I saw this trailer the other day and had to watch it again to make sure I wasn't going crazy. Every scene in the trailer was straight from the first book in "The Littles" series. I for one will not be watching this film.
shareThis movie is based on the book series "The Borrowers", the first of which came out in 1952, fifteen years before the first Littles book.
shareI've read both stories, but from what I've seen of this film it takes more from "The Littles". Much more.
shareWow. Are you stupid or something? The Littles was influenced by The Burrowers books, which also influenced this movie. Trying to say this movie rips off something that is already a rip off of the source material makes no sense.
shareI saw the film, and I made the exact same connections. (I loved the Littles as an elementary schooler) However, the difference is that the Littles never actually made contact with humans, whereas these characters do. Arrietty is more about the interactions between humans and "little people," whereas the Littles books were all about their adventures being hidden, and visiting places.
So you could potentially say that the Littles ripped off the Borrowers' concept, and Arrietty borrows from both. ^.^ Seriously though, you should go see it regardless.
thats not true ..there was a little boy with who they interacted with all the time...I could be wrong ..I thought the show started with a boy say that there is a secret that only he knows??
shareI was talking about the books. And btw, this is a Miyazaki film licensed by Disney that says in the credits "based on the 'The Borrowers'" which was written in the 1800s.
share[deleted]
as the other poster already said it's based off the borrowers. if any one is taking something from someone else it's obviously the littles lol your 'argument' makes zero sense.
shareThe original Japanese title of the film is "The Borrower Arrietty". Is that enough for you auntiejack? Are you now satisfactorily feeling like a dumbass?
D.
how about we agree on this, it is based on the borrowers which the littles borrowed off of it and disney is trying to make a cheap buck off of someone else's work. Look for happy meals with borrower sized toys perfect for those kids aged 3+
sharei feel sorry for the elephant...
"...eeeEEEKK!...I mean, aaaaARGGH!..."
I don't understand what you mean by Disney trying to make a cheap buck off someone else's work.
Captain of Team Teague
*Official Rumrunner*
correction: Disney licensed and does the worldwide distribution this film, which was created by the Japanese group Studio Ghibli. Disney did no production work on this film. So while I would love happy meal toys, i highly doubt they will exist.
shareUmmm...
Every princess Disney movie ever made
I swear -_-
Disney didn't make this film LOL.
sharestudio ghibli makes everything that was once mediocre to semi decent and makes it much more entertaining... "i for one" will not be missing anything Studio Ghibli produces look at their amazing record... Princess mononoke, spirited away, ponyo, howls moving castle, castle in the sky, steamboy!
No name-drop of My Neighbor Totoro? Or Kiki's Delivery Service? Laputa? etc.
shareGhibli's Howls' Moving Castle is a pretty good film ... or it would be if it wasn't called Howls' Moving Castle.
As a film of the original (wonderful) book of that title, it sucks dead platypus through a bendy straw.
OTOH, having not watched all of this film yet, it seems to be a pretty good version of the original book, which i've loved since i was seven or so (which is to say, almost sixty years).
Maybe this film came out so good because the director, unlike Miyazaki, didn't think he knew what the story should be better than the original writer.
Actually, the Borrowers and the Littles were based on Dr. Cyclops.
shareDr. Cyclops was likely inspired by "The Devil-Doll" (1936), which was no doubt influenced by "Bride of Frankenstein" (1935) ...
***
I was a victim of a series of accidents, as are we all.
Steamboy isn't from Studio Ghibli; it was directed by Kastuhiro Otomo and it was crappy. Good special effects and animation doesn't make good movies. The story was never interesting and the film was too slow; and final hour of the film was nothing but action, and and that's just boring.
And the statement regarding Disney not having any control over Studio Ghibli is correct. They bring Studio Ghibli's animations to North America and ruin them with terrible voice dubbing (anime should never be dubbed, but with a very strong exception for Ran 1/2). But at least they bring Studio Ghibli's animation to North America. :O)
D.
Should never be dubbed? What an idiot you are.
shareUh, if a cartoon wasn't "dubbed", if wouldn't have a soundtrack *at all*.
The animated characters aren't, like, you know, REAL Japanese people (and this is especially the case for quasi-European-looking pictures like Laputa and Howl's); suggesting that animated films intrinsically "better" with Japanese dialogue is just ludicrous.
They're only better if the voice-acting is better. IMO most (but not all) Japanese voice-acting is mediocre at best.
Uh, if a cartoon wasn't "dubbed", if wouldn't have a soundtrack *at all*.
The animated characters aren't, like, you know, REAL Japanese people (and this is especially the case for quasi-European-looking pictures like Laputa and Howl's); suggesting that animated films intrinsically "better" with Japanese dialogue is just ludicrous.
They're only better if the voice-acting is better.
IMO most (but not all) Japanese voice-acting is mediocre at best.
I'm only going to say this and not get into a discussion.
People, do you have ANY idea how animation voiceovers are done!?
IN America with VERY few exceptions, the voices are recorded FIRST and animators MATCH THE VOICE ACTORS . . . this is why it makes little sense to dub an american made cartoon.
IN Japan with VERY few exceptions the reverse is done. Animators work FIRST and then the voices (in Japan) are dubbed in. A couple of exceptions are Akira and Only Yesterday . . . this film had all the animation done first and then the Japanese actors came in and dubbed the voices.
Period.
Therefore: Japanese animation is nearly ALWAYS dubbed. So it makes a hell of a lot more sense to watch it in a language you understand so you're not wasting time reading subtitles. If you understand Japanese, more power to you- watch it in the language in which it was first dubbed, but this movie ws dubbed FROM THE START. Please please please get over yourselves.
I'm not sure you meant to reply to my comment, since nothing you said refutes anything that I wrote. I never said that Japanese productions were voiced before the animation. I said that the animation was tailored to the Japanese language, and the specific lines of dialogue (later voiced by the actors). Yes, they have to time their delivery like their American counterparts do when they re-dub in English, but the difference in circumstances are obvious, and really obvious when comparing both versions.
I can understand why some people prefer dubs to be in their language. Maybe they don't like reading while they watch. Maybe it helps them connect to the material. Maybe the convenience outweighs the negatives, or they just don't care.
For me, I want to connect with the original piece as much as possible. I don't want to hear a rushed, approximate translation of the original dialogue, nor do I want to hear a new take. I want to hear the original voice actors chosen by the filmmakers, their tone and cadence, and the directly translated dialogue. Even though the original piece was meant to be understood in a different language, without the need of subtitles, I feel more of a connection to the piece, and I know I'm not getting someone else's vision or interpretation. So much subtlety and complexity is often lost in translation, and one wrong line can completely ruin the intended tone or subtext within a scene.
You saw Dingleberries?
I absolutely meant to reply to your comment as you are incorrect about the voice-timing. That is simply not how it's done. They do an approximation of the voice timing, but it is NOT "tailored" to the voices. That is not how animation is done, my friend. They simply open and close their mouths in an approximation of the timing necessary. If they "tailored" the animation (actually, that process is called "track reading") they would do the voice work first, and then animate the mouth shapes to the actors' dialogue. This is done with virtually every American animated production in existence (even productions like "Avatar the Last Airbender" which strives for an anime look), and the Japanese film "Akira" (along with a few other Japanese productions. But they are so rare I can count them on one hand).
Furthermore, to imply that the voice work is "rushed" or an "approximate translation" is to further display ignorance to the process. Actors and translated scripts are carefully chosen and in the case of Studio Ghibli films APPROVED by the original filmmakers.
Lastly, in terms of things "lost in translation," what in the gods' name do you think is going to be the difference between a dub and a subtitle with regards to this? If you understand the original language and can watch it without subtitles OR a dub, good on you! But this notion that the subtitles are somehow "better" than a dub is just ridiculous. Have you ever turned on the subtitles when watching the dub? They are virtually identical with only a few inconsequential word order changes.
LAST, and certainly not least, although this film was not directed by Hayao Miyazaki, he has stated numerous times that HIS intention as a filmmaker is to have his films enjoyed by people who are watching it with voices that speak in a language in which the viewers understand so that they can enjoy the visials without the distraction of words on the bottom of the screen . . . So if you REALLY are intending to respect the original filmmakers' intention AND you do not speak Japanese, then you are actually DISrespecting the original filmmakers' intention by watching the subtitled version.
Chew on that.
They do an approximation of the voice timing, but it is NOT "tailored" to the voices.
Furthermore, to imply that the voice work is "rushed" or an "approximate translation" is to further display ignorance to the process. Actors and translated scripts are carefully chosen and in the case of Studio Ghibli films APPROVED by the original filmmakers.
Lastly, in terms of things "lost in translation," what in the gods' name do you think is going to be the difference between a dub and a subtitle with regards to this?
Have you ever turned on the subtitles when watching the dub? They are virtually identical with only a few inconsequential word order changes.
LAST, and certainly not least, although this film was not directed by Hayao Miyazaki, he has stated numerous times that HIS intention as a filmmaker is to have his films enjoyed by people who are watching it with voices that speak in a language in which the viewers understand so that they can enjoy the visials without the distraction of words on the bottom of the screen . . . So if you REALLY are intending to respect the original filmmakers' intention AND you do not speak Japanese, then you are actually DISrespecting the original filmmakers' intention by watching the subtitled version.
Chew on that.
You have to love egotistical jackasses who think that them saying "Period" at the end of their statement carries any authority. It carries about as much authority as the same person who proclaims they are only going to say something once and then proceed to immediately say it again in answer to the very first response to their statement.
And I know this was around 2 years ago, but it still deserves addressing.
So I take it you've never seen Cowboy Bebop?
shareGood catch. Most observers (including many Japanese) rate the English voice cast for Bebop as better than the Japanese.
shareI've never seen "The Littles," but this movie appears to be uncannily similar to "The Borrowers." imdb.com/title/tt0118755
shareThe opening credits of this film explicitly say it was based on "The Borrowers" books. So there we have it.
shareWhen both films employ the same lead character (Arrietty) I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that it's not a rip-off, but is based on the same source material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Borrowers
Seriously, people need to learnt to use the internet.
This is actually somewhat more faithful to the spirit of the Borrowers books than either the John Goodman movie or the recent TV version.
It most resembles the old 1992 TV adaptation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCP5fY7g79M
"Any plan that involves losing your hat is a BAD plan.""
Hardly anything is completely original anymore. Everything is influenced by something. Does it look interesting? If yes, see it. If no, don't worry about it.
shareYeah, and that Shakespeare guy just got his stories from Plutarch! And Sophocles and the other Greek tragedians ripped off the Greek myths. When are we going to get something completely original? (There's also a difference between adaptation and "influence.")
The Littles was a knock off of "The Borrowers". You will miss a great movie!
share"Nils Karlsson Pyssling" a book by Swedish writer Astrid Lindgren, later adapted into a movie predates both. The book was published in 49, and the movie came out in 90.
Theres a notable difference in that "NKP" have just one small character, but otherwise it`s a lot of similarities.
It`s very possible that neither writer had heard of Lindgren, and that the story is just universal enough to manifest diffrent places. But it`s worth mentioning that Lindgren was a known writer of childrens books by 1950, having had Pippi Longstockings translated into English.
Just had to get that of my chest, as "NKP" was a major book in my chilhood:)
Id just like to add Astrid lindgren is the 18th most translated author in the world according to wiki (as of 2013).
Shes pretty much as big as it gets when it comes to children stories.
Agree with you but just think you failed to clarify just how big astrid L is.
Take away Grimm brothers and HC Andersen and shes the third most translated children books author in the world.
Either way Ghibi does it again a wonderful movie made me wish i was a little child so i could have seen it when you appreciate it the most, its still nice but would likely been amazing if i was a child.
If i had children at the right age id take them to see this for sure.