1. Welcome to the Muppet Central Forum!
    You are viewing our forum as a guest. Join our free community to post topics and start private conversations. Please contact us if you need help with registration or your account login.

  2. Sesame Street Season 49
    Sesame Street's 49th season officially began Saturday November 17 on HBO. After you see the new episodes, post here and let us know your thoughts.

Is JHC No Longer Involved with Alexander?

Discussion in 'Henson Alternative' started by D'Snowth, Oct 9, 2014.

  1. D'Snowth

    D'Snowth Well-Known Member

    The last I heard about the film adaptation of ALEXANDER AND THE TERRIBLE, HORRIBLE, NO GOOD, VERY BAD DAY, it was shelved.

    Now all of the sudden, it's being released in the theaters this weekend, yet I've heard nothing of it since it was announced Disney was shelving it.

    So, since there's been no news regarding it on this forum, are we to assume the JHC backed out of the movie at some point?
  2. Muppet Master

    Muppet Master Well-Known Member

    I really hope it is not involved anymore, I cringe everytime I saw a commercial for the movie.
  3. D'Snowth

    D'Snowth Well-Known Member

    I'm with you. Knowing Steve Carrell's in this movie, I've no desire to see it. Just when we finally get a break from him, he comes back. Same with NPH, I thought we were finally getting a break from him too and now he's in commercials again.

    Anyshoe, I actually checked IMDb, and Lisa Henson is listed as the movie's producer... so... I guess JHC was still involved... I still remember reading that Disney shelved the movie, but I guess that was misinformation.
    MikaelaMuppet likes this.
  4. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    Steve's probably the only good thing about this movie. At least he looks like he's enjoying himself. But the fact that they essentially took a kid's book about something completely different and made it into a movie that has nothing to do with the original book. In fact, Alexander looks a couple years older, and therefore even his part of the story has been changed.

    Now, I don't like the book. It's essentially about a bratty kid who's ticked off things aren't going his way. I'd stutter to call the movie an improvement by any means, especially since Alexander is worse here. He actually inflicts the bad day on his entire family via the same magic birthday wish that Liar Liar was about. I really don't see the point of taking these classic kid's picture books that take 3 minutes to read and making 90 minute films about them. You made ONE Shrek and a bunch of Mars Needs Moms and Polar Expresses and crap like that. And even then, Shrek was lucky enough to come into its own and become something different.

    That said Wikipedia states that JHC is somehow still involved. Someone daring to spend the 10 bucks to see this thing will probably sort it out. Originally Fox was to make the film, but Disney bought the script and the rights. It says JHC and Lisa Henson are still producers, but someone needs to confirm that.
  5. D'Snowth

    D'Snowth Well-Known Member

    You can't really trust Wikipedia, but again, IMDb lists Lisa as a producer and JHC as one of the companies, so I guess they're still involved. I just got really confused, again because the last we heard, the movie had been shelved, and nothing more was said about it since then, but now it's out, and there's been no updates about it here, which is why I got confused.
  6. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    I don't think anyone has anything to gain about false info on a substandard movie, but I'll take it with a grain of salt. Best I can gather is that they were attached to produce, the film went somewhere else, but they already gave money to its production. Someone's gotta see this movie and give us the skinny on if they're still producers or not. IMDB can be untrustworthy at times as well.

    But it sounds overall, if they are still involved, they're trying to make a name for themselves again with this film. Now the awful part is we're going to have to root for its success if that's the case. (in best Tom Slick specator voice) yay?
  7. D'Snowth

    D'Snowth Well-Known Member

    Well, it's kind of like back towards the beginning of the Turn of the Millennium... didn't JHC produce some kind of a lackluster CATS & DOGS knock-off? And CATS & DOGS in and of itself was a fairly average movie - I remember seeing and liking the premise, but I seem to recall getting bored with the movie when it was on VHS and cable.
  8. Muppet Master

    Muppet Master Well-Known Member

    What is even worse is that R.T. gave the film a 60%, not particularily good, and one percent away from a rotten rating, but still for such a terrible movie, how dare they give it a better rating than the likes of Madagascar or Shrek the Third, films ten times better.
  9. minor muppetz

    minor muppetz Well-Known Member

    Muppet fan 123 likes this.
  10. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    The most positive reviews still find the film unmemorable or unremarkable. I'd say that Madagascar and Shrek are the signs of hipster hate, and I remember every indie newspaper ripping all those films apart for the sake of being the cool kid. You know, the film geek that hates anything mainstream for not being an emotionally manipulative pile because True Art is Angsty. Not that they don't have some moderate points, but those guys grew up watching friggin' He-Man (or worse, 70's cartoons) unironically. Their hip street cred is an illusion.

    I'm, sure Alexander is going to get bad word of mouth and that freshness rating will go down quite a bit when more reviews come in. Nothing about the film says anything more than "are you bored this Columbus Day Weekend?" Of course, it's not really doing great anyway.

    That said, I wonder why JHC hitched its wagon to something like this. Bad enough the "let's ruin films that aren't Oscar Bait, and even then screw with them" brothers had them releasing DTV Shrek ripoffs several years back. They don't need this sort of substandard wacky family comedy to give them street cred or a name for themselves.

    Seriously... just Kickstart Happytime Murders. We need a Henson movie not a low budget throwaway Disney kiddy flick.
  11. scooterfan360

    scooterfan360 Well-Known Member

    i'm ticked off that they totally disrepected the origanal story by making the whole family have a bad day i think hbo did a good job with it by taking the origanal story and making it into a animated musical i hope that they don't mess wih lyle the crocodile
  12. D'Snowth

    D'Snowth Well-Known Member

    That's the problem whenever you try to adapt a children's book into a feature-length movie, like Drtooth previously pointed out. On THE CAT IN THE HAT DVD (yes, I have that movie, I actually find it a might entertaining), one of the first things the director confesses on the commentary that one of the biggest challenges for them was how were they going to possibly turn a 200-word book into a 90 minute movie? Many of these movies throw in canon foreigners and come up with all kinds of backstories for different characters, or add extra filler to fill up the entire tire (and because this happened to both Cat in the Hat and Grinch, Dr. Seuss' estate now refuses to have any of his books adapted into live action movies ever again).

    I can agree, when you're confined to a little animated special, it's easier to go straight from the book and work with that.
  13. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    There really wasn't much of a story to begin with. It was about a little kid who was having a bad day, some of that admittedly was through his own little boy first world problems, some of it legitimately was going against him. They turned it into something I'd call "Liar Liar with Bad Karma instead of Lies," especially since the kid wish inflicts the bad day on everyone making Alxeander even more of a d-bag than in the original when he was just baby George Costanza. While I didn't like the movie before that reveal, the fact that it's all inflicted via Birthday wish makes it just reprehensible.

    While I don't think the Grinch movie improved on the original story, the film worked by taking the mythology and expanding on it with alternate character interpretation. Not a great film, but I do like how the Grinch wanted to destroy Christmas because he felt the Whos were hypocritical, and frankly that's something we can all jive too. Not to mention it was already a half hour special, and that seems to be the source they were using. Said special padded the story out with Chuck Jones animation, though.

    Cat in the Hat however... I doubt the producers knew there was a special. It's not fairly well known (mainly because it isn't rebroadcast every year). Angry Beavers sort of referenced it... that's about it. And I might as well go there... something tells me Universal knew this was a terrible film and they made it because they had the license and they wanted to punish Mike Myers for not doing their awful Sprokets movie that thankfully never happened. I mean, there wasn't an SNL skit movie that was a success since Wayne's World, so naturally one based on a lesser known skit that was only relevant in the 80's would have been a massive hit. :rolleyes: So when Tim Allen backed down (who would later go on to Last Man Standing, so it MUST'VE been bad for him to have standards) Mike was still under contract and they forced him into that film, and then his career hit hard (though this wasn't the film to end his career).

    But yeah... Kid's picture books don't have much story, and they invent one whole cloth. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs took the sweet grandfather tall tale and rationalized it as a well meaning scientist who wants his father to be proud of him that did everything. And while I don't hate the film now, I still don't care much for it. Like I said, they made Shrek once. And that was all luck. And even then, the original pass of the book added some stupid, cliched stuff that thankfully wasn't in the finished product. Shrek was to live with his parents and be a source of embarrassment because he didn't want to be an ogre... no thank you. The 90 minutes of antagonizing Michael Eisner was far more enjoyable.
  14. Luke kun

    Luke kun Well-Known Member

    Shrek was a book first? :confused:
  15. Dominicboo1

    Dominicboo1 Well-Known Member

    Would you guys believe there's an AD right under the comments on my AOL for this movie? LOL!
  16. ToonGeek

    ToonGeek Well-Known Member

    People still use AOL?
  17. Dominicboo1

    Dominicboo1 Well-Known Member

    Yeah, my dad likes me using it for parental controls so I don't have to worry about viruses. He's overprotective, but better that than not interested I suppose.
  18. minor muppetz

    minor muppetz Well-Known Member

    Well, I saw the movie today, and indeed saw a credit referring to it as a Jim Henson Company production (feels weird seeing a "Jim Henson Company production" credit... usually The Jim Henson Company might get a "The Jim Henson Company presents..." credit, and back in the Jim Henson Productions days some production credits read "...from Jim Henson Productions"... Can't remember off-hand what the Jim Henson Pictures credit was like).

    I'd say that the movie was decent. When the rest of the family starts having their bad day, it seems like it's already a lot worse than Alexander's bad day at the beginning of the film.

    And it seems there are times when it looks like things are looking up for the family, only to get worse again. Maybe not a big issue, but seems to happen a bit too much, and seems like they start looking up over the situation a bit too early.

    It also seems like Alexander is hardly in the movie once the family begins being cured with a bad day. There's a lot more focus on the others during the middle of the film.

    Some things seem to go nowhere. Alexander suddenly has to bring the school guniea pig home, which he doesn't seem to want to do, and yet nothing bad involving the guniea pig happens. When the kid who's throwing his party on the same day as Alexander's party has to cancel, he points out to is dream girl that she can now go to his party, and she seems uninterested for some reason (bad acting, perhaps?), and then we don't see her again until she shows up at the party. Could there have been some deleted scenes concerning this?

    Minor spoiler here: When the father gets invited to a job interview meeting at a restaurant, things seem to go well for him, the people from the company seem impressed, but then he gets set on hire, and he thinks he blew the interview because of that? I think it should have been clear to them that it was an accident, and being accidentally set on fire at a business meeting shouldn't be a reason to not get hired. Some bad writing there.
  19. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    :boo: "Some bad writing there?"

    :sleep: "I'd say some bad writing everywhere!"

Share This Page