Animation Source Forums

lol Thorn Valley isn't Rome. But I get what you are saying.

However, it's evident from the sequel that it's been at least a couple of years since the first movie. Perhaps longer. And we've seen it established that Timmy (from the credits) starts out the movie at the equivalent of ten human years of age. Whereas, in the first movie, he's a very young boy. Maybe six or seven. And the first book sequel notes, in its opening, that Timmy had been a student at Thorn Valley for three years. So we have to presume, from all these things, that Thorn Valley's been around for a few years at least. And in both the literary and animated stories, the rats show incredible intelligence and ingenuity. They're not trying to build a major urban center, but just a colony in order to survive on their own, free of the influence of other, less-intelligent, rats and certainly of humans. And they're remarkably inventive and creative. They don't need to trash-pick. The books and the first movie establish that they're quite intelligent and resourceful enough to build, to create, to design and to reason out difficult matters without having to continue stealing, and certainly without trash-picking. Especially after a few years. What, after all, would be the point of "The Plan" if the rats are still going through human trash and (presumably) stealing from them that many years later?


You quoted Juuchan17 for this material, but actually I wrote that. lol

I was actually thinking about this at work, and it occurred to me that in the book, as I recall (feel free to correct me on this), the rats were worried that continuing to live off of humans would make them lazy and they would cease to advance as a society. In the movie, however, there was little if any attention to that; the main point was that stealing was wrong. Since taking what isn't wanted is no more objectionable than, say, taking snow from a bank left by a passing plow and using it to build a snow fort, the fact that they were only taking garbage would eliminate that moral objection.
The argument that they would have no need to take things, I confess, is a good deal harder to argue with.


My bad.

Well, in a way of helping to understand how the author of Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH (Robert C. O'Brien) envisioned the concept, DT, let me lay it out a different way. I know you said you've read the book before, which is totally fine. All I'm doing here is to provide a refresher to help clarify my views on this whole "trash picking" concept laid out in the animated sequel, which I have such a problem with. And I'll also include a quote or two from the author's daughter, Jane Leslie Conly, from her first literary sequel to her father's work, Racso and the Rats of NIMH.


Note: this isn't just to keep an argument going here. I am just partaking of this rather interesting dialogue so far. I hope my research helps.


Several excerpts from O'Brien's book help to illustrate just why the trash picking concept is out of touch with the original concept of Thorn Valley and "The Plan". And I believe that, while the first animated movie, The Secret of NIMH, didn't clarify it in great detail (probably because of the limitations of running time for the movie, and what material they did want to cover), I would again point out that it was touched upon, at least, in the movie. When Mrs. Brisby asks Nicodemus what the Plan is, Nicodemus replies:


"Why, to live without stealing of course."


Then Justin adds that ..."it's wrong to take electricity from the farmer". While he specifically refers to the rats tapping into the farm house electricity, it's clear there's an overriding morality in play, and the concern of the rats over indirectly manipulating and taking advantage of others (human or otherwise). And it doesn't end with the farmhouse utilities.


As to the book, there are several relevant passages that illustrate why the trash picking thing is contradictory. Below, I have pulled them from a specific chapter, and removed elements that were superfluous.


In the chapter called "Thorn Valley", Nicodemus begins to describe the rats growing discontent with their progress up to the point of establishing and maintaining the colony under the rose bush, on the Fitzgibbon farm...



"So we built ourselves the life you see around you. Our colony thrived and grew to one hundred and fifteen. We taught our children to read and write. We had plenty to eat, running water, electricity, a fan to draw in fresh air, an elevator, a refrigerator. Deep underground, our home stayed warm in winter and cool in summer. It was a comfortable, almost luxurious existence.

"And yet all was not well. After the first burst of energy, the moving in of the machines, the digging of tunnels and rooms--after that was done, a feeling of discontent settled upon us like some creeping disease.

"We were reluctant to admit it at first. We tried to ignore the feeling or to fight it off by building more things--bigger rooms, fancier furniture, carpeted hallways, things we did not really need.

"...And the worst thing was that even with our make-work projects, we didn't really have enough to do. Our life was too easy...I was worried.

"So were many of the others.

""First, we realized that finding the Toy Tinker's truck, which had seemed like such an enormous stroke of luck, had in fact led us into the very trap we should have avoided. As a result we were now stealing more than ever before: not only food, but electricity and water. Even the air we breathed was drawn in by a stolen fan, run by stolen current.

"It was this, of course, that made our life so easy that it seemed pointless. We did not have enough work to do because a thief's life is always based on somebody else's work."



If you consider that closing statement very carefully, it becomes apparent that even picking through trash ends up being little more than profiting off of somebody else's work. Which, to the rats (and to Nicodemus especially) was an increasingly-abhorrent concept. That, and that a key element of the Plan was to expose the community to some level of hardship...so that they would at least have a steady stream of work to keep them occupied and immune to boredom and laziness. That they'd have to put their newly-learned skills and creative (and inventive) impulses constantly to work in order to build the kind of life they needed and would eventually come to accept. Thus my reasoning that showing the rats, in the animated sequel, willing to "dumpster dive" (for lack of a better description) is just backpedaling as a story element, and in contradiction to what was already established in the overall story continuity.


I don't think I can describe it any better than that. lol

I'm actually challenging myself and wrote a sequel to that travesty to see how it went. Anyone wanna read it?

Sure! But I would suggest posting your version in a new topic.

Deleted.

I don't think my post was really worthy of being responded to, Elli. While I'm sure you weren't intending to spam, making posts like that can be seen as spam.

Deleted.

How does the film show its age? You should try a bit harder to elaborate a bit more in your posts. But really, the age of the film really has nothing to do with this topic.

Hello, I'm new here, and I would like to give my opinion about all this, after having read all the posts on this topic. I must mention that I haven't had the occasion to read the original books.

On the good side, I really like Eric Idle's acting as Evil Martin. The concept behind it may be utterly weird, but once we forget how Martin became evil, his evil self I find delightful to watch. While not played up as it should have, his new abilities once he's in charge of the NIMH laboratory could have led to interesting things; for instance, his line in his song, "I can change things with ease, Horns or hairs or fins or feathers", summarizes a downplayed aspect, that is that Martin had became something of a Doctor Moreau, with all the interesting ethical implications that could have resulted from that. All we see that he really uses of his power is this ridiculous army of pigeon-riding rats who hardly look more muscular than regular bodybuilding NIMH rats, and this couple of bad comic relief cats whose transformation is badly drawn. Really, wouldn't it have been more interesting to see the characters interact with the weird chimaeras that Martin is shown to have created in this brief shot of the song ? Overall, Evil Martin comes out of stupid causes, but once he's there, he's funny and he has potential. Misused potential, but still, I do like him.

That being said, there is a really big continuity error that nobody brought up yet: the kind of technology used both by N.I.M.H. and by the Rats.

NIMH:

In the first movie, the experiences led on the animals are biological: they inject them some chemicals that make their genes mutate. This is that process that makes them sentient. While in the sequel, they seem to just electroshock the cobayes a la Frankenstein, just to see what comes of it. Which scientifically doesn't make sense !

The Rats:

Now, I feel like the writers of the sequel got one line wrong: It's wrong to steal electricity from the poor farmer. It's meant to mean, "It's wrong to steal our electricity, we should make it ourselves", right ? That's how I always took it anyway. But no, the writers apparently thought that it meant, "Electricity in general is evil and we shouldn't be using it". The awesomeness of the rat's lair in the original is largely based on electricity: Brutus's electrical weapon, the eerie electric lightening, Nicodemus's sort of primitive TV set… It's all about electricity. In the sequel, they seem to live as farmers; we see some basic clockwork during the parade that welcomes Timmy to Thorn Valley, and that's all. Mr Ages still has some chemistry items and other things in his personal lab, but overall it seems that the Rats, once they left the rosebush, forgot 99 percents of what they used to know.

Conclusion:

The unwillingly conclusion of this mistake is that apparently, NIMH and the Rats switched knowledge. NIMH got the creepy-looking but powerful and fascinating electricity devices (they used them on poor Martin), while the Rats got chemistry and filled the blanks with basic do-it-yourself-level technology. A shame, really…


—

However, there is a continuity error or two that I can see answer to.

First, Auntie Shrew's sudden admiration for Nicodemus and the Rats makes total sense to me as a gag on her habit of changing her mind as often as she changes underwear. As long as it's her interest to hate the rats, and that she will be admired by the community for doing so, she hates them. As soon as the rats begin being admired by everybody, she switches sides to still be on the good side of public opinions. It's a behavior well-known to gossips like Shrew.

Second, the NIMH laboratory suddenly looking like Dracula's castle, and Dr Valentine being Dr Victor Von Frankenstein's twin brother; I don't know if everybody will follow me on that, but my personal opinion, NIMH was originally a very pleasant place (for humans, anyway); an old-fashioned laboratory of lovely architecture, founded hundreds of years ago by a benevolent scientist of the same kind as Benjamin Franklin. Only when Evil Martin took over did it start looking sinister, to reflect its new master's soul and preoccupation. Yes, it's corny for a building to look evil as soon as its master looks evil, but at least it's consistent with the neutral image of NIMH in the first movie and, as far as I know from people who quoted it here, the books. And Dr Valentine, though perhaps incompetent, is not evil at all. He looks evil, but you don't choose your looks. Someone also quoted from the book that some of the scientists seemed to pay real interest to the rats on which they experimented, and show them some sympathy. Well, before Evil Martin decides to use Dr Valentine's designs on the doctor himself, what is he seen doing ? You know, during the line "He thought I was tame" of the song ? Patting Martin's head with a smile. For me, Valentine is perhaps a bit lunatic for a scientist, but neither evil or dangerously crazy. Only when Martin starts controlling him does he seem to be really evil, which from the cobaye mice point of view (who, understandably, didn't like him anyway) leads to Jenny's line about Dr Valentine being "crazier than ever". That's the moment where Martin took over !

I have to admit Scrooge's thoughts do cast the sequel in a different light. Not necessarily a better one, but certainly a fresh perspective.

I'm also interested to see HolyFox's fanfic.

Well, firstly, welcome to the site and the forum--even if it's a bit late, and I hope you find plenty (especially over on The Secret of NIMH Source itself) to enjoy.



Well no offense, but there's no accounting for taste. lol I mean, Eric Idle is a fantastic comedic actor...whatever possessed him to agree to taking this role is befuddling in the extreme. He was always a great deal more discerning about the parts he played.



Unfortunately, while that concept has interesting implications, it is a facet of this confusing and often bizarre story which does not add anything to the whole of it. In the grand scheme, all it amounts to is a few moments of disturbing fluff to illustrate his song (and characters performing musical numbers in animated movies, whether or not the characters themselves are insane...temporarily or not, is something I've always viewed as a horrid thing. Either we do an animated movie, or we do a bad off-Broadway musical. All the great animated movies of the past and present don't have musical numbers in them. They are utterly unnecessary). It doesn't really move the story along at all.



Not really, no. Again, it would have been detracting from the overall story I think. But you said it yourself..."overall, Evil Martin comes out of stupid causes". Because the whole concept of "Evil Martin" was a very stupid story concept which should never have happened. The very idea of a NIMH scientist and some assistants suddenly turning to electro-shock experiments, which turns on its head and then ends up turning the NIMH Laboratory into some sort of hackneyed evil lair, is totally implausible. And then, to create a story element where the son of one of the original mice (from the first movie) took a journey back to the NIMH Laboratory (a place he'd never seen or visited before, and we don't know that he was ever told about...or that his father would ever want him to know about) was found and captured by the aforementioned scientist, experimented on, turned insanely evil, and then somehow turned the tables on the scientist and his assistants, captured them, and exposed them to the same experiments (and then turned a clean, controlled government laboratory into a run-down, dirty evil lair), is patently ludicrous.



Well, I have no idea what a "cobayes" is, but let's get to the rest of your statement...

It doesn't make any sense because it is, indeed, patently stupid! And in complete violation of the existing canon of the first movie...that the NIMH Laboratory is a place where experiments are done on genetics and biology. Electroshock experiments are not done in that capacity (though, admittedly, very small electrical stimulation and correction is used on test subjects to measure their intelligence and also their responses to stimuli and learned behavior patterns. This is extremely different from cruel electrical shocking to create monsters.



We've discussed elsewhere on Secret of NIMH Source what the basis of the rats' view (and primarily because of Nicodemus' influence) that it is wrong to take electricity from the farmer without his knowledge, rather than work to generate it through their own toil and inventiveness. That the book goes into Nicodemus' views on this in much greater detail than the first movie. Though they also believe (at least in the book) that they must forge their own destiny and, unlike in the movie, live underground as much as possible, and conceal the Thorn Valley colony, and not build structures like humans or live like them. That includes disdaining electricity. Even in the book, however, this was Jenner's major disagreement with Nicodemus and most of the other rats. That they should continue to enjoy the benefits of the luxury they created for themselves in the rose bush colony, and that electricity is essential to that.



You're mistaken on this, but I understand how you could be confused by the corny nature of the sequel story.



The problem with your analysis here is that the Shrew is considered to be extremely xenophobic, opinionated, crass, conceited and single-minded. When she's made up her mind about something, it simply does not change. That is canon. In the book, she only grudgingly allows the rats to approach the Frisby home, and only after gaining assurances from Mrs. Frisby herself that they weren't there to rob her. In the movie, she is set to a paranoid panic when she realizes the rats have arrived and are probably preparing to rob the place blind. Only a konk on her head prevents us from seeing how she resolved that in her own mind. But there is nothing at all in the first movie, or in the book (or its sequels) which demonstrate that the Shrew can change her opinions and prejudices about things as easily as you suggest.


Because the director and writers of this one wanted to vamp up the foreboding and frightening aspects of the NIMH Laboratory. But they went way over the top, and turned it into a silly, stupid farce of what could have been a good use of the rats' and mice's fear of NIMH to handle it in a more realistic and tasteful way.



No, it isn't at all. Neither with the first movie, nor especially with the first book.


There's that word "cobaye" again.

Dr. Valentine is not a real life form. Questioning whether or not he can choose what he looks like is irrelevant. He's a creation for the sequel. He's not even IN the first movie or the books. At all. He's a poorly-designed character that is completely unrealistic.

------------

You make a few good points, but I think you need to reconsider a lot of what the sequel shows, and also how it contradicts (and shamelessly so) the original movie and the first book. Which is why most fans despise this sequel so much, and why it is, in fact (but for some saving graces I mentioned in another topic), considered to be one of the worst animated sequels of all time.

I can see why "that word Cobaye" confused you; I don't know if I mentioned it already (I think I did), but I am French, and although my English is pretty good (if I can say so myself), I just made a mistake here. Cobaye is the French for Guinea Pig… I just thought it also existed in English, I don't know. It rarely happens to me.

Anyway… I enjoyed reading this counter-review of my review, and it was nice of you to spend time writing it. However, I need to counter-answer on a few subjects:

—> Musical numbers. There's no denying that the songs in Secret of NIMH 2 are bad, they are utterly, utterly bad. However, it's all a matter of taste, but as long as they're well handled I like musical numbers in animated movies; I don't know what you mean by "great animated movies of the past", I guess we don't have exactly the same tastes (it seems that I like movies slightly more comical than those you do), but more than a half of Disney movies have musical numbers in them.

—> The Shrew: I guess it's once again a case of me not having read the books, and that such a misunderstanding could happen is the reason I put that disclaimer at the beginning of my post. Based on the first movie only, I saw her mainly as a gossip, a weak-minded old gossiping hag; analyzing my own opinion here, I think that it's also that I analyze her more as a anthropomorphic being and you more as an animal.

—> Dr Valentine. I'm sorry, but although your other answers to my points were well-written and arguments, the answer you give is simply not an answer. It's your right to ignore NIMH 2 as non-canon (it is very obvious to see why any sane human being would do just that), but when analyzing NIMH 2 on its own, you can't just answer to every issue by saying: "it's not canon to the first one". If the answer to all the issues of this movie was just "it's non-canon so there is no need of even thinking about it", this topic, my first post, your answer and the present post would not even exist. So please, elaborate.

Well you may wish to be a bit more careful when responding or posting in general. Mixing languages causes exactly the kind of confusion you saw in my last post.


It's a subject I'm interested in, and a topic I have been participating in (and started), so naturally I was bound to reply. But thanks nevertheless. I'm glad to help keep the discussion going.


Most animated movies that existed before the 1990s, with but few exceptions, did not have musical numbers in them. They may have had songs...but those were sung by off-screen voices that, presumably, the characters could not see or hear. Those songs were designed to set the mood or convey a message in furtherance of the plot. That is 100% different than characters in the movie breaking into a song and dance number. Such things do not happen in real life. And, even though animated movies are fictional and often fantastical reflections of the real world (to varying degrees), they still do reflect the real world. And in the real world, unless people are on stage, they simply do not randomly break into song and dance routines on the street, in school, on the job, etc. Because the very notion is patently ridiculous. (Need I refer to the utter stupidity, for example, of the High School Musical movies? Dear God, I hope not.)

But you cannot possibly discern my tastes in movies, animated or otherwise, from any posts I have made on this topic. My saying that I hate musical numbers in animated movies doesn't equate with any inference that I don't like comical movies. In fact, I like good comedies. But there are also plenty of lousy, low-brow comedies out there too, which stink.


Then you're misinterpreting me again. I don't analyze her more as an animal because I already know she is, in fact, an anthropomorphized, animated version of a real shrew as well as a feisty, acerbic old(er) woman. I know quite well what she is as an animated character. If I were to analyze her in terms of being an animal, I would describe my view of her in terms of a real-world shrew...which I never did.


The answer I gave is most definitely an answer. I said that he's not a real life form...in other words, not a real human. You said that "he looks evil, but you don't choose your looks". He's a fictional animated character. It is utterly impossible for a fictional character in an animated movie, drawn, colored and animated by real humans, to choose what he looks like. The artists and animators choose that. Obviously.

I also said that he's very poorly designed and completely unrealistic. Because early in the movie he goes around in a sinister way, with those sunken eyes and ratty hair of his, skulking in the bushes around the farm looking for the escaped rats...in an extremely unscientific manner. And during the rest of the movie, he's a cartoonish buffoon. In the first movie, and in the first book, the scientists are portrayed very realistically, and without the cartoonish and buffoonish physical characteristics and behavior. They are intelligent and serious...even (in a few instances) sympathetic. The differences are obvious.

"Most animated movies that existed before the 1990s, with but few exceptions, did not have musical numbers in them. They may have had songs...but those were sung by off-screen voices that, presumably, the characters could not see or hear. Those songs were designed to set the mood or convey a message in furtherance of the plot. That is 100% different than characters in the movie breaking into a song and dance number. Such things do not happen in real life."

Will I dare to mention a couple of films I consider very good, that contain such songs ? Pinocchio, Alice in Wonderland, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, The Jungle Book, and as a matter of fact, you say "before the 1990s", but but why excluding such movies as Aladdin or The little mermaid ? Don't you think them to be good animated movies ?