this is going to suck - Le Petit Prince (2016) Discussion

And this amazing assumption is based on.... ?

reply

Because every time they do an adaptation of this marvelous novel, it sucks. There are things that don't translate well in other mediums and The Little Prince is one of them !

http://www.ghostsingles.com/

reply

[–] schink_alex 9 years ago

"There are things that don't translate well in other mediums"
Everything can be translated in anything, it just hasn't been done well yet.
A trailer (in french) just cam out and it looks insanely promising so far: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9L1zRAlYYQ

reply

[–] serene85 8 years ago

just a troll. It was wonderful.

reply

[–] [email protected] 9 years ago

Have a look at the first trailer. Warning: It's in French, but it looks pretty good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9L1zRAlYYQ

reply

[–] blade88x 9 years ago

my thoughts exactly. This was one of my all time favorite books. A couple years ago when I heard they were doing this movie and James Franco was attached I was hyped. For some reason I thought it'd be live action, with Franco as The Pilot. His man-child demeanor seemed perfect for the character. I thought it'd be more of an expanded adaptation keeping the spirit of the book... something like "Where the Wild Things Are." Not really a "kids" movie, but a movie that would appeal to the kid in all of us. But after seeing the trailer, it looks like the French are trying to follow the American bandwagon of cheap kids animation like "The Lorax" and such.

Come on French people... you're better than this.

reply

[–] plumlogan 9 years ago

Can you tell me how old you were when you read it? I have an eight year old daughter, and she is becoming a vociferous reader, but not into novels yet. This is the kind of book I'd like to give her at the right age.

reply

[–] adryden-63461 9 years ago

I read it for the first time at age 6, read it again in highschool, and now that I am in college It is my favorite. To me it is a book you must read at many different ages to understand it best, because you get a different aspect out of it at different stages of your life. I think it is perfectly fine for an 8 year old to read.

reply

[–] plumlogan 9 years ago

Thanks

reply

[–] aim4 8 years ago

What I think is the almost magical thing about this book is that the point of the story changes depending on the age you read it at, even when re-reading, at least in my case. Me mum read it to me when I was wee, I read it in my early 20s in the early 90s, and again two years ago at 43 with four daughters of my own, from 6 to 22 years of age, and I got a profound and complete different insight into life at each stage that I was exposed to this masterpiece.

I'm hoping-against-hope that this film can capture that aspect of the book, but realistically, 1) I don't think it's possible to in the short-time span of a film even though the novel isn't overly long, and 2) so much of the interpretation of the story's meaning is contingent on how you conceptualize things in your own imagination when reading it, too, I'm afraid.

But if it generates new interest in the book, I say it's a good thing, even if someone reads the book after watching the film. None of my re-readings had been diminished by my knowing all the plot points already.

reply

[–] mzeronde 8 years ago

vociferous? do you mean voracious?

reply

[–] kill-the-boxtrolls 9 years ago

Are you guys sure about this? Because it's going to take a long time for the full trailer to come out. Why don't you people just stop judging movies by their teasers and wait.

I don't know about that but when I saw the trailer...meh...so I heard it's by somebody that did a little-known mediocre film, okay, if this is what's getting you all skeptical and looking at the other film which I don't think even had much advertisement due to its failure, then maybe I should think that, too.

Kill the dang boxtrolls and Winnie flipping PORTLEY-CRAPHEAD!

reply

[–] Polly_Kat 9 years ago

so I heard it's by somebody that did a little-known mediocre film

Kung Fu Panda is a little-known film?
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=kungfupanda.htm

reply

[–] kill-the-boxtrolls 9 years ago

Oh, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the boxtrolls, since it didn't have much advertisement and wasn't very popular.

I dislike Disney defenders and boxtrolls. Rate Feast low and to make it lose awards.

reply

[–] dalbrech 9 years ago

I understand there is a frame story that takes up almost half the film that has NOTHING to do with the classic novel. That is enough to doom it for me.

I'll Teach You To Laugh At Something's That's Funny
Homer Simpson

reply

[–] TheHeck 9 years ago

I agree. How can you take this masterpiece and convert it into a steaming pile of $hit like that? An abomination.

I came, I saw, I laughed, I left.

reply

[–] antteale 8 years ago

it was fantastic

reply

[–] xamy_sx 8 years ago

It was absolutely amazing. I hope you're eating your words right about now.

reply

[–] adrianolle 8 years ago

Agreed! I'm laughing at everybody who said this would be crap. One of the best adaptations of the century.

reply

[–] Jeff_34 8 years ago

"Adaptation"?? IMHO more like a massacre.

"What if the little prince grows up and becomes...." uh, sorry, no. That is painful. The book is poetry. The movie crams in just enough elements from the book to make some things recognizable but...

Saint-Exupéry is rolling in his grave depressed that the evil characters of his story, jumped off the pages, got their nasty little hands all over it and ruined it in movie form.

This movie makes France sad ;(

reply

[–] adrianolle 8 years ago

It is an adaptation. They worried more about the MEANING of the story, than the story itself. Adapting just the story would've been lame and wouldn't have brought anything interesting to the tale. Here, they took the story for what it is: a beautiful metaphor about growing up without stopping to look at life with sensibility, involving two strangers who become friends.

It's "what if the Little Prince had grown up...", it's "what does the Little Prince really means?". Everything is built up around the answer to that question.

Of course, the Little Prince is a complex book, and taking on everything it means would be impossible in a movie. So, they took on what they felt more important, personally to them. And it's a completely valid look at the story.

reply

[–] lyonefein 8 years ago

"Adapting just the story would've been lame and wouldn't have brought anything interesting to the tale."

Wow, really?
Did you see the actual film that was made of The Little Prince in 1974? It was (and still is) fabulous.

It's never just a film.

reply

[–] adrianolle 8 years ago

It was horrible. If any awful adaptation of The Little Prince exists, that movie certainly is one.

reply

[–] davejc1886 8 years ago

Saint-Exupéry never had a grave to roll in.

reply

[–] lordDEMAXUS 8 years ago

I saw it, because it released like in October in my country(wtf is with these release dates of the movie) and it was pretty good but nothing special and it wasn't as good as where the wild things are and not as bad the lorax.

reply