The Zone

by **Lady Sheridan** on Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:27 pm

It has Dickens as a character! What's not to love!

The DVD is great because you can skip that awful love song. Or maybe it was completely edited out, I can't remember now.

by **Chilli** on Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:30 pm

It was cut from the theatrical cut, and restored for DVD. I like its inclusion, because it does add resonance. But its not something that you'd notice was missing as such, because while it adds subtle depth it doesn't greatly impact the film in geneeral.

by **Flumm** on Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:35 pm

Chilli wrote:Muppet Christmas Carol - my favourite Dickens adaptation.

Flame away, I watch it every X-Mas.

Ah, nobody is broken inside enough to hate the Muppet Christmas Carol.

Disike, maybe. Have concerns of communist propaganda undercurrents, perhaps.... but never hate.

It would be like hating puppies, or the sound of laughter, or thinking butterflies are "suspiciously fluttery".

by **Bob Samonkey** on Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:38 pm

Flumm wrote:"suspiciously fluttery".

Now that is a good custom rank. Any butterflies in the house?

by **meme** on Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:41 pm

Chilli wrote:Please be lying that Jim Carrey is playing multiple roles. I don't hate the guy, but everytime he multi-tasks on a film he ends up mugging the fuck out of every single scene to try and differentiate between characters.

I am lost its been so long since Carry has been in ANY film i forgot for a moment who he was, anyway what film is he makeing now?

by **Lord Voldemoo** on Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:43 pm

meme wrote:
Chilli wrote:Please be lying that Jim Carrey is playing multiple roles. I don't hate the guy, but everytime he multi-tasks on a film he ends up mugging the fuck out of every single scene to try and differentiate between characters.

I am lost its been so long since Carry has been in ANY film i forgot for a moment who he was, anyway what film is he makeing now?

This one

He DID seem to take a bit of a break for a year or so after Fun With Dick and Jane.

I guess I can see why...

by **Flumm** on Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:55 pm

Bob Poopflingius Maximus wrote:
Flumm wrote:"suspiciously fluttery".

Now that is a good custom rank. Any butterflies in the house?

*silence*

Sigh, this is why Muppets and Zoners succeed were their real-life creature counterparts fail.

The Animal Kingdom - letting us all down, one animal at a time.

by **Lady Sheridan** on Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:19 am

Chilli wrote:It was cut from the theatrical cut, and restored for DVD. I like its inclusion, because it does add resonance. But its not something that you'd notice was missing as such, because while it adds subtle depth it doesn't greatly impact the film in geneeral.

Really? How odd, my VHS always had it, which was annoying because I always had to fast forward--but I thought it was absent from the DVD. Guess I'll find out in a few weeks when I pop it on, I'm sure it's just my memory failing.

by **Chilli** on Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:46 am

Probably is absent from the DVD, I own a VHS copy. Just assumed it was on the DVD I guess.

heh, fast forward.

by **TheButcher** on Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:29 pm

From Jim Hill Media

http://www.imagemoversdigital.com/

From /film: Gary Oldman Confirms Roles in Robert Zemeckis’ A Christmas Carol

“I play [the ghost of] Marley, Bob Cratchit, and Tiny Tim,” Oldman told /Film at the Dark Knight junket. “I saw the designs, and the realizations of London and the characters. The design of it, and the look of it, is beautiful. It’s quite stunning. It should be quite magical.”

by **MacCready** on Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:27 pm

This Dickens story has been clubbed like a harp seal.
No more.
Does every damned generation need "it's own" Scrooge?

by **ChaoticMoira** on Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:14 pm

Wow! Uh, you guys are gonna run me outta town for this, but,

I am looking forward to this film. :shock:

Personally, I don't get the upset. I mean, yeah there is a lot of Scrooge films, but a lot of people don't want to watch the same film every damn year. It is nice to occasionally see something new, even if the new thing can never match the old thing. I don't feel that way about all movies, but those that fit in the holiday or fairytale and fantasy realm are all good for remakes imo. Traditional stories we all know but get bored of hearing or seeing over and over again. I like to see someone elses take. Plus, I think you are all Scrooges yourselves. It is meant to be all in good holiday fun or whatnot. It is Christmas time so you see the new Christmas film. Then maybe you forget it, but you enjoy it for the moment. Not all movies have to go down in history as award winning. They can just be fun to watch.

I do agree that NOTHING will ever compare to Scrooged. Actually, I wish the theater would put that back on the big screen during the holiday. However, I can honestly say, I am still to this day waiting to see a more classic Scrooge story done that I like. I have never liked a single one. They are always a completely new idea (Scrooged) or the classic story and boring as fucking hell.

I would love to see a well done mix of new and classic. I like Jim Carey (Nowadays anyway) and I don't have a problem with his playing multiple charaters. I do hope however that he doesn't go to over the top cheese in his ghost forms. But that aside, if Fox and Hanks are going to be in it, I am interested. I like both and haven't seen Fox in a while.

Of course, I say all this as a person who has never been impressed or even slightly enjoyed Scrooge films (except Scrooged). If they tried to remake A Christmas Story I would be very upset.

Flumm wrote:
Ah, nobody is broken inside enough to hate the Muppet Christmas Carol.

I am so sorry to disappoint you. I hate everything muppet. Always have.

by **Peven** on Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:21 pm

B4NNED!!!!!!

by **ChaoticMoira** on Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:27 pm

HAHA! See, I knew it!

by **BuckyO'harre** on Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:34 pm

ChaoticMoira wrote:
Flumm wrote:
Ah, nobody is broken inside enough to hate the Muppet Christmas Carol.

I am so sorry to disappoint you. I hate everything muppet. Always have.

Out of curiosity,
how do you feel about Mickey's Christmas Carol?

I mean Scrooge is played by SCROOGE, after all.

Just trying to verify that you have a semblance a soul and all that ...
:wink:

by **ChaoticMoira** on Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:10 am

HAHAHA! When I was a kid I liked it. But I really can't remember it anymore. I promise to watch it again and update

Don't want anyone thinking I am soulless or anything.

by **RogueScribner** on Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:13 am

Muppet Christmas Carol rulez.

by **ChaoticMoira** on Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:15 am

RogueScribner wrote:Muppet Christmas Carol rulez.

Except when it doesn't.

Which is everyday that you aren't high.

by **RogueScribner** on Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:19 am

Your innerchild is dead.

But I still like you. :-P

by **ChaoticMoira** on Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:26 am

RogueScribner wrote:Your innerchild is dead.

If I have a child in me, I have much bigger problems than Jim Carrey. :shock:

Such as, the possibility I would one day have to sit through the Muppets Christmas Carol.

Not to mention how it crawled inside...

by **TheButcher** on Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:33 pm

From AICN:
Mr. Beaks Salutes Disney Saluting Itself!

Mr.Beaks wrote:
A CHRISTMAS CAROL

Before we return to the Kodak, we're encouraged to walk through a gallery setup in the Hollywood & Highland annex for Robert Zemeckis's motion-capture rendition of Dickens's yuletide yarn. The first room is lined with classical portraits of Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman and Robin Wright Penn as multiple characters from the story. Basically, it's digital makeup f/x, only a thousand times creepier than anything Dick Smith, Rick Baker or Rob Bottin ever devised. Look, I've read Dickens's novella, and I'm well aware that the narrative is much darker in tone than it's usually presented; with this in mind, I'm pretty sure I never imagined Bob Cratchit looking like a cross between Gary Oldman a face-lifted Katherine Helmond in BRAZIL. Or Belle as a bulb-eyed Robin Wright Penn with a dash of Sleestak thrown in. I am not exaggerating. Perhaps the digital alterations will play better when they're not in portraiture. Or maybe Zemeckis intends for this film to play like a goddamn nightmare. After what he did to THE POLAR EXPRESS (loved those Leni Riefenstahl elves), I'm beginning to think that the mean-spiritied satirist who gave us USED CARS is alive and well. And I'm starting to get excited about this.

Back at the Kodak, Zemeckis is called out on stage to sell us his vision. "You can't beat the source material," he says. He also notes that A CHRISTMAS CAROL is one of the greatest time travel stories ever written. The inference is clear: "Let me at some time travel, and I'm a lock for $200 million." The rest of his comments concern the upside of motion capture and digital cinema: at last, Dickens's story can be presented "the way it was intended" (I didn't know Charlie was such a forward technological thinker); the only limit is one's imagination.

After a few minutes, Carrey joins Zemeckis on stage and yuks it up. I really wish Cook would've asked after the "smiley Christ" character sketch. I don't remember that from Dickens. Peter Barnes, yes. Dickens, not so much.

by **TheButcher** on Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:39 am

From Market Saw: Must See: First Look At Jim Carrey As Scrooge In "Disney's A Christmas Carol"

by **Nachokoolaid** on Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:55 pm

I have to admit, this looks pretty cool. I really like Carrey. And who doesn't like Oldman? I think this will surprise some folks and not only be financially succesful, but actually be quite entertaining.

by **TheButcher** on Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:37 am

From Jim Hill Media:

Look for the first trailer for “A Christmas Carol” to hit theaters / the web sometime in April.

by **TheButcher** on Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:00 am

From MTV:
Jim Carrey’s ‘A Christmas Carol’ Will Leave You ‘Blown Away,’ Says Special Effects Master

Eric Ditzian wrote:It’s another time-travel movie from the man behind the “Back to the Future” trilogy. It’s a chance for Jim Carrey to play a handful of characters at once. And it’s yet another leap forward for a cinematic technology that was scoffed at when it was widely used for the first time in a big budget film.

“A Christmas Carol” utilizes the same motion-capture technology that was panned in 2005’s “The Polar Express” (those dreaded “dead eyes,” which left Tom Hanks looking less than human) and applauded in 2007’s “Beowulf” (Angelina Jolie rising provocatively from a murky lake). Since then, the computer-driven capabilities have only increased, and the special effects wizard working side-by-side with director Robert Zemeckis (“Back to the Future”) on “Christmas Carol” can’t wait for audiences to get a peek at what they were able to pull off.

“I think you should be prepared to be blown away,” Michael Lantieri, the special effects supervisor on the film, told MTV News. “I’ve seen some things that I haven’t seen before.”

That’s a tantalizing statement coming from someone whose credits include groundbreaking special effects films like “Who Framed Roger Rabbit,” “Back to the Future Part II” and “Jurassic Park.”

“‘Who Framed Roger Rabbit,’ that I did with [Zemeckis], we took cartoons and put them into a real environment,” said Lantieri. “What we’re doing now is taking people and putting them into a nonexistent environment, which is just 180 degrees out of what we were doing.”

“Christmas Carol,” based on the well-known Charles Dickens’ tale, follows penny-pinching Ebenezer Scrooge, who over the course of one night travels through time to visit his past, present and future. Carrey will play Scrooge at various ages, plus the three different Ghosts that lead him on his journey. Portraying so many unique characters convincingly would not have been possible with the early motion-capture technology, according to Lantieri.

“There used to be limits because of the amount of data that you could retain when you’re capturing,” he explained. “You couldn’t do crowd scenes. Now we can capture more information, which will make the eye blinks and the eye movements beyond anything you’ve ever seen.”

All of which means that when “Christmas Carol” hits theaters this November, we’ll begin to forget about our initial resistance to motion-capture technology. “It’s at the point where people are going to say, ‘Oh, I get it now,’” Lantieri said, before giving us a tease of what we’ll be seeing in years to come.

“The next step—and it’s currently happening—is to do [motion-capture] in combination with outdoor, real-time photography and mix it up,” he said. “I think you’re a year away from seeing some startling stuff.”

by **DerLanghaarige** on Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:55 am

They said something similar about Beowulf and it still looked like shit. But I don't judge them for saying this. It's their job.
But when I hear them saying that stuff like putting people in a non-existing enviroment has never been done before, it really makes me sick. And appereantly now it's possible to play several different characters at once? Finally! Except that Eddie Murphy does that for more than 20 years! Without a fancy, new computer technology, that doesn't look nearly as good as the people wh use it want us to believe.
This reminds me of a press release for Monster House, where the performance capturing technology was praised by saying that it is now for the first time possible to give animated characters facial expressions!! I call bullshit!

by **Peven** on Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:12 am

i saw Beowulf on I-Max 3D and it looked pretty good, though i think the whole Christmas Carol redux thing is overdone and don't really see how making a motion-captured version will add anything worthwhile to the story

by **Nachokoolaid** on Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:24 pm

I like Carrey. I like Zemekis. I like The Christmas Carol. I liked Beowulf. I like that 3D tech. Yeah, I'll probably like this too, and I'll probably see it in theatres.

by **TheButcher** on Fri May 08, 2009 7:26 pm

From Latino Review: All Aboard For "Disney's A Christmas Carol" Train Tour

by **BuckyO'harre** on Wed May 13, 2009 6:32 pm

by **Nachokoolaid** on Wed May 13, 2009 8:30 pm

I know we make a lot of jokes about seeing Venom in Spidey's eye and shit, but there's seriously a face in the flame, and it's freaking me out a bit.

by **Nachokoolaid** on Sat May 30, 2009 5:35 pm

I was trying to post a video from Cannes of the Carrey/Zemekis interview, but it's not working.

Anyway, so decent little teasy type info.

Carrey like the Alastair Sim version the best. Tried to put a little bit of that into his performance.

Plays Scrooge at 5 different ages in the film. Each one is distinct. He also plays all the ghosts.

by **TheButcher** on Sun Sep 13, 2009 8:02 pm

From /film:
A Christmas Carol Trailer and Premiere News

by **Ribbons** on Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:06 pm

I've been seeing a lot of commercials for this on TV lately, and I gotta say, it looks kind of crap

by **Nachokoolaid** on Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:38 pm

I've been disappointed by the trailers and TV spots, but I can also tell that they are really playing up the "action" of the film for the ADHD population. They understand how to appeal to kids and their parents and get the asses in the seats. I think the actual film will have a bit more room to breathe.

by **Worst Part's Almost Over** on Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:26 pm

Earlier in the thread, someone raised the question of whether we really need an adaptation of A Christmas Carol for every new generation. Well, I think the bigger question is why A Christmas Carol? Based on just how many cinematic versions there are of this story, you'd be forgiven for thinking that Charles Dickens was the only writer who ever mattered. Him and Shakespeare, of course.

I guess my point is that surely there are other classic novels that deserve to be put back in the public eye with a brand new film version. How about Brave New World by Aldous Huxley? A fantastic novel that could really be an excellent film given today's technological possibilities etc etc. What about doing some proper adaptations of the Oz books? There are tons of them! Each one has it's own unique qualities that could be mined for a movie franchise. How about a big budget fantasy epic based around Michael Moorcock's Elric books?

I can remember slapping my forehead, in true Picard fashion, when the new Alice In Wonderland film was first announced. Why? Because a much more exciting, thrilling and downright fun film could be produced from Frank Beddor's The Looking Glass Wars. Instead of going over the same story again and again - or in Burton's case, making a sort-a-sequel - how about bringing this quality novel to the big screen? If you haven't read it I would strongly recommend that you do. It's a great read and if you enjoyed the original Lewis Carroll books you'll really get something out of this one.

by **papalazeru** on Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:31 am

Worst Part's Almost Over wrote:I can remember slapping my forehead, in true Picard fashion, when the new Alice In Wonderland film was first announced. Why? Because a much more exciting, thrilling and downright fun film could be produced from Frank Beddor's The Looking Glass Wars. Instead of going over the same story again and again - or in Burton's case, making a sort-a-sequel - how about bringing this quality novel to the big screen? If you haven't read it I would strongly recommend that you do. It's a great read and if you enjoyed the original Lewis Carroll books you'll really get something out of this one.

Might have to do with the cost of rights, they may have to buy two fold for something like a quasi sequel to Alice.

Credit Crunch, innit!

by **Nachokoolaid** on Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Here's what I wrote in my movie journal.

Nachokoolaid wrote:76. A Christmas Carol (in 3D) - Zemekis, while I wish he would go back to live action films, has made his best animated one with this adaptation. Technically, this is AMAZING. Very little "dead" eyes, and there is a lot of impressive stuff here. Carrey also does very well here, but I disliked his ghost of Christmas Past. His Scrooge was great though, and I agree with H@rry that if this was prosthetic, Carrey would probably be in consideration for an award. Worth seeing if you like the story, but don't expect to be surprised, because honestly, it's a new coat of paint on a familiar tale. 8/10.

I liked it very much. Was some of the "rollercoaster" sequences a bit over the top? Perhaps, but it didn't detract from the overall film. It was actually more thoughtful than the promos show. And I very much appreciated the Victorian era language that made it all the way through this process and wasn't "modernized" (i.e. dumbed down).

Like I said, if you like the story, animated films, or Christmas films, it's worth checking out.

by **Ribbons** on Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:55 pm

To be honest, I'm a little surprised at the good reviews this thing is getting. I still don't think I would pay to see it in a theater, but now I'm kind of curious to check it out.

by **Maui** on Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:46 pm

Nachokoolaid wrote:Here's what I wrote in my movie journal.

Nachokoolaid wrote:76. A Christmas Carol (in 3D) - Zemekis, while I wish he would go back to live action films, has made his best animated one with this adaptation. Technically, this is AMAZING. Very little "dead" eyes, and there is a lot of impressive stuff here.

Yup, I was really impressed with the animation. Zemeckis has come along way since Polar Express and it's more than evident in this film. The animation is really spectacular - so incredibly detailed. The 3D was well utilized, especially the scenes where Scrooge was flying over all the London rooftops and zooming over the English countryside. I think the film starts off a bit slow, but it certainly picks up once the three ghosts visit Scrooge.

by **TheBaxter** on Sat Nov 14, 2009 5:45 pm

that is why i don't want to see this film. any film that features scrooge flying over rooftops is not the version of xmas carol i want to see. and you know if it weren't for the 3d thing, there would be no scene of him flying over rooftops.

by **Raziel** on Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:18 pm

It's reasonably entertaining... the animation is superb and the 3D is fantastic. My one main complaint is that the picture looks a bit too dark in the numerous night scenes.

by **Ribbons** on Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:20 pm

TheBaxter wrote:that is why i don't want to see this film. any film that features scrooge flying over rooftops is not the version of xmas carol i want to see. and you know if it weren't for the 3d thing, there would be no scene of him flying over rooftops.

Yeah, that's sort of what I was thinking too... although the one shot of Scrooge passing over the moon is pretty cool, all that stuff of him being zipped around town by a flying ghost, hurtling towards the screen, etc., seems inserted solely to justify the 3D.

by **Nachokoolaid** on Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:12 am

Ribbons wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:that is why i don't want to see this film. any film that features scrooge flying over rooftops is not the version of xmas carol i want to see. and you know if it weren't for the 3d thing, there would be no scene of him flying over rooftops.

Yeah, that's sort of what I was thinking too... although the one shot of Scrooge passing over the moon is pretty cool, all that stuff of him being zipped around town by a flying ghost, hurtling towards the screen, etc., seems inserted solely to justify the 3D.

Really? Yes, I sort of see where you're coming from, but the ghost sort of flying Scrooge around to his visions of the past isn't exactly a new idea. I think the modern sensibilities of audiences (more action) would dictate that the scene would be similar to what we see now, even if it wasn't in 3D. Did it look even better in 3D? Yes. But I don't think it was crucial to making the scene work.

by **Ribbons** on Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:32 am

Nachokoolaid wrote:I think the modern sensibilities of audiences (more action) would dictate that the scene would be similar to what we see now, even if it wasn't in 3D.

You might be right. This doesn't really strike me as an action story, but now that I think about it, there were a lot of scenes like that in Zemeckis's adaptation of The Polar Express.

by **magicmonkey** on Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:45 am

Ribbons wrote:
Nachokoolaid wrote:I think the modern sensibilities of audiences (more action) would dictate that the scene would be similar to what we see now, even if it wasn't in 3D.

You might be right. This doesn't really strike me as an action story, but now that I think about it, there were a lot of scenes like that in Zemeckis's adaptation of The Polar Express.

Very true! I loved "Polar Express", including all its dead eye creepiness, which to me was intentional and added immensely to it, kinda like those Victorian alabaster dolls. I also watch it and see the kids as the previous American administration... but... THAT scene of the rooftops does look TEH SUCKETH, I mean you only have to look to the joy of Jack dancing around Christmas town in "A Nightmare Before Christmas" to really know how to do a fly through a Christmas, snowy environment AND not let it suck. But... I'll reserved judgement until I see this thing. (I'm excited).

by **justcheckin** on Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:28 pm

I saw this a few weeks ago and I liked it. I like the story and all the versions of it that have come before. I wasn't expecting anything different and really there was nothing really different that would make this stand out from any other except maybe that it is CG. I watched it in 3D and there were a few places that seemed a bit scary for the little kids that were in the theater. I actually enjoyed the scared children. :twisted:

I didn't leave feeling that it was awesome but I liked it for what it was. It doesn't beat out my favorite version which has Patrick Stewart as Scrooge.

I thought making the ghost of xmas past as a candle was kinda cool.

by **TheButcher** on Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:09 am

BLEEDING COOL REVIEW: Robert Zemeckis’ Christmas Carol On 3D Blu-ray

by **Nachokoolaid** on Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:54 am

Way to milk the time of year.

Seriously, this has to be the most time between a theatrical release and the home video release/DVD since the days of VHS. Am I off in this? Or correct? Anyone know?

by **DerLanghaarige** on Fri Nov 12, 2010 7:50 am

Isn't is pretty normal that christmas movies have to wait for their home video release until the next x-mas?