MovieChat Forums > Babe: Pig in the City (1998) Discussion > Even better than the original.

Even better than the original.


Babe: Pig in the City is one of the few examples of a sequel being better than the original. The filmaking is ambitious and magical and nothing I've seen before or since can hold a candle to it. It has enough complexity to get better upon repeated viewings.

Beware reviewers whose other posts are all about Lindsay Lohan, the Olsen twins and Hilary Duff.

reply

I, too, think this film is superior to its predecessor. "Babe" was a beautiful and simple piece. "Pig in the City" is more challenging, both intellectually and emotionally. It's also one of the most visually stimulating movies I've seen.

reply

I agree that Pig in the City is a wonderful, underrated film. But it is absolutely NOT better than the original. It was darker, and in some ways more interesting, but it didn't have a fraction of the heart.

reply

It might depend on how you see them; unlike most people I actually saw "Pig in the City" before the original. When I did see the original (I watched it with a whole bunch of kids), I still prefered the sequel.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

reply

you people are wierd, this film was shockingly painfully horrible.

reply

Well, I responded to you in another thread, but you might be shocked to realize that different people have different tastes and that not every film that you like is going to be popular with everyone and not every film you don't like is going to be hated by everyone. People who are different from you are not necessarily "wierd" (sic). And in fact, based on your other post in which you said all kinds of negative things about the film while at the same time admitting that you were typing as the movie was still being shown..... well obviously

1. you weren't paying very much attention if you were writing on IMDB about it while you were supposedly watching it.

2. you don't have very much respect for film if you decide to make a judgement on a film that you didn't watch the ending of

3. you don't have very much respect for other people if you think that they are "wierd" just because they like something you don't like.

End of story as far as I'm concerned, you need to grow up. Try watching the film again, try starting at the beginning, pay attention to the movie and allow the film-makers to finish telling the story before you comment on it.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

reply

Is anyone allowed to criticise this movie? You seem anxious to defend it no matter what. I agree it's dark and there are distrurbing scenes, but that's fine by me, i let my 3 year old twins watch it and they enjoy it immensely. I'm not worried about the content of the film, although i think the chimps and their animal trainers should have had more comeback for stealing the bag, kidnapping the pig and then nearly getting him killed by the dogs. Like i say, the problems with this film aren't the contentious scenes, the problem is the narrative and direction. The narrative is a mess, the film stumbles from one scene to the next in a confusing jumble of scenes slowly moving towards who knows what (fine for entertaining a couple of three year olds and that's probably why they enjoy it but not that interesting for adults). The direction is also awful, especially of the animals, in many places they just stand still and silent looking at each other (looking embarrassed) just to fill space. I'm surprised that many on here consider it such a great film. Compared to what exactly? It doesn't come close to the skill and sharpness of other kids films like 'Toy Story' or 'The Incredibles', or even 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' etc... It's a 3rd rate wannabe Roald Dhal movie at best.

reply

[deleted]

i was a (man in tuxedo) extra in the big ballroom scene (about 10 minutes before the end)--there were 150 of us and we worked from 6 am until 6pm for 22 days on that one 6-minute scene. The director was extremely nice and his 2 assistants did most of the work of keeping extras from going to sleep. The animals seemed very happy and were well looked after--we extras had mattresses to rest on (or mate) between scenes. Magna and all the main characters did their own quite professional stunts during the ballroom scene. We extras were very happy but (as usual) some complained about it lasting too long. The rest of us hoped the shoot might last another 22 days (at $25 an hour which was not bad in 1998) but instead ....it ended.,

reply

[deleted]

Interesting story which may allude to another reason for the film's lack of commercial success.

Chris Noonan IMO is a frequently forgotten factor in discussions surrounding B1 & B2.

He directed (not George Miller) the original (and IMO the superior) film. Whilst money was spent on the film he wisely maintained the rural settings of the original Dick King-Smith source material and focused on the core relationships of Babe with Farmer Hoggett (a hugely appealing James Cromwell) and the other farm animals.

When the albeit creative original force George Miller decided to take back the directorial reins in the sequel, he took the "brave" decisions of almost tripling the budget, reducing James Cromwell's participation to a cameo and leaving the farm for the big city.

I agree that there is plenty of creative film-making on show in the sequel, which the critics duly applauded, but in moving in such radically new directions I think the film lost much of the charm and heart, so apparent in the original.

reply

This has to be the WORST movie I ever had to sit through. The only reason I did is because my daughter was watching it.

reply

People saying ".... must be the worst movie ever" declare that they're boring and have nothing interesting to say.

reply

I love both movies, but yeah I have to agree that the sequel is a bit darker compared to the first, and somewhat light-hearted movie. I was a bit disappointed that Fly and Rex didn't have much to offer in this movie, but I was happy with the other characters, especially Flealick, lol.

Also, I have to say that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. :)

reply

The original is a FAR BETTER film, in my top 10 of all time. I wasn't freaked out by any of the so-called 'disturbing elements' in Pig In The City, but I was bored by the plot and felt it lacked the charm of the original. No wonder it flopped..

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I wholly agree with you. After watching this film, I feel that auteur is a suitable term for George and that he is probably Australia's best director.

reply

I agree it was a great movie. I was one of 150 extras in the (very hard to plan) banquet scene near the end of picture. The banquet scene took 20 days to film (at Moore Park studios in Sydney) so it gave lots of work to aussie crew and extras. The animals were real and well treated and seem to love their work. Magda Szubanski (Mrs Hogget) did her own stunts( like flying around the hall gallery on elastic ropes with giant pants that blew up)

reply

Interesting! petercumerford. Sounded like it was alot of fun to film! Also, I heard that some parts were cut out of the Ballroom/Banquet Scene, Like when Mrs Hogget was swung around the Ballroom by her Stockings & Babe knocked down the 2 Waiters & When her Hankerchief was pulled out when she flew the first time. If you could give info on those scenes, I would be grateful.

reply

Um

NO.

Lol are you guys HIGH?

This movie was awful but the original is a classic. The original is a whole lot smarter than this one....this one just insults kids' intelligence.

"But it's a ROCK!"
"I KNOW IT'S A ROCK!"

reply