Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[deleted]

Watching it right now & it seems ok, though not brilliant.

Looks like you2 guys arent quite mature enough for Wind in the Willows though, judging by your reactions to Propsguys opinion.

In response to the first post in this thread:

I miss the charm and wit (not for adults only! ^_~) that I loved at age six or seven
from the book (the book was and is magical, delightful, etc. because its author
had a brilliant imagination and was genuinely inspired...I only wish that the
same could be said about the creators of the new TV version!!!).

The characters (I thought) were so flat in this version. (And my mother AND
I BOTH found this version of Toad VERY annoying. ["Ever, ever, ever, ever,
ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever..." (oh, someone please shut him up
already...put a sack over his cage or whatever! ^_~).] Toad in the book was
endearing, bizarre but well-meaning, he was like a selfish, greedy CHILD,
not like a selfish, greedy, nasty adult man. I do like this version's Badger
and Mole and Rat, but the deeper nuances of their characters are missing in
this version. Toad, though...I really couldn't even like him. [My mother and I,
at our separate houses, both had the same thought: Why bother to save Toad Hall
from the stoats and the weasels, if Toad doesn't behave any better than they do? ^_~])

I disagree about the "eye candy", though...that's one of the few good things
that I think that the new version DOES have. (No, it does NOT have the classic
cartoonish "eye candy" of the many animated versions, but it DOES have the
beautiful scenery/nature/etc. which is one of the few aspects in it that I think
ARE in keeping with the original story. I do think, however, that if its creators/producers
were going to spend the money to beautifully FILM it, they COULD have ALSO
taken the trouble to beautifully DRAMATIZE it. This version, storywise
and characterwise, is not Kenneth Grahame's The Wind in the Willows,
nor does it convey even half the emotion and humor of the original. It does
have its good points...BUT the points which [for me, in childhood] made the
book memorable and lovable are, for the most part, either conspicuous only
by their absence or so very watered-down that they might as well be absent.
This new version is a somewhat-entertaining commentary on the fact that the
animal characters tend to behave like humans...BUT most of their animal
characteristics, and childlike characteristics, have disappeared into the
background...the characters appear to have been replaced by/recast as adult
Englishmen who tend to slightly/vaguely resemble animals, and the dear old
familiar animal characters who strikingly and entertainingly tended to resemble
humans, but were NOT humans, have somehow been dropped in the dust
or fallen by the wayside, as if they were, somehow, considered too "babyish"
and/or not "sophisticated" enough for Masterpiece Theatre audiences. Shame on
those who forget that they are [supposedly! ^_~] retelling a timeless classic
for children-of-all-ages-including-grownups and try too hard to make things too
"realistic", leading to a result which doesn't turn out to be real/believable
enough. Where's the magic? Where's the poetry? Where's the sparkling quality?
Where, above all, is the deep love and reverence for the high quality of the
original author's original work? Sigh. [Masterpiece Theatre, and Once Upon a
Classic, and Wonderworks, and most other PBS shows featuring dramatizations
of books/stories, used to nearly always show things that were of a higher caliber/
on a higher level than this. Really.])

(Er...okay, end of long essay by the talking^_^ cat=^__^= who=^__^= talks^_^
far/fur=^__^= too much. Anyone else have anything to say? ^_^)

=^___^=

(There's a long, long tale/tail=^__^= a-winding...^_~)
("Mine is a long and a sad tale." "It certainly is long, but why do
you call it sad?" [Alice in Wonderland] [speaking of which, there
have been at least two live-action versions of Alice in Wonderland/
Through the Looking Glass that showed animals-played-by-people in a
much more believable fashion...and those versions were made a couple of
decades ago, when special effects and suchlike were less advanced than at present!!!])

=^___^=

(Edit: Kenneth Grahame obviously meant his animal characters to resemble
adult Englishmen of his time...but resemble only. [Some animals do tend
to share some characteristics with some humans. This fact is interesting and
charming when observed in animals. Somehow it tends to become far less
interesting and charming when observed in adult Englishmen not-very-convincingly
masquerading as animals. Sigh. [What, did the producers "grow up" too much
and leave their imaginations behind them, or something??? ^_~])

(The art of convincingly and endearingly using costumed humans
to portray animals has existed in English television productions for many years.
What the heck happened to make said art less good/special/etc. than it was
twenty years ago or more???) (Okay, okay, this particular version's style is,
obviously, to deliberately present humans who slightly resemble animals,
rather than animals who strongly/strikingly resemble humans [but not SO
strikingly as to be easily mistaken for humans!!! ^_~ (except^_~ when Toad
dresses as a washerwoman!!! ^_~)]. I can get used to that. But I still miss
the old classic version, as told/imagined in the book. ^_^)

Kit =^__^= (I'm=^__^= a purretend^_^ animal=^__^= too^_~)
=^___^=

(Fur=^__^= looks better^_^ on animals^_^)
(that means that I=^__^= can wear/grow my=^__^= own fur=^__^= if I=^__^= want^_^ to! ^_~)

=^__~=

[deleted]