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.
reply
share
CoriSCapnSkip (2187)
a year ago
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.
reply
share
CoriSCapnSkip (2187)
a year ago
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.
reply
share