Reaction Videos

[Karl Henning]

Coby will break quarantine:

[LKB]

Wavy finishes Peter Jackson's incomparable masterpiece.

[LKB]

Wavy has begun reacting to the appendices to PJ's masterpiece.

While I wouldn't expect this to interest everyone, for any who are interested in how PJ did what he did, it's not a bad place to start.

[Karl Henning]

Our boy jumped at the dream sequence:

[LKB]

Our boy jumped at the dream sequence:

Hmmm... I wonder if I somehow missed his take on the first film. I'll have to double-check that... Thanks, Karl!

[Karl Henning]

Our boy drinks the Water of Life:

[Karl Henning]

Hmmm... I wonder if I somehow missed his take on the first film. I'll have to double-check that... Thanks, Karl!

Loved his response when the egg yawned open!

[Karl Henning]

Loved his response when the egg yawned open!

And, the shot of his dog on the bed when Ripley is surprised in the Lab: adorable!

[Karl Henning]

And, the shot of his dog on the bed when Ripley is surprised in the Lab: adorable!

"That cat! That's why I got dogs!"

[Karl Henning]

My first visit to this channel:

[Karl Henning]

[Karl Henning]

I wouldn't have known them back when first I saw the film in the movie house,  but now, I should have known both Norman Lloyd as the Headmaster and Kurtwood Smith as Neil's dad.

[LKB]

Cassie and Carly enjoy the box of chocolates.

[LKB]

A brief PSA... when I initiated this thread I was primarily interested in the myriad channels focused on movies and TV. Over the last year or so, the channels focused on music ( classical and otherwise ) have begun to attract my attention. As a result, I'll be dropping more music-oriented reactions going forward. They probably won't " catch up " to the film or TV reactions, but I suspect that a greater portion of this forum's membership may ultimately find such material to be more interesting than the mass-media on offer.

[LKB]

Coby appreciates a bit of the ol' " Ludwig van ".

[Karl Henning]

Finally got 'round to this:

[LKB]

Cassie does not give TRW a good reception.

[LKB]

Finally got 'round to this:

  I've been rewatching both Sir Patrick's and George C. Scott's performances of Scrooge, and it's been an entertaining exercise. There are a few departures from the novella in both productions, as one would expect in an adaptation.

  The largest of these occur in the earlier effort: First, Marly is the only ghost Scrooge encounters before the three main Spirits. Second,  Christmas Present doesn't lead Scrooge on the " world tour " of people observing Christmas. Finally, Just before Christmas Present reveals the pitiable wretches he has concealed beneath his robe, Scrooge is shown a ragged family passing the night about a small fire, enjoying a dinner consisting of potatoes which had fallen from a cart. The father laments his unemployment, and tells his wife to take the children to the workhouse on the morrow. The wife refuses, declaring that it would be better if they should all drown in a river, than resort to such a place. Once this encounter concludes, the novella's course is restored.

The largest departure in Stewart's production is the omission of Scrooge's second encounter with one of the men of Charity who had called on him the day before.

Scott's portrayal is closer to the Scrooge of the novella, particularly in his gleeful contempt of the better-natured early on.

On the other hand, Sir Patrick brings subtleties into his performance to which Scott, with his broader strokes, is perhaps less amenable. With Stewart I have a better idea of the damage done to Scrooge when he was a motherless young boy, resented and neglected by his father. Perhaps this Scrooge never outgrew his boyhood insecurity, and hoards his wealth merely to ensure he will never again be at anyone's mercy.

Both productions have decent music, though it seems to me there's significantly more contemporary music in the 1999 production.

Special effects are not quite as polished as they would have been in a feature film, but they are adequate for both of the TV productions.

Both adaptations are successful in making Dickens' points. The boxes are checked, the messages apparent. The supporting actors are all fine ( though I admit to preferring the earlier Fred ). Exterior shots and the sets are well-chosen for both productions.

I would say that they are roughly equivalent on the whole, one a bit stronger here, the other slightly superior there...

Whichever one prefers probably comes down to the stars. George C. Scott brings his full game to the party, and is invested. Those who enjoy his efforts will undoubtedly remain loyal. Stewart, on the other hand, looks like Scrooge, a hardened yet oddly resigned exterior protecting the wounds of his youth.

They're both well worth watching.

[Karl Henning]

I've been rewatching both Sir Patrick's and George C. Scott's performances of Scrooge, and it's been an entertaining exercise. There are a few departures from the novella in both productions, as one would expect in an adaptation.

  The largest of these occur in the earlier effort: First, Marly is the only ghost Scrooge encounters before the three main Spirits. Second,  Christmas Present doesn't lead Scrooge on the " world tour " of people observing Christmas. Finally, Just before Christmas Present reveals the pitiable wretches he has concealed beneath his robe, Scrooge is shown a ragged family passing the night about a small fire, enjoying a dinner consisting of potatoes which had fallen from a cart. The father laments his unemployment, and tells his wife to take the children to the workhouse on the morrow. The wife refuses, declaring that it would be better if they should all drown in a river, than resort to such a place. Once this encounter concludes, the novella's course is restored.

The largest departure in Stewart's production is the omission of Scrooge's second encounter with one of the men of Charity who had called on him the day before.

Scott's portrayal is closer to the Scrooge of the novella, particularly in his gleeful contempt of the better-natured early on.

On the other hand, Sir Patrick brings subtleties into his performance to which Scott, with his broader strokes, is perhaps less amenable. With Stewart I have a better idea of the damage done to Scrooge when he was a motherless young boy, resented and neglected by his father. Perhaps this Scrooge never outgrew his boyhood insecurity, and hoards his wealth merely to ensure he will never again be at anyone's mercy.

Both productions have decent music, though it seems to me there's significantly more contemporary music in the 1999 production.

Special effects are not quite as polished as they would have been in a feature film, but they are adequate for both of the TV productions.

Both adaptations are successful in making Dickens' points. The boxes are checked, the messages apparent. The supporting actors are all fine ( though I admit to preferring the earlier Fred ). Exterior shots and the sets are well-chosen for both productions.

I would say that they are roughly equivalent on the whole, one a bit stronger here, the other slightly superior there...

Whichever one prefers probably comes down to the stars. George C. Scott brings his full game to the party, and is invested. Those who enjoy his efforts will undoubtedly remain loyal. Stewart, on the other hand, looks like Scrooge, a hardened yet oddly resigned exterior protecting the wounds of his youth.

They're both well worth watching.

That they are. You know the novella better than I, as I've really only read it properly since seeing these two screen adaptations.

[Karl Henning]