High School Musical

2»

Comments

  • edited February 2010
    It's funny somebody mentioned the "big spendah teenagah" trend in those Disney and Nick series, because, and here's the kicker, in the Suite Life of Zack and Cody, Ashley Tisdale's character Maddie Fitzpatrick is all but rich, and actually has to work for her pennies just to get the life she wants. In fact, most Maddie-centered episodes focus on that aspect, especially in contrast with London Tipton (played by Brenda Song, in case you confuse this London with the city of London), whose father is the owner of the Tipton Hotel chains, so obviously, London is pretty rich. Basically, these episodes show us that not everyone is as fortunate as others, but that money isn't always all, as long as you can spend some time with people who truly care for you, as in that episode where yes I am aware of the fact that I know more than I actually should know about the show.

    Also, I didn't particularly hate the Hunchback of the Notre Dame. They did a good adaptation. In fact, Disney has shown that they're pretty good with adaptations, so I have full confidence in their Prince of Persia adaptation.
  • edited February 2010
    If High School Musical had less High School and more Science Fiction Space Adventure, then I'd watch it. The Musical thing doesn't bother me as much, as long as the songs are about alien cyborgs.
  • edited February 2010
    tredlow wrote: »
    If High School Musical had less High School and more Science Fiction Space Adventure, then I'd watch it. The Musical thing doesn't bother me as much, as long as the songs are about alien cyborgs.

    Maybe. Musical episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Xena: Warrior Princess are best musicals I know, but still lose in comparison to many other episodes of those series.
  • edited February 2010
    Hey, I suppose I don't actively dislike somebody simply because they enjoy something that, by its very existence, insults the intelligence of millions of people. It's fine if you like an affront to scriptwriting, songwriting, cinematography, art, and culture as a whole, then it's fine(on the other hand, choreography is actually pretty good). I don't dislike YOU for partaking in what is essentially a shallow advertising mega-franchise meant to sell a profitable form of individuality that involves buying Disney teen merchandise and furthers romantic ideals with the depth of your average puddle.

    Also, a lot of people that say they don't enjoy musicals probably have only had exposure to fairly mainstream musicals. That, or they don't like musicals, but people should give the genre a better chance than having minimal experience with major musicals. I didn't really get into the musical genre until a good deal later, and somewhat by accident.

    (By the way, my favorite musical is Little Shop of Horrors. I prefer the stage version, but only slightly. The movie version gets about everything right until the ending.)
  • edited February 2010
    Was it any good? Does it feel like it's Star Trek movie or does it just feel like a random big budget sci-fi movie?

    While I have problem to imagine how James T. Kirk could be James T. Kirk without Shatner's mannerisms, I consider that I might get it on DVD anyway, because I haven't seen any even remotely decent new sci-fi recently.

    It was spectacular. In fact, it was good enougth to warrant me watching the commentary over it aswell. I highly reccommend it, on blu-ray if at all possible.
    Watch.

    Oh and Zachary Quinto (aka Sylar from heroes) is an excellent spock. And Whilst it does have a impressive CGI, there are some major plot-twists.
  • EmilyEmily Telltale Alumni
    edited February 2010
    Wow, can you elaborate more on that? Was it just because it wasn't your typical movie about princesses and evil sorcerors, or was it because it used CGI in the stampede scene?

    Oh, no, I think it was mainly because of my age. The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin came out when I was 12-14 and I was very, very into them. Saw them in the theater multiple times, bought the soundtracks and learned all the words, etc. They were the first "new classics" that Disney put out during my lifetime and I thought they were magical.

    By the time Lion King rolled around, I was 16 and interested in other things, and although I really wanted the movie to have the same impact on me as the earlier ones, it just didn't. (I remember seeing it at the theater with a bunch of friends, we were all disappointed by it.) I didn't like the way it was marketed like a Hollywood blockbuster with an all-star voice cast, as opposed to the other movies which tended to have a couple of famous people in them but also plenty of unknowns. I really loved Howard Ashman's songs and was kind of bitter that he'd been replaced by Elton John. (I realize Howard Ashman died, it wasn't exactly a choice on Disney's part, but I was still bitter.) Also maybe I couldn't relate as well to the non-human characters as I did the human ones, but that wasn't the main issue for me. I remember being very disappointed that I didn't like it, because I'd been looking forward to the movie for a long time. I'd seen the opening sequence as a trailer for another movie at some point and it gave me shivers.

    I'm not suggesting it's not a good movie... IIRC I only saw it the one time, and I could be way off base. I just thought it was ironic that someone was commenting on how the Disney Store sucks now because it's full of HSM merchandise and not the classic movies like Lion King, when going into the Disney Store and seeing it overrun with Lion King merchandise generated the same annoyance for me, because I missed the "good old" Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast.
  • edited February 2010
    Okay, that makes a lot more sense, and I can definitely see much easier where you're coming from. Even though I'm nineteen, I haven't really run into those feelings of nostalgia yet, since I'm still playing video games and watching cartoons. Since I've remained a childish person, stuff like that doesn't get old for me and I can still find ways to relate to it.
  • edited February 2010
    Emily wrote: »
    I didn't like the way it was marketed like a Hollywood blockbuster with an all-star voice cast

    Oh, yeah, I remember when I first saw a cartoon movie and they had all these names of famous people. The French version always have voice actors that are, well, "just" voice actors, so we really don't have that hollywood thing.
    I remember being very annoyed that the French version would still have the name of the American voices in the opening credits (I'm thinking Shrek for instance), like they were the actors or something, and that they weren't replaced with the French names. What is it to me who did the English voice when I'm not going to hear it anyways?
  • edited February 2010
    Friar wrote: »
    It was spectacular. In fact, it was good enougth to warrant me watching the commentary over it aswell. I highly reccommend it, on blu-ray if at all possible.
    Watch.

    Oh and Zachary Quinto (aka Sylar from heroes) is an excellent spock. And Whilst it does have a impressive CGI, there are some major plot-twists.

    That video was quite on the spot. :D

    While I like geeky stuff like Star Trek, Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, I have never been purist like the hardcore fanboys, so it doesn't probably bother me too much that the movie is enjoyable to watch.

    Still, while I do like post-Next Generation Star Trek -universe, it has quite different feel than the (campy) stuff they made in the 60's. Somtimes the two doesn't even feel like they happen in the same universe, so while I have nothing against making new Star Trek series or movies, I'm bit sad that new movie doesn't seem to take the 60's atmosphere (Same thing happened with Batman TV-series and movies).
Sign in to comment in this discussion.