The original animated '73 version, or the live action one in 2006 with Dakota Fanning? I enjoyed both.
shareThe original is far better and it's not even close. The voice cast for the animals was far, far better and the live action actors in the 2006 version were even worse. There was so much charm and raw emotion put into the original that is completely absent in the the live action version.
shareI saw the movie as a first grader during a field trip.
shareThis will be long so will have to be more than one post. In comparing the 1973 animated musical, the 2006 film, and the book, let us first consider the voice casts.
1973 FILM
Henry Gibson as Wilbur the pig
Debbie Reynolds as Charlotte A. Cavatica the spider
Paul Lynde as Templeton the rat
Agnes Moorehead as the Goose
Don Messick as Jeffrey, a young, undersized and unnecessary gosling whom Wilbur befriends
Messick also voices several other characters, including Uncle the Pig (impersonating Candy Candido), a county fair pig who wins the first prize, and a Lamb.
Herb Vigran as Lurvy, Homer's farmhand who is the first to notice the messages in Charlotte's webs.
Pamelyn Ferdin as Fern Arable
Martha Scott as Mrs. Arable, Fern's mother who first tells her of what was to happen to Wilbur.
Bob Holt as Homer Zuckerman, Fern's uncle.
John Stephenson as John Arable, Fern's father, who was about to "do away" with Wilbur until she intervened.
Danny Bonaduce as Avery Arable, Fern's older brother.
William B. White as Fern's friend Henry Fussy
Dave Madden as the Ram
Madden also voices other characters throughout this film.
Joan Gerber as Edith Zuckerman, Homer's wife.
Gerber also voices Mrs. Fussy, Henry's stern mother who never lets him have fun.
Rex Allen narrates this film
Despite a lot of famed talent in the 2006 film, there is absolutely no comparison.
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
Continuing with the voice casts:
Voices I liked better in the 2006 film than the 1973 cartoon:
John Cleese as the Ram, named Samuel in the newer film. He was great, and that's despite the fact that I love Dave Madden and that the British accent was a little out of place in an American barn.
Julian O'Donnell as Henry Fussy. He only spoke two words rather than William B. White who spoke many, but was a huge improvement. Fern in the book was only eight, and Dakota Fanning played her as that age or not much older. The cartoon made Fern a little older than eight, but still young enough to push a doll's carriage and way too young to be going out with a boy whose voice had already changed!
Voices I liked as well:
Kind of hard to compare, but I guess I liked Dominic Scott Kay as well as I liked Henry Gibson as Wilbur, with reservations. For one thing, the 2006 voice and persona seemed kind of like a Babe ripoff, and for another, they probably should have switched to a slightly older voice, not necessarily an adult but an older boy, as Wilbur grew.
The two who would have been my choices if I were casting it myself are Pamelyn Ferdin as Fern and Paul Lynde as Templeton. Had they made a live action movie about three years earlier, Pamelyn would have been the best Fern ever, and certainly who I pictured while reading the book. Paul Lynde simply IS Templeton, no two ways about it! No matter how many times any other actor yells, "The rat rules!" Paul Lynde rules this role, end of story! He and Ferdin appeared together in The Paul Lynde Show.
People in the 2006 film I didn't like as well: Everybody else. Although Dakota Fanning is a very great talent, in every way, the 1973 cast is superior and the 2006 cast just adequate, especially Julia Roberts as Charlotte. Just didn't cut it for me and was no replacement for Debbie Reynolds.
To continue, on to how animation stacks up to live action, and the answer is:
Not very well. The 1973 film had very rough animation, with mistakes, such as the web, and possibly other things, appearing in one shot, disappearing in the next, then reappearing. It's been said that animated characters are much more expressive, which is why Disney live action remakes of cartoons for the most part do not work well at all, either as far as actors or CGI characters. Not so here. The faces of the human actors while viewing the web were far superior, full of expression, rather than the animated characters who were sort of static and wooden. And except for a few things animated characters can do better, such as Wilbur's little jigs, the 2006 animals were way better as well. Kind of liked Charlotte and Templeton better in the cartoon though, and was bothered that they used a brown rather than a gray spider.
The 2006 film is visually stunning. I kept thinking, "HOW did they do THAT?" If those aren't real animals, they were the best CGI ever produced, and if they were real, how did any trainer get them to do things such as all turn their heads at the same time, all look down on cue, etc., etc.? I even watched the credits all the way through, and there were a lot of animal trainers, a lot of animators and animatronic people, and some CGI people. Some animal group made sure the pigs were rehomed.
How do the films compare to the book? Needless to say, neither of them can touch the book. I recommend getting the audiobook read by the author. That being said, the 1973, despite songs and dances, is much more literally true to the book, and retains Charlotte's final words to Wilbur on friendship. The 2006 film uses a completely rewritten speech, bleh! How could they think they could improve on immortal words so well known to millions? Julia Roberts should have refused to say them.
The 2006 film seemed to take great pains to make Wilbur entirely different than in the 1973 film, in which Wilbur whines, cries, begs for help, contributes little, expresses little to no gratitude, is jealous of Henry, and in general greatly annoys many viewers. In the 2006 film, Wilbur doesn't cry at all, just sort of mists up at Charlotte's impending death. In the book he cries several times. In the 2006 film he is glad for Fern's relationship with Henry.
The other character who gets a makeover is John Arable, who is considerably softened and made sympathetic in the 2006 film rather than the hardass he is in the 1973 film and the book.
The 1973 film made one huge improvement on the book and the 2006 film, that is
SPOILER
at the fair, in the book, at the very moment Wilbur is about to be honored, Fern begs her mother for money to ride the ferris wheel with Henry Fussy, and the mother immediately coughs it up! Had I been her mother or any adult there, I would have said, "Fern Arable, what in the actual heck is wrong with you? Here you raised this pig by hand, sat with him every day, and now at this great moment so important to him and the entire family, you want to run off? Certainly not! You can ride the ferris wheel later." Now, this running off to ride the freaking ferris wheel with a boy is obviously the author's way of showing that Fern is growing up. Granted, kids can be flighty and girls become completely silly where boys are concerned, but this is ridiculous!
In the 1973 film, Henry is with Fern as Wilbur receives his medal and Uncle Homer his prize money, then they lead a huge parade in Wilbur's honor. In the 2006 film they pause a minute, and then run off to ride the freaking ferris wheel. The 2006 film may be far from perfect, but I found this to be the one huge flaw in an otherwise perfect book. Later scenes demonstrate Fern growing up just fine without her being so heartless at Wilbur's big moment.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
Bottom line: Each film was superior or inferior to the other in some ways. It's too bad that some film can't be made combining their best elements, but they are so different they seem like they wouldn't necessarily combine.
I WAS BORN IN 1981...I GREW UP WITH THE 73 FILM...BUT ALI WAS BORN IN 2008...WE GREW UP WITH BOTH...I PREFER THE 73...BUT NOT BY MUCH...I DON'T WANT TO WATCH EITHER THOUGH...THEY MAKE ME CRY.
shareI was 6 in 1973, and fondly recall my 1st grade class going to the theatre as a field trip to see the classic.
shareI like both, but I prefer the 2006 live action version.
share