I think the movie looks interesting. And I thought they did a wonderful job with “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs” so you never know.

You say mangy and dingy - I say gritty and earthy and…full. They seem like they will be a bit muppet-y but also fleshed out characters, if that makes sense.

I am really, really excited about the movie. I love that it doesn’t look conventional.

I think it looks amazing.

I do think it will be one of those movies where you either love it or hate it. It’s not going to be easily accessible for a lot of people because it will be different than most mainstream kids movies. Spike Jonze’s interpretation is said to be pretty dark. I read a quote by Spike Jonze where he stated he didn’t want to dumb down anything for kids. All of these things really appeal to me and remind of me of some kids movies I really, really enjoyed as a kid (and still enjoy) such as The Secret of NIMH and Watership Down - both based on books.

Also, I’ve listened to the soundtrack (helmed by Karen O of the Yeah, Yeah, Yeah’s) and I loved it. I can’t wait to see it in context of the film.

Bottom line - I think there is a specific audience that will really champion this movie. I don’t know about mainstream success, though, because too many people are looking for something cute and cuddly.

I don’t think my kids will see the “dreary brown fur and Max’s dingy wolf suit” the same way as an adult.

But we will see….

Sendak’s book was considered far from mainstream.

It broke barriers in children’s literature and many thought it was too dark and scary. It is not ‘cute and cuddly.’

In fact, in one interview Sendak said the monsters were based on his frightening relatives pinching him and kissing him when he was a kid. The book is a look at children’s scary feelings of rage - the opposite of mainstream cute and cuddly.

I am debating whether to go see this movie or not. My grandson is too young to go and I don’t have another kid to take. I remember reading this book as a child. It was my brothers favorite book. I hope the movie lives up to the book………I hate when movies fall way short of the book…..its very disappointing. But children will see it through fresh eyes, so it maybe ok for them, but for those that grew up reading this book……I don’t know. May go to see the movie just to see if it lives up to the book version.

This was my husband’s favorite book as a kid, and he loves reading it to our 4-year old (who has it memorized). We might take her to see it…I need to get some input from other parents first, even though she doesn’t scare easily.

Jane, I’m aware that the book is far from cute and cuddly but I was confused as to why you seemed to be a bit taken aback by how the monsters are portrayed in the trailer of the movie.

You went on to mention “Madeline” and “Little Bear” in your blog as examples of how kids books can be cute. Hopefully you can understand why I came to the conclusion that maybe you were expecting something more “endearing” then what the trailers convey.

Speaking of endearing - I think that once the monsters are able to develop character within the move then they will become more endearing to the viewer. It’s a little hard to judge that aspect of the characters on just what we see in the trailer.

Who knows - I could be completely wrong. This movie could be a complete disappointment to us all. I have high hopes, though.

Heather, you have a valid point. I do say those TV shows are cute. I was trying to note that I am not opposed to all screen creations of illustrated books. “Little Bear” was even based on Sendak’s drawings, of course.

But I don’t think I was implying that the movie has to be just ‘cute.’ I guess the monsters in the trailer don’t look ‘endearing or intriguing’ to me in comparison to the monsters in the book, which are so finely drawn. (I didn’t just say endearing.) But you’re right - their personalities in the movie may indeed prove them interesting, even charming. I can see the creatures might have a certain charm. Although the previews of the brown, furry guys also kind of remind me, regrettably, of that old bear jamboree at Disneyland.

The movie creations, for all the millions of dollars and special effects that went into them - just don’t seem to stand up to the great, flat artistry on the page. For moviegoers who aren’t big fans of the original book, none of this may bother them.

I’ve read some of the movie storybook that has been published with it, and I’m not crazy about its story either. I think movies and TV shows of books work better when they either have (1) more material to cull from (i.e. longer, more prose-oriented works) or (2) a mediocre book that can be enhanced by great acting, good writing and beautiful visuals.

Transforming a work of art that has no weakness in its original form is a dicey proposition.

I am really excited for the movie because I loved the book growing up, but I also realize that it will not be a duplicate of the book. One of the promotional clips shows Maurice Sendak talking about how this will be Spike Jonze’s incarnation of the “Wild Things” universe and he has given it his blessing… I think that is a good approach to take.

Side note: I have never forgiven Siskel and Ebert for giving “Honey I Shrunk The Kids” two thumbs down. As a kid, that movie was magical… and two grown-ups had no business telling this kid that it stunk!

I have never seen any movie based on a short picture book that was of decent quality. “The Secret of Nimh” and “Watership Down” are completely different creatures. Both were prose works of some length, as opposed to Dr. Suess books or “Where The Wild Things Are”. Picture books have limited plot and exposition, and largely rely on artwork to establish characterization. Frankly, the monsters in the trailers for “Wild Things” remind me more of “HR Puffinstuff” than Sendak’s illustrations.