Am I missing something?

[Cerebrum123]

I somehow missed the He-Man reboot although I did see the one for Thundercats. The biggest issue with He-Man, aside from choppy animation and stilted dialog, it was so painfully obvious that the various characters that got introduced on the show were designed to be easily copied into cheap toy form.

The 2002 reboot fixed those issues from what I can remember. They changed up the design so they looked less like easy to produce toys, they made the story more serious and changed the characters to fit that.

As for Duck Tales, I've disagreed with you before on that show, but last winter watched a bunch of the second and third season episodes and enjoyed them much more than those I saw from the first season.

When I first saw the art I was very pessimistic. For some reason they played the first season out of order, and it takes away some of the tension, it also puts multiple episodes that weren't their best together pretty early. From the middle of the first season on the show just continued to get better. I haven't gotten to watch anything since mid season 3 sadly. The last one I remember was an episode called Astro Boyd. I also really loved the way they handled Darkwing Duck.

I can understand why from some of the early episodes why people wouldn't think it is great. I do think it was still good then, just nowhere near where what it became later on. The changes to Mrs. Beakley, Webby, and the addition of Leena really helped the show IMO. I also loved the way they handled Della* Duck.

I recently "binged" the 60s Batman and not having seen it since I was 20 or so (in syndication -- not original run ) and was surprised how crisp and sharp some of the dialog actually was -- especially as the show progressed. I also enjoyed some of Commissioner Gordon's alliterations usually describing that weeks villain.

Yup. There are some rather eye roll worthy moments, but it still holds up as silly fun.

*Apparently in the comics she was originally named Dumbella, and this is referenced in the show. If you want to see just how much effort they put into studying the source materials(meaning not just the 80's Duck Tales) then I suggest a YouTube channel called seaniccus. He shows just how deep they delved into the McDuck lore. It's really pretty insane on how deep they went. Most shows have some subtle easter eggs, but Duck Tales 2017 is filled to the brim with references to the source material and the Disney Afternoon shows. They actually made a world in which most** of those franchises could plausibly share the same world.

**Gargoyles being a big exception.

[rogue06]

The 2002 reboot fixed those issues from what I can remember. They changed up the design so they looked less like easy to produce toys, they made the story more serious and changed the characters to fit that.



When I first saw the art I was very pessimistic. For some reason they played the first season out of order, and it takes away some of the tension, it also puts multiple episodes that weren't their best together pretty early. From the middle of the first season on the show just continued to get better. I haven't gotten to watch anything since mid season 3 sadly. The last one I remember was an episode called Astro Boyd. I also really loved the way they handled Darkwing Duck.

I can understand why from some of the early episodes why people wouldn't think it is great. I do think it was still good then, just nowhere near where what it became later on. The changes to Mrs. Beakley, Webby, and the addition of Leena really helped the show IMO. I also loved the way they handled Della* Duck.



Yup. There are some rather eye roll worthy moments, but it still holds up as silly fun.

*Apparently in the comics she was originally named Dumbella, and this is referenced in the show. If you want to see just how much effort they put into studying the source materials(meaning not just the 80's Duck Tales) then I suggest a YouTube channel called seaniccus. He shows just how deep they delved into the McDuck lore. It's really pretty insane on how deep they went. Most shows have some subtle easter eggs, but Duck Tales 2017 is filled to the brim with references to the source material and the Disney Afternoon shows. They actually made a world in which most** of those franchises could plausibly share the same world.

**Gargoyles being a big exception.

You need to finish the series to see the "big reveal" at the end

[Cerebrum123]

Brilliant film!

Oh I see.

Ah well that makes you considerably younger than I am.

I had a feeling that might be the case. Not nearly as many people my age who are still using discussion boards like TWeb. People who are younger are even less likely to use them.

That is one feature of Hans Christian Anderson, some of his tales are very dark [The Little Match Girl, The Red Shoes, The Snow Queen, The Steadfast Tin Soldier] as of course is so much folklore.

This is true of most fairy tales. The original Pinocchio had him kill Jiminy Cricket, and I've also heard that the original Sleeping Beauty had her being raped and impregnated while she was sleeping.

Hans Christian Andersen also wrote The Ugly Duckling. While the Ugly Duckling went through some bad times, the story wasn't as dark as other works. Even certain Disney movies get darker than it does.

My main problem with Disney is more recent. Their recent penchant for "live action remakes" in which they just make worse versions of their existing movies. That and their penchant for buying up certain franchises they didn't help make and trying to make something new with it while not understanding why the original was liked in the first place. Star Wars is being severely hampered by this right now, and while the Marvel super hero movies have mostly been pretty good, they are butchering the comics.

The Japanese approach to nature and nature spirits is very interesting. The fox in particular has a long history in folklore.

Agreed. I've always found folklore from various countries interesting, but there is just something about Japan's folklore that I am fascinated by. Fortunately they have been more willing recently to share certain entertainment that wouldn't have been brought over here in the past because it "wouldn't be understood" over here.

Whatever works!

Pretty much.

[Cerebrum123]

You need to finish the series to see the "big reveal" at the end

I definitely do, but things have been a bit crazy around here. I watch the episodes with my dad, and mostly he hasn't had time for something like that.

[Terraceth]

That's the reason I was fine with Samuel L. Jackson playing Nick Fury in the Marvel movies like The Avengers.

That wasn't a case of them changing the character's race, though, because Nick Fury already was black (and, for that matter, looked like Samuel Jackson)... well, kind of. It's complicated.

The "race swap", if you want to call it that, occurred in the comics. In 2000, Marvel started started up the "Ultimates" universe, a series of titles with their usual group of superheroes, but in an alternate universe. So you had Ultimate Spider-Man, Ultimate X-Men, Ultimate Fantastic Four, and so on. All of the "Ultimates" titles were in continuity with each other but not the main Marvel series. The idea, I believe, was to try to set up a new universe to make there be an easier jumping on point and also an opportunity to be more experimental because you could have stuff happen in those titles without affecting the main universe. Now, while Nick Fury was white in the main comic universe, in the Ultimates universe they had him be black instead, and then also based his appearance strongly on Samuel Jackson.

Later on, they made the various Marvel films, and someone presumably thought that since they had a version of Nick Fury that looked like Samuel Jackson, it'd be a cool idea to have the actual Samuel Jackson play Nick Fury in the films. So they went with that. That, of course, got popular, so now that's the standard version of Nick Fury to use in adaptations (e.g. Marvel-based cartoons). Even in the main comics line, they eventually retired the original Nick Fury and revealed he had a secret son, Nick Fury Jr., who of course looks like Samuel Jackson. OG Nick Fury is still in the comics, though, but with a reduced role.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I had a feeling that might be the case. Not nearly as many people my age who are still using discussion boards like TWeb. People who are younger are even less likely to use them.

I suspect many of us who post here are "Silver Surfers" [however, I would not want to have a fight over Kirby and Moebius] That is a reference I do understand - having watched the movie Crimson Tide!

This is true of most fairy tales. The original Pinocchio had him kill Jiminy Cricket, and I've also heard that the original Sleeping Beauty had her being raped and impregnated while she was sleeping.

Folklore/fairy tales are very dark. Look at Hansel and Gretel, child abuse and cannibalism.

Hans Christian Andersen also wrote The Ugly Duckling. While the Ugly Duckling went through some bad times, the story wasn't as dark as other works. Even certain Disney movies get darker than it does.

Andersen was a complex character with a deep Christian faith, and was possibly both bisexual and bi-polar. I also understand he had a terror of going insane. The noted academic and folklorist Jack Zipes comments that concerning Andersen's tales "children must exhibit a certain purity of the soul and obedience to God’s laws to succeed in life and to make their elders content. To overreach and to disrupt the Lord’s design can result in a disaster, as it nearly does in “The Little Mermaid.” What saves her is a pious act that leads her to deny her own nature and feelings and to accept her humble and minor position within a mystic theological framework based on Andersen’s understanding of Christianity".

My main problem with Disney is more recent. Their recent penchant for "live action remakes" in which they just make worse versions of their existing movies. That and their penchant for buying up certain franchises they didn't help make and trying to make something new with it while not understanding why the original was liked in the first place. Star Wars is being severely hampered by this right now, and while the Marvel super hero movies have mostly been pretty good, they are butchering the comics.

I suspect this is the same problem that is found when any literary work is transferred to screen. Those who have read and enjoyed the original often despair of the way the screen adaptation has mutilated their cherished tales.

Agreed. I've always found folklore from various countries interesting, but there is just something about Japan's folklore that I am fascinated by.

You might find Jack Zipes' works worth looking out. His Why Fairy Tales Stick: The Evolution and Relevance of a Genre might interest you. He's also written works on fairy/folktales of other cultures.

[rogue06]

I liked The Cat Returns, and Spirited Away - haven't seen The Wind Rises yet.


Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

I hadn't heard of The Cat Returns and The Wind Rises. I'll have to look them up. I've been wanting to see Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke for a long time, but haven't really had the chance. I did get to see Ponyo, which is another Miyazaki directed Studio Ghibli film. It's a rather unique take on The Little Mermaid by Hans Christian Andersen. I also saw some of Kiki's Delivery Service.

Kiki's Delivery Service is good - Ponyo is on my "to watch" list, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

I loved Howl's Moving Castle and Spirited Away but was a bit disappointed by Mononoke. I think that was largely due to the build up I got from friends creating expectations difficult to achieve. Several of Miyazaki's other works seem more directed to even younger audience and not always my cup of tea, but he is a great story teller so they were all still worth watching IMHBAO.

[tabibito]

I loved Howl's Moving Castle and Spirited Away but was a bit disappointed by Mononoke. I think that was largely due to the build up I got from friends creating expectations difficult to achieve. Several of Miyazaki's other works seem more directed to even younger audience and not always my cup of tea, but he is a great story teller so they were all still worth watching IMHBAO.

I really don't think environmental issues, as in MononokeHime, are his long suit. From what I've seen he is in his element with human interaction, whether between people or between people and kami of one kind or another. The best parts of Mono no Ke Hime focussed on interaction, but they were only the smallest part of the whole.

[Cerebrum123]

That wasn't a case of them changing the character's race, though, because Nick Fury already was black (and, for that matter, looked like Samuel Jackson)... well, kind of. It's complicated.

The "race swap", if you want to call it that, occurred in the comics. In 2000, Marvel started started up the "Ultimates" universe, a series of titles with their usual group of superheroes, but in an alternate universe. So you had Ultimate Spider-Man, Ultimate X-Men, Ultimate Fantastic Four, and so on. All of the "Ultimates" titles were in continuity with each other but not the main Marvel series. The idea, I believe, was to try to set up a new universe to make there be an easier jumping on point and also an opportunity to be more experimental because you could have stuff happen in those titles without affecting the main universe. Now, while Nick Fury was white in the main comic universe, in the Ultimates universe they had him be black instead, and then also based his appearance strongly on Samuel Jackson.

Later on, they made the various Marvel films, and someone presumably thought that since they had a version of Nick Fury that looked like Samuel Jackson, it'd be a cool idea to have the actual Samuel Jackson play Nick Fury in the films. So they went with that. That, of course, got popular, so now that's the standard version of Nick Fury to use in adaptations (e.g. Marvel-based cartoons). Even in the main comics line, they eventually retired the original Nick Fury and revealed he had a secret son, Nick Fury Jr., who of course looks like Samuel Jackson. OG Nick Fury is still in the comics, though, but with a reduced role.

That just pushes the tokenization back a bit. I've also looked at the history of the Iron Man movie, which was the movie where Samuel L. Jackson first appeared, and while it didn't release until 2008, they were already planning a cameo of Nick Fury in the year 2000 which was 2 years before the "Ultimates" universe was given the design that looked like Samuel L. Jackson*. I would not be at all surprised if they made the character like that as a way to try and get Samuel L. Jackson to play the character. Especially after the now infamous reason he was in the Star Wars prequels, he would only do it if he got to be the only person with a purple lightsaber.

Not only that, but I just know that the same people** who applaud changes like this for the sake of it would not be okay with say Luke Cage, Black Panther, or Storm being made white. Alternate universe or not. It's the same kind of people who were just complaining about Sora from Kingdom Hearts being "too white" when added to Super Smash Bros., and in spite of the fact that he looks the same as he does in the source material.

There is also Heimdall, who wasn't changed in the comics to black until the casting for the movie Thor was known.

I don't care about an actors skin color for a role per se, but when a character is changed for politically charged reasons, regardless of how they are changed, I oppose that in principle.

*The character did show up earlier, and was still race swapped. The plan for a Nick Fury cameo was also a full year before Ultimate Nick Fury made his debut. So it is still very possible that first change was them testing the waters to see if fans would be okay with a black Nick Fury.

**These are the same people who complained about "whitewashing" for Ghost in the Shell and Death Note. In Death Note I saw no one complaining that L was replaced by a black man, and for Ghost in the Shell the main character is literally transferred to a new cybernetic body. One of the major points of that series is that it is the mind that is important, and the body is a shell you inhabit.

[Cerebrum123]

I suspect many of us who post here are "Silver Surfers" [however, I would not want to have a fight over Kirby and Moebius] That is a reference I do understand - having watched the movie Crimson Tide!

I'd never seen that movie, so I had to look it up. That scene is pretty hilarious.

Jack Kirby was definitely one of the greats when it comes to comic books. Without people like him and Stan Lee the industry would probably not reached the level of popularity it did. Although that popularity is waning over here in favor of manga. In general Japan just seems to care more about compelling stories and characters rather than pushing an agenda.

Folklore/fairy tales are very dark. Look at Hansel and Gretel, child abuse and cannibalism.

Definitely some pretty dark stuff. Totally Sarcastic Productions on YouTube has some interesting folklore and fairy tale synopses on their channel. They had some myths I had never even heard of.

Andersen was a complex character with a deep Christian faith, and was possibly both bisexual and bi-polar. I also understand he had a terror of going insane. The noted academic and folklorist Jack Zipes comments that concerning Andersen's tales "children must exhibit a certain purity of the soul and obedience to God’s laws to succeed in life and to make their elders content. To overreach and to disrupt the Lord’s design can result in a disaster, as it nearly does in “The Little Mermaid.” What saves her is a pious act that leads her to deny her own nature and feelings and to accept her humble and minor position within a mystic theological framework based on Andersen’s understanding of Christianity".

There are some who theorize he had autism* based on what is known about his life and his stories. It is very plausible to me. I've been researching the subject of autism for the past year or so. It has been very eye opening for me.

I suspect this is the same problem that is found when any literary work is transferred to screen. Those who have read and enjoyed the original often despair of the way the screen adaptation has mutilated their cherished tales.

There is always going to be some level of change when changing to a visual format, sometimes it is good, sometimes it is bad. The Lord of the Rings movies* are much more accessible and much less of a slog than Tolkien's writings, but The Hobbit movies are not as good as the books. Then you have movies that are very faithful to the source material, like the Disney A Christmas Carol with Jim Carrey. I know that Disney, A Christmas Carol, and Jim Carrey of all people doesn't sound like it would mix and be faithful to the book, but it was one of the most faithful adaptations of the novel I've ever seen. If you can get past the Uncanny Valley look the characters have it is actually a good movie. Probably would have been a lot better to see in 3D like how they had it in theaters at release.

I know this is a tangent, but a movie that did the 3D effect really well with a great story was How to Train Your Dragon. I only got to watch the first movie, but it was really good. Most movies I've seen that use stereoscopic 3D used it in a very shallow or even annoying way. How to Train Your Dragon used the effect superbly. Some of the flight scenes almost gave the feeling of riding a rollercoaster for how immersive they were.

You might find Jack Zipes' works worth looking out. His Why Fairy Tales Stick: The Evolution and Relevance of a Genre might interest you. He's also written works on fairy/folktales of other cultures.

Sounds interesting for sure.

*Or what used to be called Asperger's Syndrome. The autism spectrum is pretty wide.

[Cerebrum123]

I really don't think environmental issues, as in MononokeHime, are his long suit. From what I've seen he is in his element with human interaction, whether between people or between people and kami of one kind or another. The best parts of Mono no Ke Hime focussed on interaction, but they were only the smallest part of the whole.

I'd still probably watch it just because I love the art style and animation. Even though it is far from my favorite movie I am still amazed by what they pulled off in the original Fantasia. As a kid I was also a bit traumatized by Night on Bald Mountain.

[rogue06]

[...]

There is also Heimdall, who wasn't changed in the comics to black until the casting for the movie Thor was known.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

It was way past due for a black person of Scandinavian ancestry finally being able to play the role of a Norse god.

It is like watching movies set in central Europe during the Medieval period where there will be numerous black people in the crowd -- even among nobility. There is a quota to be met no matter how ridiculous.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'd never seen that movie, so I had to look it up. That scene is pretty hilarious.

It is and the movie is excellent as well. I do not think I have ever seen Gene Hackman give a bad performance, even when he was hamming about in Superman!

Jack Kirby was definitely one of the greats when it comes to comic books. Without people like him and Stan Lee the industry would probably not reached the level of popularity it did. Although that popularity is waning over here in favor of manga. In general Japan just seems to care more about compelling stories and characters rather than pushing an agenda.

I did a bit of research online into the early superheroes and had no idea that Superman was as old as he is [1938] and was the creation of two American Jewish graphic artists and that both he and Batman are so elderly!

Definitely some pretty dark stuff. Totally Sarcastic Productions on YouTube has some interesting folklore and fairy tale synopses on their channel. They had some myths I had never even heard of.

Thank you for the link - I may look up that site.

There are some who theorize he had autism* based on what is known about his life and his stories. It is very plausible to me. I've been researching the subject of autism for the past year or so. It has been very eye opening for me.

Possibly, it is hard to diagnose from a distance of 100+ years.

There is always going to be some level of change when changing to a visual format, sometimes it is good, sometimes it is bad. The Lord of the Rings movies* are much more accessible and much less of a slog than Tolkien's writings, but The Hobbit movies are not as good as the books.

I could never understand why a comparatively short children's book [The Hobbit] required three films. I suspect the phrase "milking it" has some relevance.

Then you have movies that are very faithful to the source material, like the Disney A Christmas Carol with Jim Carrey. I know that Disney, A Christmas Carol, and Jim Carrey of all people doesn't sound like it would mix and be faithful to the book, but it was one of the most faithful adaptations of the novel I've ever seen.

There have been so many movie versions of that novella but that is one I have not seen. An enjoyable Dickensian romp was the recent The Personal History of David Copperfield. No real bearing on the book but great fun and with a superb English cast, albeit some might consider it an example of what this thread started out being about!

If you can get past the Uncanny Valley look the characters have it is actually a good movie. Probably would have been a lot better to see in 3D like how they had it in theaters at release.

Hmm 3D ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future. Interesting.

I know this is a tangent, but a movie that did the 3D effect really well with a great story was How to Train Your Dragon. I only got to watch the first movie, but it was really good. Most movies I've seen that use stereoscopic 3D used it in a very shallow or even annoying way. How to Train Your Dragon used the effect superbly. Some of the flight scenes almost gave the feeling of riding a rollercoaster for how immersive they were.

Another one I have missed!

Sounds interesting for sure.

He is an expert in his field and writes very well.

*Or what used to be called Asperger's Syndrome. The autism spectrum is pretty wide.

Indeed it is.

[Cerebrum123]

It is and the movie is excellent as well. I do not think I have ever seen Gene Hackman give a bad performance, even when he was hamming about in Superman!

I don't get to watch movies anywhere near as much as I'd want, but I can definitely say that scene was good.

I did a bit of research online into the early superheroes and had no idea that Superman was as old as he is [1938] and was the creation of two American Jewish graphic artists and that both he and Batman are so elderly!

They are definitely quite old, and have changed rather dramatically over the years. Some changes good, some bad. Batman having the change to not using guns because that is how his parents were killed is one of the better changes IMO. Superman not having so many ridiculous powers was a good one as well*.

A while back during one of the big anniversary events a site gave out 6 different Batman video games** for free to anyone who had an account there. I had played some of them on other consoles, but it was really nice to have them on PC finally.
I think it was something like the 80th anniversary for Batman that they did this.

Thank you for the link - I may look up that site.

I didn't give a link technically. However, simply typing Totally Sarcastic Productions on YouTube's search bar will bring them up pretty quick. I've found their stuff to be pretty interesting. They also have discussions of history and writing tropes too.

Possibly, it is hard to diagnose from a distance of 100+ years.

Definitely true, which is why I said it was only plausible, and not something like certain.

I could never understand why a comparatively short children's book [The Hobbit] required three films. I suspect the phrase "milking it" has some relevance.

I think that is part of it, but I think they also wanted to extend the story more to try and tie it more into the Lord of the Rings story since the book didn't have nearly as many ties. But yeah, probably primarily the desire to get more money out of the franchise. Which I don't mind as long as the end product is worth it.

There have been so many movie versions of that novella but that is one I have not seen. An enjoyable Dickensian romp was the recent The Personal History of David Copperfield. No real bearing on the book but great fun and with a superb English cast, albeit some might consider it an example of what this thread started out being about!

Hard to avoid the problem the thread is about these days. As long as the positives outweigh the negatives I don't mind as much, but it still is an annoyance. Although mostly because of the attitude of those who try to make such changes and the double standards that ensue.

Hmm 3D ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future. Interesting.

Yeah, the CGI is pretty good, although still on that edge of an Uncanny Valley feel to it. Although for this movie it may have been intentional as they kept the darker tone of the book. Having creepy looking main characters fits pretty well.

Another one I have missed!

How to Train Your Dragon is one of those movies I think most people can enjoy. Even if there are parts that you don't like, I think the majority of it holds up well as a good story, and very good CGI. It is a shame the stereoscopic 3D effect is still not very feasible outside of movie theaters. Even if you did have one of the tv's with the feature, then you miss out on the sense of scale the theatrical release had. Regardless of that it is still a good movie.

He is an expert in his field and writes very well.

Both of those certainly come in handy. Although I find some people who are supposed "experts" even if widely renowned aren't really worth the praise they get. I'm not saying this about the person you are citing, just mentioning my own experience in reading or dealing with various "experts" on a number of topics.

Indeed it is.

There is also a lot of stigma attached to the word "autism" sadly, and a lot of misunderstanding of what it means even without that stigma.

*At one point he could shoot out miniature versions of himself out of his hands. Creative for sure, but really silly.

**I know of a lot of people who dismiss video games as "for kids" which is just not true. There are even some games I would consider to be truly art. Animation and comic books can often be stigmatized in the same way. Sometimes you just have to know where to look, or even just give something a try that you might not have done before. Sometimes you will be surprised. It is one of the reasons I like certain websites that will bundle various comic books and video games together at fairly low prices. Every once in a while you find a hidden gem, or even a diamond in the rough. Just like any other medium you will find a lot of junk, but there is good stuff in all of those mediums too.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I don't get to watch movies anywhere near as much as I'd want, but I can definitely say that scene was good.

I can highly recommend the film. It's a little old now [1996] but it's not lost its power and its underlying premise is still relevant.

They are definitely quite old, and have changed rather dramatically over the years. Some changes good, some bad. Batman having the change to not using guns because that is how his parents were killed is one of the better changes IMO. Superman not having so many ridiculous powers was a good one as well*.

Given the look of the recent Batman films they certainly have changed.

A while back during one of the big anniversary events a site gave out 6 different Batman video games** for free to anyone who had an account there. I had played some of them on other consoles, but it was really nice to have them on PC finally.

I think it was something like the 80th anniversary for Batman that they did this.

A pleasant gift for fqans.

I didn't give a link technically.

No you didn't but a search on Youtube using the title of the site should bring it up.

They also have discussions of history and writing tropes too.

Very interesting.

Definitely true, which is why I said it was only plausible, and not something like certain.

Quite

I think that is part of it, but I think they also wanted to extend the story more to try and tie it more into the Lord of the Rings story since the book didn't have nearly as many ties. But yeah, probably primarily the desire to get more money out of the franchise. Which I don't mind as long as the end product is worth it.

I've not seen the trilogy and so cannot comment.

Hard to avoid the problem the thread is about these days. As long as the positives outweigh the negatives I don't mind as much, but it still is an annoyance. Although mostly because of the attitude of those who try to make such changes and the double standards that ensue.

I think that is what it comes down to. I have no problems with casting actors of colour but I do find what I often perceive [possibly wrongly] to be the "token black" attitude potentially demeaning.

Yeah, the CGI is pretty good, although still on that edge of an Uncanny Valley feel to it. Although for this movie it may have been intentional as they kept the darker tone of the book. Having creepy looking main characters fits pretty well.

I shall keep a watch for it.

How to Train Your Dragon is one of those movies I think most people can enjoy. Even if there are parts that you don't like, I think the majority of it holds up well as a good story, and very good CGI. It is a shame the stereoscopic 3D effect is still not very feasible outside of movie theaters. Even if you did have one of the tv's with the feature, then you miss out on the sense of scale the theatrical release had. Regardless of that it is still a good movie.

Looking at the IMDB entry it sounds rather like a combination of some Terry Pratchett and some Asterix

Both of those certainly come in handy. Although I find some people who are supposed "experts" even if widely renowned aren't really worth the praise they get. I'm not saying this about the person you are citing, just mentioning my own experience in reading or dealing with various "experts" on a number of topics.

He is certainly an expert in his field.

There is also a lot of stigma attached to the word "autism" sadly, and a lot of misunderstanding of what it means even without that stigma.

There appears to be the case from what I have read.

**I know of a lot of people who dismiss video games as "for kids" which is just not true. There are even some games I would consider to be truly art. Animation and comic books can often be stigmatized in the same way.

Sometimes you just have to know where to look, or even just give something a try that you might not have done before. Sometimes you will be surprised. It is one of the reasons I like certain websites that will bundle various comic books and video games together at fairly low prices. Every once in a while you find a hidden gem, or even a diamond in the rough. Just like any other medium you will find a lot of junk, but there is good stuff in all of those mediums too.

I have never really managed to get "into" graphic novels. I appreciate they can be very well done but it's not my type of fiction.