Spike Jonze to be unleashed with WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE!!!

Where's the live action 'Where's Spot' movie Ridley Scott promised us?!

The book is going to need a little padding, methinks.

My little cousin was watching that bizzare ass cartoon on PBS one day, and buddha help me, it was funny....the credits say it was a collaboration of Jeph Loeb and some of the guys that directed the Family Guy....weird as hell. On the subject of Wild Things, I think it could work, so long as they strive for a less cutesy Monsters, Inc. approach. I've always wanted to see one of Maurice Sendak's monsters in CGI.

Children's book. Ever.

I'm sitting here watching "It's The Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown" and wondering why we can't get this kind of quality nowadays. Stupid mass-marketing, target audiencing, foucs grouping conglomerate. Oh, and Disney, you're releasing "Haunted Mansion" during Thanksgiving, and you're releasing "Brother Bear" now? IDIOTS!

butt. Here's hoping he catches the magic of the book and not make it all being john malcovich weird like

This was THE book for me as a kid, and the first thing I had to by for my daughter. I can't help but be excited by this news, and I hope it's a future classic.

It's like that story Matt Damon told on Conan: "Hey, Matt! Where's Ben?"

I was looking forward to that ... I'm so dejected.

As the last born year of baby boomers, I was read/ or read this book as a child. I never wanted a bunny suit so bad , so I could go live with those TOTALLY KICK ASS MONSTERS!

As the last born year of baby boomers, I was read/ or read this book as a child. I never wanted a bunny suit so bad , so I could go live with those TOTALLY KICK ASS MONSTERS!

But then again, I don't think anyone can. If it's CGI, it's a copout, if its men in suits, it'll probably look like crap. Either way, it'll get torn to bits by AICN fanboys. Why freakin bother....

Now that I'd pay green money for....

I agree with VincentVega. It might be a good movie, if Spike Jonze (shudder) doesn't go all weird and try to create a new dance craze.

Because the fact is that most directors and screenwriters have multiple projects on the go at any one time. For all we know, getting a script together for this might be happening while Spike is making the horror project. Just think of it as even more good stuff coming down to pipe to us.

Don't remember the name of it, nor anything else about it. It's currently in the back of a cedar lined closet collecting dust with some other collectibles I've picked up over the years. Who wants to buy it?

"drool"? jesus christ dude. even guys a pride week would tell this dude to butch it up a little.

I could go on and on....

-this, like the Grinch and The Cat In The Hat and all such inappropriate adaptations made for no reason, will suck. If you love the book, go read it. Right now. Not one part of it- not the language nor the story nor the art- is going to be improved by a translation into film. The language and the story will go out the window early on in the process, and the art- well, let's just say that if the people doing the translating are talented enough to do even a passable job, then they're talented enough to draw on their own fucking original ideas to make a better movie than this will be. Y'know, I was in a bookstore the other day and saw a big display in the children's section for the NEW Cat In The Hat book, based on the movie, with Myers-under-appliances on the cover. Elsewhere in the store, I saw a Frida Kahlo biography with a photo on the cover. For a moment I thought, "Wow- Frida was a hottie..." but then I realized, no, it was a photo of Salma Hayek- a BIOGRAPHY, mind you, featuring a photo not of the subject of the book, but of a movie star dressed up like the subject up the book (and sporting a fake monobrow, no less). And as I stood and wondered, I couldn't help thinking, "Gee- I guess no original idea, no work of any real quality, can survive being dipped in the NOXIOUS, CHEEZ-WHIZ-LIKE ACID BLOOD OF OUR CRASS FUCKING SHAMELESS CULTURE." Laugh or weep, gentlemen and ladies, as you will.

that or a film version of the "we got crab legs" guys from sea galley.

They end up making up a bunch of shit that's not in the story in order to make it feature-length. (Does anybody here doubt that THE CAT IN THE HAT will suck horrendously?) Not even Spike Jonze can avoid GRINCH-ifying this thing. But, I'm sure he's just doing it for the money, anyway...

What in Spike Jonze's history tells you that he will be making this film for any reason other than the fact that he really wants to see this story on film? His previous two features, two of the best films of this age? His music videography, which contain some of the best and most groundbreaking music videos of all time? Oh, it must have been his television commercials, which are better than any short film you'll find on the web (including his Levi's "Tainted Love" spot and his IKEA "It's just a lamp" ad). Spike Jonze has never done anything just to get paid. And there are better ways of getting paid than by crashing and burning on a beloved children's book (which is what would happen if he were doing this for the money). This is a guy whose first film, which never got off the ground, was going to be an adaptation of "Harold and the Purple Crayon". It's obvious he has a boundless imagination and wants to exercise it in any number of ways, including by making a classic family film. (I dare any of you to pick a more widely-seen or influential film than "The Wizard of Oz".) Pick up a copy of his new DVD collection of videos and shorts, watch "Adaptation" again, and get excited any time this guy does anything.

Didnt Pixar start a CGI version of this years ago before Toy Story? I remember seeing an animatic for Max running down the stairs (which if I remember correctly looked exactly like the staircase in Toy Story). If anyone else has seen this can they confirm it so i know I'm not going mental!

Spike could save some $ and use Sofia as one of the monsters.

Never mind that, what about Spike Jonzes' supposed collaboration with Chuck Palahnuik. Anyone know any more about that?

The boy's done good so far, and I am sure he'll do OK with this. I'd personally love to see it in the style of Belleville Rendezvous or the Snowman - in the sense of little or no dialogue but an amazing story and characters nevertheless.

I've never read any of the Wild Thing books when I was young.. in fact I refused to. Back then, I was terrified of the characters. I remember throwing a violent, teary eyed temper-tantrum in my 1st or 2nd grade class because we had to read one of those books as homework. I was scared (more like petrified) to death of the Wild Things.. the creature that stood out the most was the fuzzy haired brown one with horns. For the longest time I just KNEW that's how Satan looked. Now that you've all caught your breath (as if a child's pain and suffering is funny), I must say I'm a little excited about the concept of a live action children's fantasy movie in this day and age.. reminds me of The Wizard of Oz. CGI is used all the time now and it would be nice to see a movie without it for a change; everything is more real and believable without it (remember that long worm like human head that came out of that guy's stomach in The Thing... that STILL scares the hell out of me). Well, there's my little rant / childhood horror story. I think I'll go see this movie despite my past. Besides, as someone said on this talkbalk, anything directed by Spike Jonze is something to get excited about.. just hope he doesn't scare the kids.

I've never read any of the Wild Thing books when I was young.. in fact I refused to. Back then, I was terrified of the characters. I remember throwing a violent, teary eyed temper-tantrum in my 1st or 2nd grade class because we had to read one of those books as homework. I was scared (more like petrified) to death of the Wild Things.. the creature that stood out the most was the fuzzy haired brown one with horns. For the longest time I just KNEW that's how Satan looked. Now that you've all caught your breath (as if a child's pain and suffering is funny), I must say I'm a little excited about the concept of a live action children's fantasy movie in this day and age.. reminds me of The Wizard of Oz. CGI is used all the time now and it would be nice to see a movie without it for a change; everything is more real and believable without it (remember that long worm like human head that came out of that guy's stomach in The Thing... that STILL scares the hell out of me). Well, there's my little rant / childhood horror story. I think I'll go see this movie despite my past. Besides, as someone said on this talkbalk, anything directed by Spike Jonze is something to get excited about.. just hope he doesn't scare the kids.

If you're going to talk about release dates, what about that funky Saturday release?

The Henson Co. would do a bang-up job on the FX and the suits.

Harmony Korine's "Where the Wild Things Are"! Think about it! sk

Max wore a wolf suit, not a bunny suit, but i know how you feel. Even now I own a copy of this book, and every Halloween I consider having a wolf suit made just so people will ask me what the Hell I'm supposed to be. I hope they do a decent job with this one, but I think I'd have rather just seen a half hour animated version. But who knows, McFarlane did do a really good job with the action figures. They're dancing around my desk now. ................. "I got a rock". - Charlie Brown

...I do recall that they used the Wild Things in a Verizon commerical...they should have the "Can you hear me know guy" walking on the island and then get snatched up by one of the wild things...that would be sadistic...but since this is a kids movie..never mind.

Unless you want a deconstruction of the story, again boldly tearing down the 4th wall of cinema and focusing on Kaufman's personal struggle with the rigors and absurdity of an insecure, morally conflicted wunderkind dealing with a universally beloved children's book. "Brilliant and Thought Provoking!" Says Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times. "I Ejaculated Onto My Keyboard!!!!" Says Harry Knowles of Aintitcool.com. "WTF???!!!" Says Maurice Sendak, Truly Original and Timeless Author of Children's Classics.

I cant believe that some of you are saying that there have not been any great adaptations of childrens books, How about Jumanji? Jumanji was the book that scared the shit out of me when I was a kid and I loved the movie to death... maybe it wasnt the exact storyline but it was still great...or how about Labrynth? (anyone who doubts how great a performance of a "guy in a suit" can be only has to watch Labrynth, no CGI here)- but Jonze would have to have Jim Henson Studios do the work). I think that the biggest thing is that the people who make these adaptation have to have taste and style and have to respect what they they are adapting and most importantly, they have have to love it. It must be a labor of love. Thats why Sam Raimi did such a great job with Spiderman. And I know Im going to be absolutely crucified for this, but thats why I think Ben Affleck made a good Daredevil... he loved the comic... (I cant hold him responsible for a crap movie with a bad script, you can tell he loved Daredevil whenever he spoke about it)... anyway, Ive lost a lot of faith in Hollywood but not all of it, I think theres still a few people who are about the love of making movies and make it a personal, not financial, affair...

John Lasseter and Glen Keane made a 30 second test film around 1982-83 while still working for Disney. It combined hand-drawn animated characters with computer generated environments. A still from the film was shown in a STARLOG issue published around that time

Yet another kid classic that doesn't need to be made into a movie. Anyone ever read that "Choose Your Own Adventure" book where you go forward in time and can watch any movie ever made, and put yourself into any role in any movie . . . but no new movies have been made in a hundred years? the real future will be that no new movies that aren't remakes or adaptations will be made and our pop culture will be officially creatively bankrupt.

The WIld Things bookS? Um, there was only one. And yes, this is a STUPID idea.

When is everyone going to realize that making great children's/family films require MORE imagination and creativity than making most mainstream films, not less? Recent GOOD family-friendly films, including the original "Spy Kids", Pixar productions, and yes even "Holes", work because they have creativity and imagination to spare. Spike Jonze seems to be the perfect choice to keep WTWTA from turning into a lifeless film adaptation like "Harry Potter."

It'll probably still be good, but c'mon. We've got enough adaptations and remakes.

You're gonna collective rape the childhoods of millions of adults, fuck you, fuck you up the ass, in fact, gouge out your eyeball and let the Singer from Smashmouth skull fuck you.

Spike Jonze is officially the most interesting director working today. If only other directors would branch out. I hear M. Night Shyamalan is considering doing Life of Pe. Brilliant.

He may put an original spin on his TV advertisements and music videos to keep himself and his audience from getting bored, but he's still doing them because he's getting PAID to do them. If you can come up with proof that he's been doing all this stuff for free, THEN I'll reconsider my statement about him doing it for the money. (Even Oscar-winner Sir Anthony Hopkins does things "just for the money". And, check out all the "serious" actors who do commercials for millions of dollars in Japan.) And, while I find his movies interesting, I don't find them to be the huge masterpieces that everybody makes them out to be. Just becuase something is weird doesn't automatically make it genius. MALKOVICH had a great premise and wonderfully-shot puppet sequences, but ultimately became a mean-spirited, COCOON-ified mess. I enjoyed ADAPTATION, and especially the performances, but it didn't blow my mind. Charlie Kaufman had writer's block and wrote another head-trip script about it - so what? As clever as the Jonze/Kaufman team might be, they haven't figured out a way to really make me give a damn about the stories they've been telling. And, as far as WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE goes - apart from the fact that Jonze is going to add a bunch of stuff that's not in the book in order to pad it, do you have any doubt that the studio will merchandise the hell out of this thing? It may turn out to be more interesting than GRINCH and CAT IN THE HAT, but it's still going to be a big-budget toy commercial for kids.

"LET THE WILD RUMPUS START...."

Good move to use puppets instead of CGI. Why do you think the Jabba fotress scene in Return rocked so hard?!? Puppets. I'm sick of weak-ass CGI bullshit.

Also, to further prove that Spike Jonze doesn't make movies for the money, I offer this: he is the heir to the Spiegel catalog fortune, AND he is married into the Coppola dynasty. (Granted, the Coppola money isn't that solid an asset while Francis is still around--who knows what he'll do next? Last I heard, he was goind to fund his "Megalopolis" epic himself. So long as they keep making "Jeepers Creepers" sequels...) Anyway, it costs so much money to make any kind of film that when Nike or Lee Jeans offers you something, you do it as an exercise. Also, I must state that Spike has only made videos for musicians he was a fan of. The point is we're going to get a "Where the Wild Things Are" flick and normally that news would suck. But Spike Jonze is making it, so the film moves from the "To Be Avoided and Forgotten" list to the "When the heck are we gonna get a teaser for this?!!" list.

Please provide PROOF that Spike Jonze DOESN'T take money for the work he does. Only then will I entertain your idealism.