Recognizing it's a broad statement and such always warrant exceptions... I don't think that modern Hollywood likes children, very much. They see them as burdensome, needy accessories that keep people in nuclear families and "heteronormative" relationships. I'm honestly struggling a bit to think of a recent Hollywood movie, not aimed at that audience, that had a child character who was an actual, fleshed-out _character_ , as opposed to a plot-driving convenience or a MacGuffin.
Here's a bigger question, why make it a live action film? Why not just make a animated movie? Are American studios still stupidly gun shy making kids adaption of books like this?
@@keiichimorisato98 Is _Harold & the Purple Crayon_ what “graduating from animation to live action” looks like to director Carlos Saldanha (of _Ice Age, Rios 1 & 2,_ and _Ferdinand_ fame)?
@@Wired4Life2 Well, that is certainly a depressing revelation. You would think someone that worked in that field would be able to translate it better. Still the fact, this wasn’t just an animated film is perplexing and frankly stupid.
This should have been a cartoon. I hear Harold and the Purple Crayon and I think little kid in a onesie. Not full grown Zackery Levi. Or whatever his name is. That's just disturbing.
Honestly, an animated movie with a decent budget would’ve been amazing or at least good. What we got is exactly what I expect from Hollywood now little effort if any with special effects to fill-in all the massive gaps.
I saw a trailer for that and thought it was fake. The acting was so board-like. Jesus wept. Also, the phrase you were looking for is 'family film'. A film that both children and older family members can also get something out of is called a 'family film'.
I’m trying to remember the last time there was a truly good family film that was actually good. They have existed well into the 2000s but they really started dying off about half way through the last decade or so.
From experience I can attest that kids under 10 being quiet in a movie theatre means that they’re engrossed in the movie. If they’re restless, that indicates boredom. Kids tend not to laugh during movies even when humor is intended, unless it’s bathroom humor or crude, over the top slapstick type stuff, where someone is getting hurt.
The notable thing about "Shazam!"- both movies- was that the young actor playing Billy Batson always seemed far more mature than his super-heroic alter ego. Why do they keep casting Zachary Levi to play man-children? He has his strengths as an actor, but that is _not_ one of them.
Saw it earlier, my kids enjoyed it, the younger one especially. It's no minions but there's enough in there for the kids, and it's an inoffensive 1hr 30mins.
@@DavidMartinez-ce3lpof course it’s woke it has minorities and women in the movie and every knows if the movie isn’t about straight white men then it has to be pandering to the left am I right?
Kinda reminds of the old Mario Bros movie from the 90s dumps everything essential to the format of the original source, turns it into a weird live action movie only vaguely connected to the original work.
I mean, at least the Mario movie, especially the version we didn’t get was taking fun liberties whereas this is just taking the basic concept of Harold and the purple crayon dumbing it down and and leaving nothing but the most barest bones behind. I’m still mad we never got the full vision of what we could’ve gotten with the Mario Bros movie. From things that I’ve heard from the various versions of the script the original version would’ve been kind of incredible even if it wasn’t extremely adhering to the establish lore and what not.
See, I can remember when Chalk Zone was actually a thing, and when my mom learned about it she said it reminded her of... ...Harold and the Purple Crayon.
This reminded me of a film I saw when I was a kid. Had to look it up: Otto is a Rhino from 1983 based on a Danish children's book from 1972. Similar idea, where drawings come to life. Apparently the purple crayon kid's books are from the 50s, but I've never heard of them before.
Purple crayon ability: any thing can drawn. Positive impact: Anything….can be drawn…ANYTHING can be brought to life. Negative impact: Can the boundary’s between life and death be crossed because anything can be drawn…… 2nd impact: if anything can be drawn…..that includes anything…..just imagine a brought to life Chucky or Micheal Myers or Freddy Krueger or Leatherface…or villains running amok, or historical figures…running amok.
I see the cover and one immediate problem I see for that idea to work he needs to have a specifc recognizable style but nothing on that cover seems to be from the same artist breaking the immersion
That bar is literally 20,000 leagues under the sea. It’s easier to say it’s a less smelly turd still not good but it is an improvement but still terrible.
Yeah, apparently that second half is really terrible. And what a shock you get nepotism and Shyamalanian excruciating dialogue with a very disappointing ending.
Child with magical crayon powers = cute Man Child with magical crayon powers = needs to tell neighbors, and is on a registry. So, can't imagine how this couldn't go well. Zach worked as Shazam since that's the character. A literal Child that magically transforms into an adult with the power of the mystics. I think greek gods? I don't know, dislike DC for the fact that all their heroes are essentially omnipotent gods that could, if so chosen, create and destroy reality to their whim. Looking at you White Superman, White Lantern ring.
Sadly, a movie, not being infested with the usual crap does not give it a pass. It still has to be good in someway. It can’t just be well. It’s not full of nonsense so sure it’s good now.
I mean people go crawling back to Disney everytime they jingle some nostalgia keys in front of them. That's why they make money when they put out a mediocre sequel
The end credits begin after about 75 minutes. If at that point you're interested in a mid-credits scene about the character "Gary," stick around for a couple minutes.
I remember how people were saying how Zack Levi’s Captain Marvel’s (I’m old school. Shazam is what he says. Lawsuit be damned!) suit looked padded and he denied it and even took a mirror selfie. Judging by that thumbnail pic, either he let himself go immediately after filming Fury of The Gods, or he was lying and that mirror selfie was doctored. I’m thinking the latter
Anybody remember children's book where a girl drew with markers on herself and stained her to the point that the ink never came off and she then had to draw herself looking normal? Scared me from drawing on myself.
Yeah, it's pretty obvious why they made those 2 sidekicks humans instead of keeping them as animals. You don't score anything on your diversity quota spreadsheet for having different animals.
Let me tell you about a wonderful idea for a kids film. Warhammer 40k. Rise of the orks. and it just follows the wacky zanny adventures as the orks go on a killing rampage of peaceful exploration (by ork standards). fortanately kids are used to violence as long as the music and tone is fun and silly. So anyways. orks, buildings stuff, meeting aliens. fighting aliens . conquering worlds. kids would love it. parents would be horrified or amused depending on whether men or women i think. just by general standards of human psychology, some women would probably love it some men might hate it. its never 100 percent one way or the other :)
