(This post has been REVISED for the sake of clarification.)
When Walden Media came into existence, it promised to focus on bringing high quality, family-friendly entertainment to the screen. And they got off to a great start. Holes was one of the most substantial, intelligent, creative films for young viewers to come along in a while.
But since then, with the somewhat-impressive, somewhat-bloated and misguided adaptation of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the lamentable Around the World in 80 Days, the adaptation of Hoot (which had a preview that warned me away from it, and the reviews confirmed my worries), and now How to Eat Fried Worms, it’s pretty clear that the studio could use some time off to reassess exactly how to achieve its original objectives. Especially considering how many more favorite childrens’ books they are hurrying into produciton.
This progression has been the subject of much discussion between the Christian film critics I regularly talk with. And Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) points to this disturbing trend in his review of How to Eat Fried Worms:
“[How to Eat Fried Worms] marks a new low for once-promising Walden Media, which still professes to be education-oriented and once espoused a commitment to faithful adaptations of quality children’s literature. Their last film, Hoot, was a poor adaptation of an admittedly flawed novel by Carl Hiaasen. Fried Worms is a melancholy new landmark, their first bad film from a good book.”
He gives the film a D+.
“Thomas Rockwell’s beloved novella How to Eat Fried Worms is a cheerfully disgusting tale of boyhood bravado and rivalry among friends that winds up going too far. The new film version, by writer-director Bob Dolman (The Banger Sisters), transmogrifies this minor classic into an unpleasant endurance test about coping with bullying by humiliating and degrading yourself before the bullies can do it for you, with a trite, tacked-on message of solidarity that’s about as realistic as a package of Gummi Worms.”
Does it worry anybodoy else that this is the studio committed to bringing the rest of The Chronicles of Narnia to the screen?
Personally, I’m concerned about another childhood favorite… Susan Cooper’s The Dark is Rising… which is coming soon from Walden. Walden can probably attract big acting talent… but do they have a knockout script that captures that grand mythic quality of Cooper’s books? (There are sequels, so if this is done right, it could be quite a series. It’s interesting, though, that they’re starting with the second book in the series, and not the first.)
And then there’s Charlotte’s Web, one of my all-time favorite stories, which has been turned into a movie that stoops low enough to feature “farting cow” jokes. I distinctly remember speculating about the sorry state of family films a few years back, and joking with some friends about how glad we were that nobody had re-made Charlotte’s Web into a farting animal movie… and when this trailer arrived it was like somebody’d kicked me in the gut. Don’t call me cynical, please… my most pessimistic jokes are coming true with some regularity these days.
Does Walden Media want its reputation to become: “Dedicated to the dumbing-down of great literature, and the cultural bankruptcy of your children”? I don’t think so. But on the map of family films, they’ve changed course, surrendering to the current that flows toward cheap crowdpleasers. I hope they can turn this ship around.
I respect the intentions of the studio, but you know what they say about the road to hell. And they clearly have a lot of money… which will buy you great publicity, big stars, and special effects, but all of that amounts to zzzzzzip if there’s nobody around to write a great adaptation and bring some art to the direction. Somebody needs to bring some guidance, class, and know-how to this studio… and fast.
If you want to see a solid family movie made with class, style, and substance… and I can’t believe I’m saying this, but it’s true… see the new adaptation of Lassie. I can’t review it yet… release day isn’t upon us. But I will say that in ten minutes of that film, I was more impressed with Lassie than I was with Aslan in the entirety of Walden’s The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. I came to trust the folks behind this movie very, very quickly because of their willingness to treat children like intelligent creatures instead of playing to the dumbest, crassest dunce in the corner.
I liked “The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe” quite a bit, but it was probably mostly out of a sense of relief .. The BBC version had just been so bad, so Walden started out with a big handicap in my book .. I hope they aren’t going downhill as quickly as you point out
The only other non-Narnia film I’ve seen is Holes, which was pretty good. But if they continue to try to make “BIG” movies out of Narnia and, even worse, Charlotte, we’re only going to get more of the same schlop. What makes these “children’s” books work so well is that they create intimate places for the big themes. Narnia may have been a country, but it never felt big. Walden turned Narnia into a sprawling epic,and, well, it just sprawled.
I saw “Nanny McPhee” the same day I saw “CON:LWW” and enjoyed Nanny much, much more, mainly due to the fact that the setting remained small even when they moved to different places. If that makes any sense.
Maybe the Narnia movies would be better without pretentious titles.
Jeffrey, in one blog post, you have made these bold claims:
1. “Walden Media: Dedicated to the cultural bankruptcy of your children.”
2. Walden Media is on a road to hell.
3. They have no class.
All of this based on one review by S.D.G. and a trailer with flatulence. I agree that there is a bit of “dumbing down” going on, but I think you might be over-reacting as well. I have two small boys, and I hope that one day they can watch great family films with me, so I do have a very personal interest in this matter. But, your post is shouting from the mountains, when perhaps simple dialogue and polite conversation would be more affective.
p.s. It really doesn’t sound like you care for The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. (The Movie) If that is the case, please take it off your top films of ’05.
Mr. Lytle,
I admit that I’ve been a bit hyperbolic here. But no, it is not a case of “All of this based on one review by S.D.G. and a trailer with flatulence.”
It’s based on the gross embellishments of the Narnia film, the dismaying obesity of the war sequence in the film, the stripping of much of Aslan’s authority in that film and the abbreviation of his participation in the film, the empowering of the villain to become almost Aslan’s equal in the film, the abbreviation of the professor’s part in the film (to make room for more violence). That’s for starters on Narnia.
Now, as regards your request that I remove it from my “Best of ’05″… let’s be clear about this. It’s sitting at #30 for the year. #30. And in all three of my reviews of the film that were published–Christianity Today, Response Magazine, and Looking Closer, I made it clear that I found the film had big pros and big cons. It’s a mixed bag, and because I love the book, I’m dismayed at how easily it could have gone from good to great. Anyone who actually reads my review of the film will see that.
In fact, if you’d read my summary of the film in that very Top 30 list, you would have read this:
… a remarkable big screen fantasy that’s strong enough to capture most of the ideas that make C.S. Lewis’s beloved novel such a delight. Unfortunately, he loses his balance mid-way, favoring new cliffhanger action scenes over some of the book’s most extraordinary sequences. Aslan is not the awe-inspiring, fearsome, tremble-inducing presence he should have been–and if you saw Peter Jackson’s King Kong, you know how fearsome CGI animals can be. And the Witch is quite a different character than the one in the book. Nevertheless, Narnia comes to life because of the smart casting. … It’s hard not to think about what it might have been, but we should be grateful for the small wonders along the way.
Now, as for the other Walden films, they’ve been a mixed bag. But I talk with a large community of Christian film critics and moviegoers every day, and they agree that there has been a dive in quality since “Holes.” So my comments are not based on “one review and a trailer.” They’re based on consistent feedback from people who are dedicated to assessing excellence… and who love movies. Check CT’s review of “Fried Worms.” There are some positive reviews for “Fried Worms,” but those reviews don’t bring up how the film departs from the source material and messes up the theme.
I think you might be over-reacting as well. … But, your post is shouting from the mountains, when perhaps simple dialogue and polite conversation would be more affective.
There’s been a lot of “simple dialogue and polite conversation” since “Holes” was released. I haven’t noticed any attention to critical commentary on Walden films from Walden circles… until now, when I started “shouting from the mountains.” Maybe a little shouting might be helpful in letting them know that some of us are discouraged with what we’re seeing, and we’d hope that, with the money available to Walden, they spend a little more time on script and story–take a note from Pixar here–and a move a little less hastily in rushing classic stories from page to screen.
Walden isn’t the enemy. They have tremendous potential. I just ask that they work harder to create work that flatters the intelligence of their young audience, rather than playing down to them. And that they pay close attention to the spirit and themes of their source material, rather than shoving original stories into the mold of formulaic entertainment that plays to the expectations and immature inclinations of the audience.
Walden has done impressive work. I just hope those days aren’t behind them. That’s all.
It is important, though, that I am careful not to condemn. It is my intention to sound an alarm in the interest of helping things improve. I do this because I love movies and I want to see great stories shine.
As an author of fantasy for all ages, I often consider what I might do if my books are ever adapted for the screen. (If that actually happened, I’d be astonished, but one likes to dream.) At this point, would I hand over my books to Walden for any amount of money? As much as I admire their intentions… no. Not unless they earn back my trust as a moviegoer and a lover of literature. I’d be more inclined to go with Pixar or the folks who made the new Lassie movie, which steers far clear of many frequent kid-flick missteps.
Thanks for responding. I’m interested in continuing this conversation.
And, to those I may have offended, please accept my apology and let this be my second chance at being clear and respectful.
Both Holes & Because of Winn-Dixie were wonderful, IMO. It seems as if Walden is doing too much too fast & not taking the time to make sure the adaptions are as strong as they could be. Per IMDB, Walden has 9 films set for 2007, including The Giver, Bridge to Terabithia, & Dark is Rising – all based on well-loved books – as well as the Harrison Ford vehicle Manhunt. Some sound promising but they’re all over the map. It’s like they’re throwing all the darts at the board at once to see what’ll hit. With a strategy like that, the track record can’t help but be bad.
Hoot was a total flop & Fried Worms had a very similar opening weekend to Hoot. After 2 theatrical underperformers, perhaps Walden will get the message & return to quality over quantity.
I’d love to see Walden become a studio that hit’s it outta the park every time – or at least more often that not with a bunch of solid tripples. There’s a whole lot of potential there!
Jeffrey,
Please don’t begin your attack of a harmless and well-intentioned post by patronizing me. Referring to me as “Mr. Lytle” comes across as a bit argumentative. My comments were made with love and out of a desire to see my favorite film critic not fall prey to a reactionary response.
Anyone who actually reads my review of the film will see that.
In fact, if you’d read my summary of the film in that very Top 30 list, you would have read this:
I hope you didn’t mean that the way that it reads on paper. I probably read your reviews more faithfully than most of your readers. I would dare say, considering I visit your site anywhere between 10 to 20 times a day, that I am very familiar with your reviews of the aforementioned film. And yes, I read and re-read your summary of the film. That summary doesn’t say top 30 film to me. Maybe that is just my personal opinion. So I will let this point of contention go. (And to be completely accurate, it is sitting at number 29. At least when you have it tied with Episode 3 at 29 and 30, you list it first. But maybe that is being too picky.)
Walden isn’t the enemy.
I respect the intentions of the studio, but you know what they say about the road to hell.
Walden Media: Dedicated to the dumbing-down of great literature, and the cultural bankruptcy of your children.
Somebody needs to bring some guidance, class, and know-how to this studio… and fast.
It scares me to think what you would say if they were the enemy.
I appreciate your second attempt for its honesty and gentler tone. That is exactly the type of response that I would have applauded from the beginning. And that is exactly why I responded to your first post. Give information man! Don’t just piss and moan about how the studio is lobotomizing the children of America. You have a right to your opinions, many of which I share, but state those opinions without resorting to hyperbole and snark.
Thanks for taking time out to respond. God bless and continue the good work.
Phill Lytle
FWIW, my own two bits. And I never did get the fuss over Holes — though from what I hear, it sounds like that film was at least faithful to the book, which certainly can’t be said for most of Walden’s other movies.
We are clearly not understanding each other the way we should.
“Mr. Lytle” was not meant in any sort of patronizing way. And I immediately began my reply to you admitting that I’d been heavy-handed.
And I didn’t say Walden was on the brink of hell. I said “you know what they say about good intentions.” I was merely reminding people that “good intentions” are not all we need for good results, and that they can be the stuff that “paves” the way to hell. All I meant by the post was that, by employing tactics that characterize some of the worst “family films,” they’ve changed direction and… well… if they keep that up consistently, sure, that will lead to kid-flick hell. But no, they’re a long way from that yet.
I’m happy to hear how much attention you give my site… that’s more than I would expect or ask. But again, I think my review of the film makes it clear why I included it in the Top 30, alongside Revenge of the Sith. (If I’d wanted to rate it at #29, I would have just called it #29, and wouldn’t have bothered to specify a “tie,” but that’s a very trivial point, and I change those lists regularly, so no big deal.) It boasts some truly memorable moments, and Lewis’s story is so strong that it would have been hard to make a worthless version of the film. It’s just especially painful to have a film with all of the resources for greatness, and then see it fall short because of a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes the story great.
J.R.R. Tolkien himself said that great books fail to become great films because filmmakers sometimes fail to understand the core of the piece. I’m afraid that was the case with TLTW&TW. Walden did a good job of casting, a good job of marketing, and a great job of merchandising. But the film could have been great instead of merely entertaining.
Phill,
You ought to go back to the December archives and read “The Narnia Smackdown” post if you haven’t already. Everybody, including Jeffrey, lays their cards on the table. It’s one of the most intense and illuminating threads I’ve ever read. (And, at 138 entries, the longest.)
You made a good point about Jeffrey’s decision to place Narnia on his year-end Top 30 list. His write-up for CT was the toughest ***1/2 review I’ve read from him. But I also understand the majority of his work has been a delicate balancing act which often requires him to recommend a film while simultaneously criticizing many aspects of it. In the case of Narnia, his disappointment is entirely justified. I guess you’re sternest with the things you love most.
Jeffrey,
Thanks for the response. I apologize if I misread your post. Perhaps in a live conversation, tone and delivery would have cleared up the comments you made.
Nate,
I respect Jeffrey’s objections of the film, and his criticism of Walden Media. I was simply trying to keep the conversation away from histrionics and grandiosity. Perhaps in my zeal to do that, I too succumbed to some of those things.
On a slightly unrelated note, I have a thought:
Are the criticisms of the Narnia film based on our knowledge of the characters and story as a whole? By that I mean, do we include what we know about Aslan, for instance, from the other Chronicles, or are we judging the film solely on what is revealed in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe? Like I said, just a thought.
There are agents in Hollywood who would prefer not to deal with Walden because their hiring choices seem so scattershot and random.
And here’s another question about Walden: Why, when they’re funded by a professing Christian who wants to make (at least some) faith-based projects, do they seemingly refuse to hire qualified Christian writers and directors?
Their choice of director for LWW was understandable given the technical needs of the film… but their writer choices were inexplicable.
how, oh how can we get KEXP playing OtR? There must be a way.
Drumming my fingers til my copy of Snow Angels arrives.
I am seeing OTR this friday night in Philadelphia, I am so stoked. I bet it’ll be a great show.
I haven’t received mine yet but I’m patiently waiting! White Horse was a highlight on Live From Nowhere, Vol 1 for me. I could listen to it over & over & I’m very glad it appears on Snow Angels. It’s so very pretty & should be a new Christmas classic song if there were any justice in this world!