I believe the reason the Shrew sent Mrs. Brisby to the Owl is because she assumed the Owl would eat her. Then, the Shrew could sell the remaining kids to the Rats on Farmer Epstein's rosebush. But seriously, as a fan of both the book and the movie, this was a great video to watch. Thanks for your efforts in putting this one together.
All of your observations about the craft and quality of writing in this video are spot-on. That being said, I think that you are being perhaps a little bit unfair to the movie. It is definitely not as well scripted as the book, even for an adaptation, but for the standard of the era in which it was made (just take another look at the similarly pointless changes in Rankin and Bass' the Hobbit, or worse, any Disney film, for comparison), they were extraordinarily faithful to the tone. In the 20th century, buying an existing IP was usually little more than a formality of the process: the script would be written from scratch by a staff writer who may have never even read the book to begin with and almost certainly didn't have a personal connection with the story. As an adult with young children, I still think that this film holds up as a story in its own right, even though it is a completely different tale and outdated in its structure. Actual points in defense for some of the changes: Mr. Ages being too busy to chat helps the animators keep him moving, always moving. Geanted, I think that they could have done better if they had approached it somewhat like Merlin and Wart sitting down to have tea in the Sword and the Stone, but the fact that Disney had already used that solution for animating expositional dialogue may be precisely why Bluth and his team would avoid doing it that way: they were already disillusioned with Disney copying its own tricks in animation. When reading a book, questions are what compel the reader to turn the page, but in animation it's your limbic system that keeps you watching the screen: excitement, fear, revulsion, sorrow, and/or joy. Knowing that Mrs. Frisby has to solve a major problem in just 5 days makes you want to find out if and how she can solve that problem, but it's only in writing that the narrator can remind you unobtrusively that she is constantly trying to think it through while she goes from moment to moment, place to place. In visual and audial format, it's not as fluid to slip into her thoughts and we need visual reminders of the threat. We can't just rely on someone telling us what will happen because in this format, it will only be concrete if we see it and hear it for ourselves. This makes it necessary for the timeline to be compressed and for us to see what it will be like if she fails. Now, do I think that Auntie Shrew ought to be the one who saves the day? Not especially, and I think it would be more effective/meaningful if she had died in the process, really making it a sacrifice and demonstrating why they can't just keep doing that every time the plough comes along, but it's a children's film and we already get a couple of deaths in the third act, which is more than many adult action/adventure films (looking at you, MARVEL studios). Still, I think that her having to work so hard only to just manage to stall the destruction for a little while conveys a lot more to a child dramatically than you might think. I misremembered before rewatching it a year or two ago that Auntie Shrew HAD died, so clearly I felt the stakes as a child and I knew that she was just desperate and lucky. As for Nicodemus being a king... meh. I agree that the argument between him and Jenner in the novel is far more interesting, but it would dramatically add to the run time of the already extremely expensive first film from this fledgling studio, and it would have been especially difficult and costly to animate dynamically and effectively. It just makes sense to flatten those characters out for the sake of the story they wanted to tell. As for Nicodemus being a wizard or Mrs. Brisby using the amulet to raise her house from the mud, I have nothing to say to justify it.
Plus if we really wanted to get into hair splitting; only the rats have the smarts and organization to pull off their civilization but all the other critters are sentient and can communicate across species?
A new video! Congratulations, I know you put a lot of work into these. Can't wait to watch it later. Your other videos have given me so much good advice to use in my writing in the future.
I dont think you can adopt the book in 90 or 120 minutes without taking shortcuts , like skipping mr ages or combining the owl and ages and jimmy takes her there for example. But i agree many changes the movie made were weird , why magic when you have the science angle ?, why the secondary villian when you have a great opposing force in the farmer and his cat ? etc
16:30 This would have been a great opportunity to examine Don Bluth's creative motives. The guy is both a former Disney animator who worked on high-profile films like Sleeping Beauty, and a devout Mormon who has gone on record stating that he infused Christian and Mormon symbolism into all of his works. I don't know every decision he made 1-to-1, but it's pretty clear that he turned a story based on logical questions and answers into a story based on faith with a heavy aesthetic of mysticism. It worked as a competitor to Disney and has since become very nostalgic, but it's clear to see where the core ideas of the book got lost in the sauce.
Good video! I cherished this book as a child. I still remember that it taught me the meaning of the word "lee," what a boil is, and a bit about metaphor in the rat race story. I saw the adaptation not long after it came out, by which time I'd probably read the book a dozen times. Even at a young age, I was disappointed.
Aloha Dave! I’m from Hawaii - aged 22. I found your dexter video and I’ve been watching some of your work. Your writing is immense. I think if anything it might be a worthwhile investment to either get an editor or achieve a style that is minimal yet flashy. Your content has potential brother! Keep it up!
Well, when you put it that way, I suppose it IS a little weird that Nicodemus is a wizard. That's like if Peter Jackson was like: "Who are you, good sir?" "Dr. Gandalf, Ph.D." Not to say sci-fi and fantasy can't exist in the same story but it's a delicate art. Probably shouldn't add random magical artefacts into a story that didn't have them in the first place. I also strongly believe in the "questions & answers" theory in storytelling, or whatever it's actually called. Basically just the idea that the order in which information is revealed is paramount. It affects so many things. Audience reactions, audience investment, narrative pacing, etc.
I think we can all still agree that this movie is still a hell of a lot better than The Secret of NIMH 2. Goddamn singing Eric Idle. Goddamn singing Ralph Macchio.
While I disagree with a lot of your viewpoints, you make your arguments well and this was an entertaining watch. However, I do take one big issue with something you said: we can’t possibly know how the writer would have reacted to the film, and assuming his negative response seems a little disrespectful? I absolutely appreciate the point you’re making about the source material clearly not lining up with what was adapted, but it feels kind of wrong to not only assume how he would have reacted if he’d seen it, but also use that made up viewpoint in a video critique when you’ve got plenty of your own opinions to build content around.
@@davescripted3796 I appreciate that man, was just offering a viewpoint that you have strong arguments and didn’t need to do that. But it’s your content! You do you and keep making the things you love, I don’t want to detract from the great content you’ve put together here.
I know I don't need to say this, or shouldn't, but converting a novel to a movie requires things to be condensed and simplified... With that in mind some of your critiques... I don't know man, they came off pretty weak to me.
I believe the reason the Shrew sent Mrs. Brisby to the Owl is because she assumed the Owl would eat her. Then, the Shrew could sell the remaining kids to the Rats on Farmer Epstein's rosebush.
But seriously, as a fan of both the book and the movie, this was a great video to watch. Thanks for your efforts in putting this one together.
Lol;-)
All of your observations about the craft and quality of writing in this video are spot-on.
That being said, I think that you are being perhaps a little bit unfair to the movie. It is definitely not as well scripted as the book, even for an adaptation, but for the standard of the era in which it was made (just take another look at the similarly pointless changes in Rankin and Bass' the Hobbit, or worse, any Disney film, for comparison), they were extraordinarily faithful to the tone. In the 20th century, buying an existing IP was usually little more than a formality of the process: the script would be written from scratch by a staff writer who may have never even read the book to begin with and almost certainly didn't have a personal connection with the story.
As an adult with young children, I still think that this film holds up as a story in its own right, even though it is a completely different tale and outdated in its structure.
Actual points in defense for some of the changes:
Mr. Ages being too busy to chat helps the animators keep him moving, always moving. Geanted, I think that they could have done better if they had approached it somewhat like Merlin and Wart sitting down to have tea in the Sword and the Stone, but the fact that Disney had already used that solution for animating expositional dialogue may be precisely why Bluth and his team would avoid doing it that way: they were already disillusioned with Disney copying its own tricks in animation.
When reading a book, questions are what compel the reader to turn the page, but in animation it's your limbic system that keeps you watching the screen: excitement, fear, revulsion, sorrow, and/or joy. Knowing that Mrs. Frisby has to solve a major problem in just 5 days makes you want to find out if and how she can solve that problem, but it's only in writing that the narrator can remind you unobtrusively that she is constantly trying to think it through while she goes from moment to moment, place to place. In visual and audial format, it's not as fluid to slip into her thoughts and we need visual reminders of the threat. We can't just rely on someone telling us what will happen because in this format, it will only be concrete if we see it and hear it for ourselves. This makes it necessary for the timeline to be compressed and for us to see what it will be like if she fails. Now, do I think that Auntie Shrew ought to be the one who saves the day? Not especially, and I think it would be more effective/meaningful if she had died in the process, really making it a sacrifice and demonstrating why they can't just keep doing that every time the plough comes along, but it's a children's film and we already get a couple of deaths in the third act, which is more than many adult action/adventure films (looking at you, MARVEL studios). Still, I think that her having to work so hard only to just manage to stall the destruction for a little while conveys a lot more to a child dramatically than you might think. I misremembered before rewatching it a year or two ago that Auntie Shrew HAD died, so clearly I felt the stakes as a child and I knew that she was just desperate and lucky.
As for Nicodemus being a king... meh. I agree that the argument between him and Jenner in the novel is far more interesting, but it would dramatically add to the run time of the already extremely expensive first film from this fledgling studio, and it would have been especially difficult and costly to animate dynamically and effectively. It just makes sense to flatten those characters out for the sake of the story they wanted to tell.
As for Nicodemus being a wizard or Mrs. Brisby using the amulet to raise her house from the mud, I have nothing to say to justify it.
I hear what you're saying. And I did like it as a five year old. But watching it again so soon after reading the book was just too much for me.
Plus if we really wanted to get into hair splitting; only the rats have the smarts and organization to pull off their civilization but all the other critters are sentient and can communicate across species?
A new video! Congratulations, I know you put a lot of work into these. Can't wait to watch it later. Your other videos have given me so much good advice to use in my writing in the future.
No such thing as an “aspiring writer,” man! You’re a writer! Full stop. This video is plenty of proof of your skill.
🙏😃!!!
Youre criminally underrated Dave! I always enjoy your videos 👏👏
Appreciate you!!
I dont think you can adopt the book in 90 or 120 minutes without taking shortcuts , like skipping mr ages or combining the owl and ages and jimmy takes her there for example. But i agree many changes the movie made were weird , why magic when you have the science angle ?, why the secondary villian when you have a great opposing force in the farmer and his cat ? etc
You're right. They have to cut some stuff. If they ever remake it I hope they do so as a series.
16:30 This would have been a great opportunity to examine Don Bluth's creative motives. The guy is both a former Disney animator who worked on high-profile films like Sleeping Beauty, and a devout Mormon who has gone on record stating that he infused Christian and Mormon symbolism into all of his works. I don't know every decision he made 1-to-1, but it's pretty clear that he turned a story based on logical questions and answers into a story based on faith with a heavy aesthetic of mysticism. It worked as a competitor to Disney and has since become very nostalgic, but it's clear to see where the core ideas of the book got lost in the sauce.
Good video! I cherished this book as a child. I still remember that it taught me the meaning of the word "lee," what a boil is, and a bit about metaphor in the rat race story. I saw the adaptation not long after it came out, by which time I'd probably read the book a dozen times. Even at a young age, I was disappointed.
Me too!! "The lee of the stone" :-)
Aloha Dave!
I’m from Hawaii - aged 22.
I found your dexter video and I’ve been watching some of your work. Your writing is immense. I think if anything it might be a worthwhile investment to either get an editor or achieve a style that is minimal yet flashy.
Your content has potential brother! Keep it up!
Working on it! Thx!!
loved this. makes me want to read the book and learn how to write good stories
Straight up my favorite youtube channel
I'm not sure I've ever watched a video essay I've agreed with more.
Another great video!
Well, when you put it that way, I suppose it IS a little weird that Nicodemus is a wizard.
That's like if Peter Jackson was like: "Who are you, good sir?" "Dr. Gandalf, Ph.D."
Not to say sci-fi and fantasy can't exist in the same story but it's a delicate art. Probably shouldn't add random magical artefacts into a story that didn't have them in the first place.
I also strongly believe in the "questions & answers" theory in storytelling, or whatever it's actually called. Basically just the idea that the order in which information is revealed is paramount. It affects so many things. Audience reactions, audience investment, narrative pacing, etc.
People like the movie more than they like the book. More people have seen the movie than read the book, too.
I think we can all still agree that this movie is still a hell of a lot better than The Secret of NIMH 2.
Goddamn singing Eric Idle. Goddamn singing Ralph Macchio.
lol
Wow, it's hard not to politicize the Nicodemus/Jenner conflict of interest in this day & age.
Sure...all that... but the VAs were great, especially the late, great Dom DeLuise. Still magical and I'm almost 50.😂
TLDR: To be fair the book is long... Why the movie didn't touch on the stuff from the book simplified and left out so much, destroying a masterpiece 😢
While I disagree with a lot of your viewpoints, you make your arguments well and this was an entertaining watch.
However, I do take one big issue with something you said: we can’t possibly know how the writer would have reacted to the film, and assuming his negative response seems a little disrespectful? I absolutely appreciate the point you’re making about the source material clearly not lining up with what was adapted, but it feels kind of wrong to not only assume how he would have reacted if he’d seen it, but also use that made up viewpoint in a video critique when you’ve got plenty of your own opinions to build content around.
Jeez dude I said it was just conjecture.
@@davescripted3796 I appreciate that man, was just offering a viewpoint that you have strong arguments and didn’t need to do that. But it’s your content! You do you and keep making the things you love, I don’t want to detract from the great content you’ve put together here.
5:25 oh no... is this an AI generated image? :/
is it really? i cant even tell
I just typed in construction on google and took the image I saw
Follywood
I think Campbell's BS heroes journey post-star wars has infantalized how stories are told
I know I don't need to say this, or shouldn't, but converting a novel to a movie requires things to be condensed and simplified... With that in mind some of your critiques... I don't know man, they came off pretty weak to me.
adding arcane magic, wizards, and an entire conflict/secondary antagonist is condensing and simplifying?