BUTCHERING THE THIEF:TTHUNDERR
TTHUNDERR
the insult that I saw. I got up halfway through and stood outside the
theater trying to calm down. Do not even think it is because I like
Richard Williams , because I think that he is a royal pain. But that
aside, he is a genius. What were these people thinking? Could they not see
that the thief had to be done in silent poetry. What idiot thought that
they could write words for character that was pure Chaplin. They have spit
in the eye of the art community and repainted the Mona Lisa! The voices
were terrible, this could have been any dubbed Kung Fu film. I have not
been this angry for a long time. Anything that was good came from the
original, everything that was trivial and badly done came from Fred
Calvert { a Saturday morning studio }. What could only be the totally
planned destruction of one of the landmark animation pieces of our age .
Who is responsible? Could it be Calverts {who have absolutely no
experience in feature animation , let alone one of the greatest films in
animation lore}.
I would question the motives of anyone who would hire such an obvious
mismatch. If I were Williams I would sue for putting my name on that crap!
Does everything we see have to be a big fat bowel of babyfood?! All I can
say is that all the work is now tainted, all destroyed. A generation of
people will think that Richard Williams had something to do with that
piece of garbage. It makes me very sad. I do not have the answer for why
this was allowed to happen, but I know that this was truly an act of
vandalism. If you have not seen the real film { the original} then I
recommend you grab what pirated copies you can find because what has been
released to the big screen is not the Thief. No matter how many times they
tell you that it is, it is not. The original is the only true film and
from here on I refuse to be told otherwise.
The sound was so incredibly poor { with respliced sound loops in the final
sound track!}. I have never seen a film as badly handled. Only time will
tell who the criminal in this case is , but make no mistake , a crime was
committed. To Richard Williams I can only say that I am sorry for what was
done to your film , I really loved the original. I now that you probably
think now that all that effort is wasted, but I can only say that the
standards set by your work has truely changed me and that I think that
that was what you had hoped to accomplish in the first place.
''DONT TRUST MONEY PEOPLE''. They are artists with no talent. They leech
off real artists by letting them create things that they can take away ,
then claim they improved . They have no heart , they have no souls and
worst of all they have absolutely no taste!
Here's to the bond company that thought they could direct better than
Richard Williams. You should be ashamed.
Warren Trezevant
almost exactly how I felt when watching it. When I left the theatre I could
not believe the atrocity I had just witnessed. The versions of The Thief and
The Cobbler that I have seen were mostly pencil with some color but I could sit
and just bask in the brilliance of the animation.
It *is* a shame that Richard William's name has been associated with Arabian
Knight, as the resemblance between that and the original piece are are light
years apart.
It still befuddles me that Miramax didn't try and restore as much of the
original as possible - weak characters and storyline - and all, and create a
tribute to Richard Williamsthat could circulate the art houses, than let this
great art be dumbed down to the level of 5 year olds.
Warren Trezevant
ba...@sirius.com
San Francisco, CA
Ed Williams
T:they have absolutely no taste! Here's to the bond company that thought
T:they could direct better than Richard Williams. You should be ashamed.
They got the movie finished which is more than Williams was able
to do. If he wanted his vision on the screen he should have finished it
ten years ago.
---
* CMPQwk #1.4* UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
TTHUNDERR
>original as possible - weak characters and storyline - and all, and
create >a
>tribute to Richard Williamsthat could circulate the art houses, than let
>this
>great art be dumbed down to the level of 5 year olds.
>Warren Trezevant
True. Did Disney not run an incomplete version of ''Beauty and the
Beast''? Thief deserves that at least.
JBeck6540
cinematic equalivents in movie history; It's not unlike Orson Welles
having THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS taken away from him and recut, or perhaps
the Japanese animated WARRIORS OF THE WIND which is an Americanized
baby-ized cut-down version of "Naussicaa".
I hear the L.A. Times is doing a story on the butcher job...
Jerry Beck
Enrique Conty
>
>ARABIAN KNIGHT is a travasty. I've been trying to come up with some
>cinematic equalivents in movie history; It's not unlike Orson Welles
>having THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS taken away from him and recut, or perhaps
>the Japanese animated WARRIORS OF THE WIND which is an Americanized
>baby-ized cut-down version of "Naussicaa".
As you may have heard, New World's distribution rights to WARRIORS expired
a few months back. A subtitled print of the original NAUSICAA OF THE VALLEY
OF THE WIND was premiered in London a while back.
>Jerry Beck
Wow. A pleasure to have you in the channel, Mr. Beck! ^_^
--
Enrique Conty
co...@cig.mot.com
Anime Central Llama Wrangler
TTHUNDERR
to do. If he wanted his vision on the screen he should have finished it
ten years ago.
---
* CMPQwk #1.4* UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
I would love to agree , but the truth is that the reason the film was
special was that he tried to keep money out of it {other than his own} .
You could only ask that it should have been done ten years ago ,if he had
contracted originally to complete 10 years ago. He was paying for it out
of his own studios profits so when he finished it was absolutely his own
business. I don't think you know anyone who has payed for a feature this
way so you cannot make that judgement. It was only his desire to complete
that made him get involved with outside financing.
TTHUNDERR
SFUJ...@delphi.com
Quoting jbeck6540 from a message in rec.arts.animation
> I hear the L.A. Times is doing a story on the butcher job...
It was nice they gave both sides of the story. Williams' son in essence
said they totally wrecked the movie and ruined William's vision. But Eberts
(the executive producer, NOT the critic) argued that Williams was more in
love with the images than with creating a strong storyline or interesting
characters. I can see both sides--artistic vision should be respected but,
unfortunately, the movie business is different that painting or writing in
that it takes financial backing and technical support from other people,
which inevitably results in compromises. One of the reasons I never decided
to go into screenwriting...
Anyway, apparently the movie didn't do so well over the weekend. Probably
because unless you knew better, you would think that this was a cheap
rip-off of Aladdin.
--Scott
Rainbow V 1.07 for Delphi - Registered
Sherline Lee
>
>Quoting jbeck6540 from a message in rec.arts.animation
> > I hear the L.A. Times is doing a story on the butcher job...
>
>
>Anyway, apparently the movie didn't do so well over the weekend. Probably
>because unless you knew better, you would think that this was a cheap
>rip-off of Aladdin.
>
Actually, in the Chicagoland area it is almost impossible to find
it playing anywehre. That and it's not being actively promoted
in the papers...and the commercial spots have disappeared.
This could explain why it didn't fare that well.
Does anyone know how many theaters it opened in?
That would definitely impact the box office weekend gross.
Sherline
--
\|/ ,,,, \|/ Sherline Lee
~@-/ o@ \-@ sher...@nwu.edu
/_( \__/ )_\ http://charlotte.acns.nwu.edu/sherline/
\__U_/ One more year,...and then what?
Eric J. Henwood-Greer
In a previous article, SFUJ...@delphi.com () says:
>
>Quoting jbeck6540 from a message in rec.arts.animation
> > I hear the L.A. Times is doing a story on the butcher job...
>
>It was nice they gave both sides of the story. Williams' son in essence
>said they totally wrecked the movie and ruined William's vision. But Eberts
Could someoone either please scan the article for me and e-mail it or
post it or give me the issue of the the LA TIMES that it was in please?
Eric
Glenn Saunders
: They got the movie finished which is more than Williams was able
: ten years ago.
This is the problem with any single man who takes on a project in the
highly collaborative medium of film. You simply can't do it all yourself
and to some extent you must deal with the powers that be.
Successful filmmakers are those who manage to cajole, fool, and manipulate
the studios to give them the money and the power to make their films the
way they want them. Being talented at your craft isn't enough when $ is
involved.
Jason John Seaver
> > I hear the L.A. Times is doing a story on the butcher job...
>
>It was nice they gave both sides of the story. Williams' son in essence
>said they totally wrecked the movie and ruined William's vision. But Eberts
>love with the images than with creating a strong storyline or interesting
>characters. I can see both sides--artistic vision should be respected but,
>unfortunately, the movie business is different that painting or writing in
>that it takes financial backing and technical support from other people,
>which inevitably results in compromises.
True. But let's face it, the movie was severely flawed. It needed
at least two more rewrites in the worst way. All the eye candy in the world
just can't make up for a bad story (okay. I can't explain Terminator 2).
>Anyway, apparently the movie didn't do so well over the weekend. Probably
>because unless you knew better, you would think that this was a cheap
>rip-off of Aladdin.
I work in a movie theatre where this played and it went as predicted:
Business Friday, word of mouth kills it dead dead dead. The similarities to
Aladdin certainly didn't help. If Disney did steal from this, then they at
least had the good grace to improve nearly everything about it.
TTHUNDERR
>at least two more rewrites in the worst way. All the eye candy in the
>world
>just can't make up for a bad story
Wait a second, have you seen the original? And what kind of film making
course tells you that it needs'' TWO'' rewrites? If your judging by whats
in the theaters than you are not making an informed judgment.
Jason John Seaver
TTHUNDERR <tthu...@aol.com> wrote:
>>They got the movie finished which is more than Williams was able
>>to do. If he wanted his vision on the screen he should have finished it
>>ten years ago.
>
>special was that he tried to keep money out of it {other than his own} .
>You could only ask that it should have been done ten years ago ,if he had
>contracted originally to complete 10 years ago. He was paying for it out
>of his own studios profits so when he finished it was absolutely his own
>business. I don't think you know anyone who has payed for a feature this
>way so you cannot make that judgement. It was only his desire to complete
>that made him get involved with outside financing.
(1) Please stop telling people they cannot make judgments. It's
extremely rude.
(2) Once he got involved with outside financing, he had to produce.
People may not like it, but signing a contract is making a promise. If the
promise isn't kept, expect unpleasantness.
SFUJ...@delphi.com
Quoting sherline from a message in rec.arts.animation
> Does anyone know how many theaters it opened in?
It made $319,723 on 510 screens, which I guess qualifies as doing
"poorly".
The article was in the August 30 L.A. Times Calendar Section.
TTHUNDERR
>extremely rude.
> (2) Once he got involved with outside financing, he had to produce.
>People may not like it, but signing a contract is making a promise. If
the
>promise isn't kept, expect unpleasantness.
I called you no names , I did not attack you personally and you seem to be
a bit miffed. I am sorry you see it as rude ,but its my opinion, just as
you thought that Williams should have finished ten years ago. You know
nothing about what the situation was but you see fit to say that you know
that he should have completed by this time. As to the bond company taking
away the film, I am sorry that you find the seizing of someones lifes work
so justified. Your dismissive tone about something a person devoted 25
years of their life to leads me to ask you to look at yourself and ask who
really is rude.
Mary A. Giordano
>worst of all they have absolutely no taste!
>Here's to the bond company that thought they could direct better than
>Richard Williams. You should be ashamed.
>
THANK YOU for saying what many of us - at least those of us who love are
and animation - have wanted to say. This butchering is an OUTRAGE! I'm
only envious of you for being able to see an original version.
People just don't take this seriously enough for what it is. This is going
to mean aninmation being taken away from the ARTISTS and given to
ACCOUNTANTS to make. This is going to diminish - if not end - any
opportunity an independent artist with original ideas has to make his
OWN picture. They did this to Orson Welles a number of years ago, and
Welles was the greatest ARTIST who ever made movies. They took his
films away before completion, they re-edited them, they slapped on new
endings, they condemned him for going over-budget by very SMALL dollar
figures. It's a SCARY thought that this is now happening in the
animated medium.
I don't care what anyone wants to tell me about Disney technology - those
computers CAN NOT duplicate the flow, the feel, the MAGIC that artists
like Williams can bring to cartoons. Even with all its flaws, Arabian
Knight still gives us many moments of magic, which I have never felt in
any Disney feature since Walt's time. I've already gone to see this
film 4 times (and I doubt that it will be around much longer for me to
see it on the widescreen again), because Williams' style is
BREATHTAKING.
I just have to keep expressing to people just how I feel about this,
because it is a TRAGEDY!
Mary Ann
TTHUNDERR
:because it is a TRAGEDY!
:Mary Ann
As I said I wish you all could see the original. I saw it after a long
days work animating , at about 1 in the morning. I was not in the mood to
watch any animation { I know that many of you who animate 80 hrs a week
will relate to this} but I was given a tape and I thought I would just
browse through it. By the time I was about 10 minutes in , I realized that
I was going to be up very late. The video copy was crappy but the film
making was very clear. Someone out there has a clear copy and they are a
very lucky person indeed. This will probably be an underground classic. I
would pay money for the original, but I won't spend a dime on'' Arabian
Knightmare''.
Mary Giordano
In a previous article, jse...@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver) says:
>In article <423sao$l...@news1.delphi.com>, <SFUJ...@delphi.com> wrote:
>>
>>Quoting jbeck6540 from a message in rec.arts.animation
>> > I hear the L.A. Times is doing a story on the butcher job...
>>
>>It was nice they gave both sides of the story. Williams' son in essence
>>said they totally wrecked the movie and ruined William's vision. But Eberts
>>(the executive producer, NOT the critic) argued that Williams was more in
>>love with the images than with creating a strong storyline or interesting
>>characters. I can see both sides--artistic vision should be respected but,
>>unfortunately, the movie business is different that painting or writing in
>>that it takes financial backing and technical support from other people,
>>which inevitably results in compromises.
>
> True. But let's face it, the movie was severely flawed. It needed
>at least two more rewrites in the worst way. All the eye candy in the world
>just can't make up for a bad story (okay. I can't explain Terminator 2).
>
>>Anyway, apparently the movie didn't do so well over the weekend. Probably
>>because unless you knew better, you would think that this was a cheap
>>rip-off of Aladdin.
>
> I work in a movie theatre where this played and it went as predicted:
>Business Friday, word of mouth kills it dead dead dead. The similarities to
>Aladdin certainly didn't help. If Disney did steal from this, then they at
>least had the good grace to improve nearly everything about it.
>
>
>
>
But let's go back a bit to CLASSIC Disney. "Fantasia" had NO story at all.
Why did it become a classic? Because it's done on an epic scale, because it
features works by some of the greatest animators of all time, and because it
fills our SENSES with its imagination. And like it or not, epics are
usually more visual experiences than human experiences (Remember "The Last
Emperor"? And an Oscar winner, at that). Williams definitely set out to
make The Thief and the Cobbler on an epic scale, but there's little of its
epic elements left in its current American release for us to see and
understand that. And as far as story and characters go, I don't recall
fans and critics ever questioning the depth of these elements in classic
Disney films, the way today's animated features are being critiqued. I
don't believe it's the "dimension" of characters that draws us in, it's
the settings, the situations, the appearances and personalities of those
characters that matters - in other words, do the animators/directors
combine these elements in a special way to make us LIKE these characters,
and care about what happens to them? The Thief and the Cobbler basically
needed a better INTRODUCTION of characters (but NOT the narrative kind).
I may be odd in my taste, but "eye candy" by Williams can go a long way
with me. I've gone back to Arabian Knight for repeat viewings because, even
though I get depressed at seeing/hearing what's NOT Williams', I also sense a
special style and exhilaration in what IS his, and those moments are more
exciting to me than anything I've seen in animated film in years. I really,
truly feel that if this film could have been released in EPIC form, it would
have been viewed as "another Fantasia" (probably moreso than Disney's own,
upcoming Fantasia sequel).
oct...@delphi.com
>exciting to me than anything I've seen in animated film in years. I really,
>truly feel that if this film could have been released in EPIC form, it would
>have been viewed as "another Fantasia" (probably moreso than Disney's own,
>upcoming Fantasia sequel).
haven't had since the Beatles "Yellow Submarine" in 1968. His approach is
based on a strong design concept and all the strengths of Disney (And Warner)
animation to create a unique point of view. It was painful when the film
jumped at the witch's sequence right to the climax but even 65 minutes of
this brought me back four times. It pains me to think that we won't see
anything like this again,but anyone who opts for animation as a creative
career knows he's unlikely to be a financial success. Williams is a driven
man and poured his life into this and it shows. I hope to find his cut but
even without it, the film was worth seeing.
The local paper reprinted the L.A. Times story with a nice color still.