Why can’t Mrs. Frisby catch a break?

Poor Mrs. Frisby. Looks like Bedrock Studios is the latest studio to disrespect her name.

The hero of Robert C. O’Brien’s classic children’s novel Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH never gets any credit. When Don Bluth’s extravagant animated adaptation hit theaters, her name had been dropped from the title. Now it was just The Secret of NIMH.

But that’s not all. In the movie, her name had been changed to Mrs. Brisbie!

Why? According to Wikipedia, the name was changed “to avoid potential objections from the makers of the frisbee, Wham-O.” Huh. Really? It’s spelled differently in the book. And the book is already published and beloved!

Now, word arrives that Bedrock Studios is working on an adaptation of the same book. But they’ve chewed off Mrs. Frisby’s name! If the article is accurate, the movie will be called Rats of NIMH*. (Hmm. Is it uncool to have “Mrs.” in the title? Not sexy enough? Or does the name Frisby remind kids of this guy? I doubt it.)

I mean… why not stick with Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH? Or just Frisby and the Rats of NIMH? Or just… Frisby? Think of the merchandising possibilities!

I’m worried. Is it just that Rats of NIMH sounds more dangerous? In that case, maybe they’ll change The Hobbit to The Dragon Smaug.

And look! Bedrock is producing A Wrinkle in Time. Wouldn’t The Three Witches be more menacing? Or perhaps they should just make a reference to the story’s villain, which would be simple and catchy:  It.

* The story actually shows the title to be Rats of NIMH at Paramount. But I assume somebody just got the italics wrong.

Tags:

3 Responses to “Why can’t Mrs. Frisby catch a break?”

  1. Martin Stillion Says:

    No, not It. Stephen King might sue!

  2. Caleb Says:

    If I remember correctly (and it’s been years and years), the book was primarily about the group of rats and mice inventing their own science and civilization, while Bluth’s movie was of a more spiritual/magical nature. I still get chills thinking about the Great Owl, one of the most Awe-full filmed images of a Godlike being that I can think of.

    I’m not too worried about what they call this new version, more about what they do with it. If it’s just a rehash of the Bluth version, we could do without. If it’s more faithful to the original story, devoid of comedic crows, and more about the nature of civilization and society, it might be worthwhile.

    Given what these guys did with Narnia though, I’m not holding my breath for anything too profound.

  3. Chad Ethridge Says:

    I remember really liking the movie as a kid, but don’t remember too much about it now. I am skeptical about watching such movies again because often I find that the things I enjoyed as a child do not continue to resonate with me as an adult. Perhaps I should read the book instead of the movie this time around.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.