criterionforum.org

I can’t think of another person in the country’s history as universally loved, or as thoroughly genuine.

The only other person I can think of who has ascended as a patron saint of the internet is Bob Ross whose popularity has also exploded again in the Internet age. And I like to put him alongside Rogers because there just isn't much to be offended by in their programming. Surely they had faults but that image they created was/is so ridiculously wholesome I cannot fathom anyone being offended by anything these two men did.

Surely there’s a higher bar for heroism than being inoffensive, though!

(By the way, I am a huge advocate for publicly-funded tv, and it seems like Rogers did a lot of good for the beleaguered PBS network. But I’m yet to be convinced that this is a compelling subject for a feature film, and I really enjoyed Heller’s Diary of a Teenage Girl.)

This man made millions of American children feel loved every day, regardless of what was going on in their household or life. By all available evidence he was an irrefutably great and kind person who devoted his life to helping children navigate their younger years with confidence and character. If he doesn't merit a biopic, no one does

furbicide wrote:Surely there’s a higher bar for heroism than being inoffensive, though!

Than being kind? These days, I think that might be the quality I'd most want in a hero.

Co-sign. Being compassionate with sincerity is a lost character in a lot of ways and one that should be taught. I think there is a lot of good children's art out there right now, but aside from maybe Mo Willems I can't think of any that is just friendly without antagonism.

domino harvey wrote:This man made millions of American children feel loved every day, regardless of what was going on in their household or life. By all available evidence he was an irrefutably great and kind person who devoted his life to helping children navigate their younger years with confidence and character. If he doesn't merit a biopic, no one does

I still remember being in the bathtub during the beginnings of the Gulf War, totally oblivious to it because my parents did a good job of not letting that stuff infiltrate my mind if it didn't have to (I was 4 years old at the time), and having my mom come in the room to advise me to come downstairs because Mr. Rogers was broadcasting an impromptu special on why children should not be afraid of the war. The first message I received about something potentially terrifying to a kid was a reminder that it was far away and that I was safe and protected. I'm sure every U.S. kid has some version of this story whether they remember it or not, and despite so much nostalgia for so much useless "only 90s kids" frippery that goes on, what Rogers did for multiple generations actually had essential value in a way that a million Friday night sitcoms and Nickelodeon game shows did not.

And furbicide - I also can't think of a more devastating story in the U.S. than if that veneer re: Rogers were cracked, but if it was going to be, something tells me it would have by now. A very rare instance of a high profile very good person without some selfish or ghoulish ulterior motive.

mfunk9786 wrote: I still remember being in the bathtub during the beginnings of the Gulf War, totally oblivious to it because my parents did a good job of not letting that stuff infiltrate my mind if it didn't have to (I was 4 years old at the time), and having my mom come in the room to advise me to come downstairs because Mr. Rogers was broadcasting an impromptu special on why children should not be afraid of the war. The first message I received about something potentially terrifying to a kid was a reminder that it was far away and that I was safe and protected. I'm sure every U.S. kid has some version of this story whether they remember it or not...

The fact that I was eight at the time and have no memory of being exposed to this message of comfort but vividly remember staying up late watching the night vision video of anti-aircraft fire and bombing in Baghdad (not to mention the weeks of footage of the environmental devastation from the oil field fires) probably explains a lot of what’s wrong with me.

It's interesting, Hanks recently did one of those actor's roundtables for The Hollywood Reporter and he joked it off when he was asked if he could ever play Churchill (since Gary Oldman was there too). Clearly Rogers doesn't that high of a political significance in America, but it's obvious even from just reading some of the responses here that he is a figure in American culture that is maybe as purely inspirational. Which perhaps, and especially given his influence on children, could make this as important a role for Hanks.

Fox has been spewing that for years. Apparently they’ve done exposés on most children’s programming. My mother once rambled to company with small kids that Sesame Street was “not relatable to [our] kids” because it took place in the city and had multiracial adults as hosts.

I'm sure as eggs that they'd say the same thing today, but it's a little worthy to note that segment ran about 10 years ago.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:I'm sure as eggs that they'd say the same thing today, but it's a little worthy to note that segment ran about 10 years ago.

Considering they're now mad at the Parkland kids for exercising their First Amendment Rights I certainly don'y think so. Fox News is Fox News. I imagine Rogers would have been horrified that children were being slaughtered in schools and would have asked for prevention with gun control. I can't imagine Hannity or Carlson would have reacted with reverence.

Matthew Rhys from the Americans will be playing the other lead

Is now titled A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood. It's a bit erroneous since the line in the song is "a beautiful day in this neighborhood", but it fits.

Glad to see that Hanks isn't done up in a ton of prosthetics or doing too much of an impression of Rogers, either one of which might have been a little too much. It looks good, if a little dry.

Heller's previous film was a lot better than the byline suggested so I'm hoping this is the same, but this trailer strikes me as rather anemic.

It's a shame, because it's not as though Rogers has a tightly controlled estate that would be insistent upon this being a total puff piece (unless he does and I am just not aware of it), and it's not as though I expected something with more darkness because by all accounts, this was a very good person - but it does look very much like hagiography, which I'm sure is the toughest thing to avoid in making a film about Rogers in particular. I think I would've been a bit more interested in seeing a film about him coming up through his young adulthood than one where a writer realizes that he's actually a perfect human being.

Yeah, one about his frustration with contemporary times and need for morality could have been a beautiful Rossellini type of film like Europa '51. Since they took this route though I'm hoping as the one glimpse suggests this is more about the reporter than Rogers. The question of how to deal with a giant who lives up to his reputation is a terrifying one and ripe for potential in this era of iconoclasm. One's ill faith in humanity being put to the test with an actual, albeit human, saint is a powerful and appropriate tale.

What a weird nothing of a trailer.

I really still don't buy Hanks as Rogers, even after seeing him in motion. His acting will be stellar, I'm sure, but there's just some disconnect that keeps me from seeing past "that's Tom Hanks." I know I'm in the minority there, though. Agree that the trailer isn't too promising, but I liked Heller's last film a whole lot more than I thought I would, so I'm open to being pleasantly surprised by the whole affair.

Between this and the first (dreadful) Ad Astra trailer, it makes me wonder again how much if any say directors have in the putting together of a trailer for their films (to the extent that the films are truly theirs). Heller had considerable success with her previous film so I'm curious as to whether she was told by the marketing department to bugger off or if she is happy with how the film is presented here. (Again, I'm reminded of how much better the second Ad Astra trailer was in comparison to the first, and whether Gray had a word with the marketing people)

I haven't seen her first film but heard good things about it Heller came across as very nice and smart in interviews I've seen, so she's literally the only reason I'd be kind of interested in this film and this first trailer is pretty bland.