Doug Walker (TGWTG, Nostalgia Critic, Bum Reviews, and other projects)

I'd actually call the movie darker than the book. The book has some more violent bits (though described with minimal enough detail that it's not too disturbing) but almost all sense of danger is muted because, almost as soon as she arrives in Oz, Dorothy has a magical charm placed on her that makes her immune to all harm.

The Oz books are kinda weird because horrible, gruesome things can happen but no one really minds. (See: the Tin Man and the other guy that had the same thing happen to him meeting their meat-selves, who are okay with it)

edited 10th Mar '18 5:46:22 AM by lalalei2001

...I completely forgot about that. Though I think the book did too unless it was convenient. Dorothy certainly seemed to until the Witch found herself unable to harm her. That said, all a Truer to the Text adaptation has to do is leave that out and BOOM! Darker and Edgier.

edited 10th Mar '18 6:43:28 AM by kkhohoho

The Oz books were really twisted, especially the last one Baum wrote before his health got to him. Seriously, what was he thinking with the skeleton wired together with rubies for eyes?

I still have to read that one. Even in the earlier books though, there was some pretty messed up stuff. Even more so since Dorothy only had that charm in the first book. From Ozma on, she's in just as much danger as everyone else. Hell, the Scroodlers from Road still give me the willies.

Honestly, this just reminds me how much I want the other books to get proper adaptations. Hell, why doesn't Disney start adapting those? They can do better than just trying to ape the old Oz film. They can have an entire franchise of films if they wanted to. That's 13 potential films just waiting to be made.

edited 11th Mar '18 10:22:07 AM by kkhohoho

The worst thing I remember (which both the anime and the sequel movie adapted)

was the room of gold and silver treasures

touch the wrong one and you become one yourself

I think what kept it from being all that scary to me was that it wasn't the kind of obviously fucked up scary that other elements of the Oz books have, like the Scroodlers or the Wheelers. I mean, yeah, it's horrific when you think about it, but it isn't right-in-your-face scary.

I will say that the book version of that whole event is superior to me due to having Bellina's moment of awesome where she single-handedly saves everyone's asses after everyone else guesses wrongly. Sure, she still took down the Gnome King in Return, but that was pure dumb luck. This was Belina actively saving the day, and it was an awesome moment for her. Which is part of what really makes the Oz Books. Little moments of badassery like that.

edited 12th Mar '18 7:57:59 PM by kkhohoho

Dorothy did guess one right, but it was by accident.

Ah. I forgot about that. Though we're probably getting off topic. If anyone wants to keep on talking about the Oz books or anything related to it, I've got a thread just for it. I made it a few years back when I was really starting to get into them, but for the most part, no-one's bothered to use it. In any event, if anyone wants to use it, feel free.

Alice Through the Looking Glass

The Jungle Book (2016)

I get it Doug, you’re a hardcore traditionalist. If something gets changed it’s bad.

No I agree with him here and I never even read the book. Have not seen the jungle book in years ether. I found the changes they made did not make a ton of sense.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of live action remakes of cartoons, either. Especially when the cartoons are already fine classics in their own right.

Also remember that the Nostalgia Critic is a character aimed at nostalgia, and does not neccesarily always reflect Doug's actual opinions. Remember Mara Wilson?

Yeah, but in this case, maybe it's because I really enjoyed this film, and it was critically lauded, I don't see the issues with the stuff he was complaining about. Maybe that's me.

i liked the film too,even if it did make me say 'I bet they'll do a live action Lion King next'

... How. There aren't even any human characters in the Lion King. It'd just be a lot of CGI lions and such talking to each other. What would even be the point?

Well, they're still doing it. For better or worse. James Earl Jones is even reprising Mufasa.

For me with the exception of the swapping the late Phil Harris for Bill Murray, everything in the 2016 film was a lateral move or improvement from the 1967 one.

Still doesn't compare to the Russian version though.

OMG! He pointed out how stupid Shere Khan killing the leader of the wolf pack because Mowgli is gone (which for him would be a good thing)! He must be a traditionalist who hates everything new!

Not everything he complains about is "They Changed It, Now It Sucks!". He likes how Christopher Walken plays King Louie.

Yeah in terms of arguments, Doug actually had a pretty well set up approach and damn decent talking points.

"Here is how the book worked" "here is how the cartoon worked" "here is what the movie did and why I don't think it worked"

edited 20th Mar '18 8:11:56 PM by MrAHR

Remember this is Critic he's playing, but everyone knows the opinions in that video are 100% Doug's. Not only does it show through his facade, but he expressed in several con panels that he hates the 2016 The Jungle Book, especially the "Oobey doo" moment from King Louie. In fact I am surprised it took him this long to do a proper review of it.

It's when he insults screenwriters in his fit of rage that I think he goes a tad too far. He also points out multiple times at how everyone he talks with tells him it's "the grown-up Jungle Book" to the point where it becomes obnoxious.

edited 20th Mar '18 8:23:01 PM by kyun

OK, I have personally NEVER heard anyone claim the live-action version was "the grown-up version". Not one person. So the constant use of that in the review really felt like Doug was utilizing a strawman defense of the movie in order to bash it. I certainly don't think the makers of the movie ever claimed they were doing the "grown-up version" or that their version was superior to the book or original animated version, so there definitely seems to be some projection on Doug's part here. The joke at the end about the '90s live-action movie, which even when compared to the other Disney versions was In Name Only, was good though.

Also, I thought Shere Khan's motives were pretty clear: he wanted to kill Mowgli not just out of revenge for his father burning his eye, but because his father burned his eye specifically to drive him away from baby Mowgli, it was a distraction. Shere Khan's pride is hurt because one of the two humans he cornered escaped as a result of a successful ploy of the human he killed - he wants to kill Mowgli as an ego thing, to "finish the job" and not let Mowgli's father hold this victory over him in death. Now, the killing of the wolf leader and holding the pack hostage thing...yeah, that was DUMB. How/why did the rest of the jungle allow that law violation?

but he expressed in several con panels that he hates the 2016 The Jungle Book, especially the "Oobey doo" moment from King Louie.

This is a definite difference of opinion from Rob, since he's gone on record to say he loves that moment (he also said on Facebook he considers the movie on the whole "just OK" and seems to have less vitriol toward it)

edited 20th Mar '18 8:50:20 PM by Isaac_Heller

Russian version is the best one yeah

Anyway, its not like whole reviews was about comparing new movie and the book, he never mentioned book Kaa Who is completely different than the movie versions, he is basically "Wise old mentor" character