refrain from dishing it out.
Ya think? Mull it over for a while as you sell cases upon cases
of "Treasure Island" to your clamouring masses of customers.
> And by the by, not all of my customers are Americans or American
born,
> so that whole 'different cultures' line doesn't hold much water for
> me.
Take it from me, PJ, there's a whole wide world outside your
limited geographical noundaries. Most of what YOU consider classics
were never a part of my childhood, or that of billions of people out
there.
Your skepticism about that clear fact is only a mark of your
ignorance, not some sort of ability for critical thought.
jaybee
PJ Browning
"Jacques E. Bouchard" <jacques_...@NOSPAMhotpop.com> wrote:
> "Many of them" is not a majority, PJ, and this is at the heart of
> the discussion about why the animated remake failed.
The remake failing has nothing to do with how many kids are reading the
original book or if they find the story relevant. It failed because it's
a shitty remake, or at least appears that way from the trailers. Which
is why so few people went to see it. The trailers reek of "We just took
the old timey books out of the water and stuck them in space and added
some corny songs". Not a winning formula.