Didn't you know?

[ailbhe]

We watched The Gruffalo twice and loved it. It had a LOT of things-eating-things in every scene, I think, mainly as background. But the children didn't mind that (not like the penguins documentary which upset Linnea terrible and we had to stop watching after a mother penguin was eaten by a seal and some babies froze to death on the ice).

Comments

[hfnuala.livejournal.com]

Aisling found it far more scary than the book.

(I couldn't help but notice that the only female character was the story teller, when there was no reason why 50% of them couldn't have been female voiced. As it was Xmas I held my tongue.)

[the-changeling.livejournal.com]

We hated it. It did too much, and added too much... and we fell asleep half way through it.

Gruffalo, that is.

[batswing.livejournal.com]

We loved it!

[clanwilliam.livejournal.com]

I loved it. The animation of the mouse, in particular, as he was far less cocky at first than he was in the book.

[lovingboth]

I liked the things getting eaten - much more realistic view of nature and shows the mouse isn't alone in being in danger. It's clearly not 'real' animals in danger, partly because...

I didn't like the quality of the CGI - some of the textures were rubbish (half the trees looked plastic) and they didn't bother to even attempt to do fur.

[pogodragon.livejournal.com]

I don't know and didn't watch the Gruffalo, but I'm with Linnea on the penguins thing. I refuse point blank to ever watch natural history shows. Ever. They're just too sad. There's always a sad bit, no exception.

[iuil.livejournal.com]

I've always read the owl as being female.

The Gruffalo's child is very obviously female so it will be interesting to see how they do the sequel.

[ailbhe]

I thought the CGI reflected the illustrations in the book, not reality at all, which seemed wholly appropriate.

[ailbhe]

I think the mouse being frightened was what made it so much scarier than the book for the children.

[ailbhe]

I think the mouse being frightened was what made it so much scarier than the book for the children.

[ailbhe]

There's a cartoon about it...

[pogodragon.livejournal.com]

*giggle*

Thank you, that amused me.

[trizia.livejournal.com]

Me too. I can't stand it when the film crew just stand by and let a creature die - especially if it is a baby creature or an endangered species.

[pogodragon.livejournal.com]

Usually with a really syrupy voice-over and emo. sound track added.

I have traumatic memories of Survival Specials when I was a child and a father who insisted on watching, and making me watch the really icky bits 'cos "it's nature".

[rmc28]

I agree. We enjoyed and have just watched it a second time because Tony's sisters missed it.

[trizia.livejournal.com]

The one I remember was about Tigers, and they filmed a cub dying over several hours when it could have been saved really easily. I don't object when one animal eats another - that's what they do, but I do loathe what is little more than death-porn and 'we can't interfere' being used as an excuse.

[rmc28]

I think the reason is that the book explicitly says 'he' for all the characters except the mouse, and The Gruffalo's Child makes it clear that the mouse is also male, while the Gruffalo's child is female.

Given that one of the things I loved about this animation was its consistency with one of Charles's favourite books, I would have been quite irritated if some of the male characters had been made female.

But yes, having 5 male characters to 1 female, and she only appears in book 2, is rather rubbish, and I hadn't even noticed. Bah, at least The Snail and the Whale is more evenly balanced.

[lovingboth]

Hmm, I'm not sure about that. I believe, looking at the illustrations, that the book's fox and gruffalo have fur, but the film's ones have rubber suits.

My other moan is that there weren't nearly enough silver birch trees compared to the book. The book's backgrounds are lovely.

[ailbhe]

http://www.babyblues.com/archive/index.php?formname=getstrip&GoToDay=07/07/1997 too.