Fantastic Mr. Fox

[iv3rdawG]

Synopsis: Fantastic Mr. Fox is a stop motion animated film based on Roald Dahl's book of the same name, which will be released on November 13, 2009 by 20th Century Fox Animation. It stars the voices of George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Anjelica Huston, Jason Schwartzman, Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody, Willem Dafoe and Bill Murray. It is the first animated film directed by Wes Anderson (The Royal Tenenbaums, Rushmore).

WtbDc6zSi7s

[Justin]

Wow - it looks great.

[Spirited Away]

To me, Wes Anderson is a smug git. I find his style far too knowing, intentionally-clumsy, obscure and awkward. I commend him for somehow managing to translate that smugness into stop-motion animation, but I'm horrified.

All I will say is: Tim Burton, I apologise for my misgivings.

[Justin]

How are his films "obscure"? Anderson makes entertaining and intelligent films. They're all done extremely well. I have yet to find anyone who didn't enjoy Rushmore to some extent. I'll take this over Burton's Alice in Gothland.

No offense - but aren't you the same guy who championed Dragonball Evolution?

[Matrix_Fan]

Looks oddly charming.

[saveus1011]

Say what you will about Wes Anderson (overrated, but can make good films) but this looks great, and far better than that Dragonball Evolution nonsense.

[krushgroove19]

i'm already a giant wes anderson fanboy, but this looks... (ahem) fantastic.

[Spirited Away]

How are his films "obscure"? Anderson makes entertaining and intelligent films. They're all done extremely well. I have yet to find anyone who didn't enjoy Rushmore to some extent. I'll take this over Burton's Alice in Gothland.
They're obscure because they are bloated with idiosyncrasies - things that can't/don't happen in real life, or moments where the tone shifts drastically. The marketing machine then advertises these obscurities as smart, sophisticated, cultured, intelligent filmmaking, and the audience goes into the film expecting off-beat moments. However, because the audience has gone into the film anticipating there'll be off-beat moments, instead of interpreting them as obscure, they interpret it as clever.

Being in film/TV marketing myself, I'm pretty detached. Ad campaigns don't work on me. So when I watch a film, I'm really just judging it on the film itself. I don't go into the cinema thinking "this film is going to be smart" or "this film is going to be thrilling". So Wes Anderson comes across as really smug.

For example, in Life Aquatic, when the documentary crew is showing off the sub, all of a sudden we cut to a quite obvious sound-stage. Why? To show off how artistic the director is, how he's "challenging" the norm by using visual pragmatics? It's an attempt at Romanticism, but falls completely flat.

I find that too many people simply accept/say Wes Anderson is "smart" and "intelligent", without ever exploring why. And if they did, they would recognise he really isn't.

No offense - but aren't you the same guy who championed Dragonball Evolution?
Yes. In retrospect, it was a mistake to get so emotionally involved in the discussions on this site, but my point was people were judging the film entirely, before even a trailer was released. And yes, the film was poor.

[PsYkOoOoO]

If it i anything like The Royal Tenenbaums, I'm on it.

[Justin]

They're obscure because they are bloated with idiosyncrasies - things that can't/don't happen in real life, or moments where the tone shifts drastically. The marketing machine then advertises these obscurities as smart, sophisticated, cultured, intelligent filmmaking, and the audience goes into the film expecting off-beat moments. However, because the audience has gone into the film anticipating there'll be off-beat moments, instead of interpreting them as obscure, they interpret it as clever.

Being in film/TV marketing myself, I'm pretty detached. Ad campaigns don't work on me. So when I watch a film, I'm really just judging it on the film itself. I don't go into the cinema thinking "this film is going to be smart" or "this film is going to be thrilling". So Wes Anderson comes across as really smug.

For example, in Life Aquatic, when the documentary crew is showing off the sub, all of a sudden we cut to a quite obvious sound-stage. Why? To show off how artistic the director is, how he's "challenging" the norm by using visual pragmatics? It's an attempt at Romanticism, but falls completely flat.

I find that too many people simply accept/say Wes Anderson is "smart" and "intelligent", without ever exploring why. And if they did, they would recognise he really isn't.


Yes. In retrospect, it was a mistake to get so emotionally involved in the discussions on this site, but my point was people were judging the film entirely, before even a trailer was released. And yes, the film was poor.

What does film have to do with real life, anyway? Film has no relationship with reality. If it did, however, it would likely bore the audience to tears. Most every film contains the same dramatic arc and conventional storytelling - life doesn't work that way. Life isn't like film, nor is film like life. They are completely separate. Even Aristotle said, "Write what is possible, not probable".

I'm a film student, so naturally, I judge a film on itself, as well. But I also know that it's impossible to say you have no "expectations", because there arealways expectations there - whether you think so, or not. And since when has there ever been any ad campaign that had someone saying,"this film is smart". Not once have I ever heard this from any of his advertisements. In fact, I don't think I've even seen any commercials for any of Wes Anderson's films.

I'm not going to argue whether or not his vision always comes through as "artistic", but he does have his reasons for doing these things. It isn't arbitrary. I'm not going to start voicing Anderson's intents, because they may be the exact opposite of what he actually wanted. I don't think it's fair for you to simply "assume" he's being pretentious by doing this. It's far too easy to just assume.

Not one person I know of has ever claimed Anderson was anything profound, or extraordinarily intelligent. Most people I know, that includes fans of his, have claimed that he is largely emotional, rather than intellectual. This is something that I agree with heavily. In fact, every film I've watched by his, I've felt more emotionally satisfied than intellectually. Anderson rarely ever focuses strictly on the intellectual; his style isn't even something "obscure", it's very by-the-book and conventional, in a way. In what way does he do anything out of convention? Anderson's scripts all follow the same dramatic structure. All of his films are shot in a very conventional way, just with a larger usage of wide-shots. What does he do that is so obscure?

It's always unfair to judge a director based on assumptions. Anderson has his reasons for using the techniques he does; very rarely do we have a director who uses a technique for no apparent reason. You should wait and see The Fantastic Mr.Fox instead of judging it based on Anderson. It might surprise you. However, if you choose not to, then that's fine, but you'll probably be missing out.

[Spirited Away]

You make good points, and I will wait until the film's out before I pass further judgement.

However, your bit about no campaigns saying "this movie's smart", couldn't be further from the truth.

There are entire departments dedicated to manipulating word of mouth via cult/film buff sites, magazines and festivals, which trickles down into forums and film schools, and then eventually gets noticed by the mainstream media who rationalise: if film buffs collectively think this, it must be true. This technique is especially the case with Fox Searchlight's marketing team.

[Fiverrabbit]

I think there is an Oscar nom here!

[IanTheCool]

I just checked out this trailer not expecting much. But this actually looks really funny and enjoyable. I will be checking it out.

[iv3rdawG]

I really like the new trailer:

TE2hstDzpNI

[IanTheCool]

New trailer is great. I want to see this even more now.

[BygEvyl Dethler]

I have yet to enjoy anything by Wes Anderson, I find his films incredibly boring and unfunny. Justin, I found nothing about Rushmore good. This movie looks like another pile of garbage from Wes Anderson. Oh well. Keep trying Mr. Anderson.

[FranklinTard]

good to know.

[Justin]

No one said Anderson's humor was for everyone. Most everyone I know that dislikes Anderson even appreciates his talent for photography and storytelling. It seems incredibly ignorant to just call his films "boring and not funny". I'm not even a huge fan of Wes myself, but I respect him as a filmmaker who clearly knows what he is doing.

And why is it a pile of garbage?

[jbailey84]

new trailer looks great. really want to see this