It's called Mr. Peabody & Sherman and they have to bring along this kind of "love interest" for Sherman...a kid. I mean really, I thought the trailer was neat and all, it looks fun but that kind of put me off.
It seems pretty forced in my opinion
Totally agree with you. I understand there's a fair bit of nostalgia weighing in here, but what the hell was so broken with Mr. Peabody and his boy Sherman that they had to add this fifth wheel? And Ty Burell as the voice of Mr. Peabody? Really? I like Ty Burell, but I was hoping for anyone who could deliver and sound more like Bill Scott.
shareYES AMEN! I didn't feel Ty Burrell brought the right voice to the character. Robert Downey Jr. would have been a better choice for the role. But I donno the girl's alright it's kinda cute, Sherman trying to impress a girl.
shareAgree with you, don't see a problem with the Penny character at all
shareI didn't have a problem with the character of Penny in terms of her not being part of the original "Peabody's Improbable History" shorts. I just couldn't figure out why they made her such little b*tch in the beginning. She was just a "mean girl" simply for the sake of being a "mean girl".
Maybe it's just me, but I find the "mean girl" character to be one of the most unpleasant archetypes in literature and cinema. Whether it's the "little girl with the curl in the middle of her forehead" or the "frenemy", it seems to be a character used as an antagonist for no particular reason and most of the time without an understandable or proportional motivation. I'm not denying that the archetype exists in reality or that it can even be entertaining in a certain way, I just find it to be a very unpleasant and overused character with frequently ambiguous motivations.
That being said, I really liked this movie. As a one time single parent whose "fitness" was once questioned, I find an extreme kinship with Mr. Peabody. I have always tried to provide a nurturing, loving, and educational environment for my child since he was a baby, and having that effort challenged frankly made me want to "bite" those detractors myself.
My "Sherman" is now a very smart and capable 15 year-old freshman in high school, and I'm very proud if him.
Yeah, I'm all for including all genders in a movie but the original cartoons were just a boy and his dog. Adding the extra element kinda ruins it for me, and it doesn't make much sense for this film
shareThis is not the original cartoon, this is a feature film! They have to expand a little.
shareIt easily could have been accomplished without a female lead for a feature film. Why do you think comic movies are so popular, they are now sticking more to the comics and people respect that and they are 100% better than having to expand by throwing in random characters. Putting in a love interest always cheapens a movie when the movie never required one in the first place, plus its overly done and a cheap way to make a quick movie.
share^ That. And the first few posts. I doubt she's really necessary, but hopefully she's just presented as a female friend rather than a crush/future girlfriend. That can be cute, but throwing one in just because you feel compelled and conditioned to pair up every main character (even a kid who did perfectly well with only a genius dog as a co-star) is silly and tiresome.
share
"If you don't have anything nice to say...come sit by me!"
This, 1,000X this.
When I heard there was a Peabody & Sherman movie I was blown away. THIS could be an amazing movie, even when done in CGI.
When I saw the girl and the whole concept I just knew it was going to be terrible. The trailer is AWFUL.
The original series was a series of bad puns about historical concepts. This would have been good. This would have been respectful.
But no, we have a dumb concept that barely resembles the original cartoons.
It doesn't help that Peabody and Sherman doesn't sound anything like the originals. Robert Downey Jr. would have made a perfect Peabody. Sherman needs a more innocent voice.
Yeah, it's only a trailer, but I was suprised I hated it as much as I did.
You. I like you.
shareIts simply to ensure that more little girls will want to see the film.
Is it not true to the original? Yes. Is it frustrating? A bit. But its strictly from a 2013-4 marketing POV. You put a girl in as a feat. character you greatly increase 50%+ market of children will want to go see it.
"you greatly increase 50%+ market of children will want to go see it."
It has a talking dog, a time machine which links to things like Doctor Who which most kids love and a kid as his companion, where children can envision themselves in his shoes.
I think it appeals to kids enough to be honest
Precisely Robson, the fact that they added a love interest, for a seven year old mind you is just depressing.
Just the tip?
Just the tip.
Just the tip!
I'm not a little girl anymore, but when I was I loved the Peabody and Sherman cartoons exactly as they were. I get that they needed a feature-length narrative instead of the episodic structure of the cartoons, but I'm sick of this snarky/sidekick/love interest trope. IT HAS TIME TRAVEL! How does time travel not appeal to anyone and everyone? If Hollywood made more movies with girl leads, they wouldn't feel compelled to do this.
I'll still see this movie out of nostalgia and because it looks fun (the bad puns made it in!!!), but I don't think they needed a little girl-love interest for Sherman.
A young girl passes / in a hurry. Hair uncombed. / Full of black devils. --Kelly Link
"love interest"? Thats just creepy.
By that I mean you're creepy not that the trailer is. All I saw was two kids who start out as enemies and become friends.
Maybe you should seek therapy.
Most modern animated features push for a love interest, even when the plot doesn't require one. It's understandable if that assumption is being made here.
I might check this movie out, because I liked the original Peabody and Sherman stories, and I've seen enough promos that convinced me to give it a chance.
You should, it is not a love interest at all.
HI-F___ING-YA
Nicholas Cage Deadfall
2014 Rankings: imdb.com/list/mOL23rGRrh0/
But that was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw this.
If the girl was a boy Sherman would surely not react like that.
---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!
Up until around WWII, stories, movies, radio serials, comics, anything out about boys on adventures were made up either of a couple of boys or a group of boys by themselves, or one young boy and one grown man. Women had no role except a sister, an annoyance, or the girlfriend of the adult man in the picture. In old films if you try putting a teenaged boy with a girl he'd run and hide, he'd rather be with his boy friends doing something fun instead of having to dance with a stupid girl or whatever. After WWII it was suddenly important that anything involving teenagers and even younger, had to have a love interest so nobody would worry the boys might be queer, because boys apparently NEVER just hang out together by themselves, (cue Kevin Meaney) that's not right!
shareUp until around WWII, stories, movies, radio serials, comics, anything out about boys on adventures were made up either of a couple of boys or a group of boys by themselves, or one young boy and one grown man. Women had no role except a sister, an annoyance, or the girlfriend of the adult man in the picture. In old films if you try putting a teenaged boy with a girl he'd run and hide, he'd rather be with his boy friends doing something fun instead of having to dance with a stupid girl or whatever. After WWII it was suddenly important that anything involving teenagers and even younger, had to have a love interest so nobody would worry the boys might be queer, because boys apparently NEVER just hang out together by themselves, (cue Kevin Meaney) that's not right!
Why is there a girl in the film? It's very simple. They put her in so girls can have representation. Most of the characters in this movie are male. What's the problem if they add a girl?
Here's the real question. Why does Dreamworks always have this undying need to hook up the female character with the male character? Why couldn't Sherman and Penny stay as friends? Why did they have to develop crushes for each other? Why was this necessary?
Bull, they put a girl in to be PC, like why did Sosa's character exist in the A-Team movie even though she served no genuine purpose?
But I do agree, the only thing worse is when the token female ALWAYS has to be a love interest, implying that they serve no other purpose being with boys.
Could you imagine the outrage of there was a remake of Annie or Matilda that added a love interest for the lead characters? There would be shouts of "sexism!" far and wide.
Adding a female lead is just politically correct nonsense that is totally unnecessary. And I'll wager the girl is smarter than the boy and if anything embarrassing happens, it'll happen to the boy and not the girl.
Don't hate on contrarians
It wouldn't even have to be Annie or Matilda, like Harriet the Spy, one of her best friends WAS a boy, imagine if they reworked it so the main part of the story was the two of them becoming a couple, gross!
shareNot gross. a male couple would have been interesting, a new thing. But nooo they had to include a female character just to be politically correct. THAT's gross.
share