It seems that whenever the trailer for a much-anticipated movie is released (i.e. the Twilight sequel), fanboys and girls feel the need to record themselves watching it for the first time. Watching someone watching something else…why?

As you would imagine, some of these videos fall flat (booooring…it would be so much better if the kid were peeing his pants in fear). But many of them end up becoming viral hits solely because the people “reacting” to the film trailers behave like complete lunatics on camera. Just watch Exhibit A.

There can only be one reason why people make these videos: attention-whoring. I can’t think of a single benefit from recording myself screaming “OH MY GOD, EDWARD!” every five seconds other than a one-way ticket to a million hits on the Internet. The people who do this are opening the door to two things: ridicule and World Wide Infamy. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but no one truly cares what your opinion of the trailer is. As long as you’re waving your arms around and squealing like a baby pig, however, you’re Internet gold.

This phenomenon says a lot about how much (or little) we value self-respect and integrity these days. People who willingly humiliate themselves in front of millions of strangers exemplify all that is wrong with pop culture. What’s really sad is that many of these people seem utterly clueless as to how others perceive them. You can give them credit for being gutsy enough to go on camera in the first place, but you can’t give them points for common sense. Few of them seem to have it.

If anyone believes that making one of these videos qualifies them as a film critic (especially since the movie isn’t even out yet!), they should quit while they’re ahead. If I wanted a coherent and well-structured opinion on a movie, I’d read what A.O. Scott has to say in The New York Times. All reaction videos give us is something to laugh at and fodder for snarky blog posts. Although, if you think about it, that’s all the Internet is really good for, anyway.

Back in February I reported that the new Spike Jonze/Dave Eggers film adaptation of everyone’s favorite children’s book Where the Wild Things Are was in a bit of trouble for being TOO scary for the young’uns.

According to New York Magazine (via Playlist), the film is still not doing well. Hot on the heels of Speed Racer’s big box-office upset, Playlist is reporting that Jon Vitti (of Alvin and the Chipmuncks screenwriting fame…Yikes!) has been hired to help out, and that the production is “deeply troubled”.

There were rumors that Jonze had been fired from the project after Warner Brothers scheduled re-shoots and ordered rewrites of several scenes. However, Jonze is reportedly still part of the project, despite not having final say on the end result.

The film was originally slated to be released in May of 2008 (umm…right now!), but was then pushed to October of 2008, and now has been pushed all the way back to October 2009. Warner Brothers is apparently still worried about the film being too scary for kids and too confusing, so the rewrites and re-shoots are aimed at making the story more “clear”.

What could possibly be unclear about Where the Wild Things Are? Sounds like the studio is trying to make the quirky and sometimes troubling story more palatable, at the expense of Jonze’s vision. Over at the MTV Movies Blog they’re reporting that Forrest Whitaker (the voice of the Wild Thing ‘Ira’) wants the studio to leave the film as is, saying that Max’s mother “ends up having a boyfriend that becomes like a monster to him…people have to build trust with the people their parent starts to date…These are real issues that the character deals with, and I hope that [the filmmakers] continue to explore them, because kids need to see that; they need to see that other kids are dealing with it.”

Some people are telling Jonze to leak his original cut, before the Warner Brothers intervention, but most think that’s unlikely to happen.

What do you think the final cut will be when the film is (hopefully) released in 2009? Will it be Jonze’s portrait of a disturbed young boy, or a lighter interpretation of the classic kids tale? Which would you prefer to see?

One test screener claimed Max, the young boy protagonist, is “weird and off-putting” and “not charming at all”, while the monsters are “not cute”.

Perhaps I’m remembering wrong, but Max was not exactly “charming” in the original book—he chased after his dog with a fork and told his mother he would “EAT HER UP” after she sent him to his room!

He retreats into his imagination, where he forces even the scary wild things to obey him. The book stirred up controversy when it was first released, as many parents thought the monsters were too scary for children. However, I think the book really touches on some difficult aspects of childhood, which is important for both kids and their parents to read and understand.

It’s no surprise the book has become a classic, and even less surprising that Jonze and Dave Eggers (who often deals with difficult childhood issues in his books) would want to give the story a more adult twist.

What do you think? Are you prepared to see a childhood classic all grown up? It it okay that early screanings are freaking kids the f&%ck out? How did the book effect your childhood?