Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

'The Smurfs' Get Real in First Movie Trailer
by Matt McDaniel · June 16, 2010

They've been around for over 50 years, but for the first time they're coming to our world. The Smurfs, the little blue people from comics and TV, are getting three-dimensional in a live-action/computer-animated feature film. Watch the exclusive teaser trailer, introduced by star Neil Patrick Harris, for a first look at the new digital Smurfs, then keep reading to find out how they end up in modern-day New York City.

See Trailer Here

In the original comic strips by Peyo, and later on the animated TV show, the Smurfs lived in a European setting during the Middle Ages. The movie begins in the same era, but the Smurfs' arch-enemy Gargamel (played by Hank Azaria) invades their village and sends them running. According to director Raja Gosnell ("Scooby-Doo"), some of the Smurfs stumble into a secret part of the forest where "there's a magical portal that transports them to Central Park."

Lost in Manhattan, the Smurfs -- Papa, Clumsy, Grouchy, Brainy, Gutsy, and Smurfette -- find a couple of human friends (Harris and "Glee" star Jayma Mays) who take them in. They look for a way home, but Gargamel also crosses into our world to track them down.

From the teaser trailer, it's apparent that the look of the computer-generated Smurfs is very faithful to the originals. They're blue-skinned, though with a textured, fuzzy-looking skin tone the cartoons couldn't capture. And of course they have their signature floppy hats (with Papa Smurf in red). He's not shown in the trailer, but photos of Azaria in costume as Gargamel have surfaced, and he also looks the part. He's bald, with prosthetic ears and a nose, and he's wearing a black robe and red shoes exactly like the animated version.

In addition to the human actors -- Sofia Vergara from "Modern Family" also plays a role -- the Smurfs are voiced by a wide range of comedic talents. Legendary standup Jonathan Winters plays Papa Smurf, George Lopez is Grouchy, "SNL's" Fred Armisen is Brainy, and Paul Reubens (aka Pee Wee Herman) voices Jokey Smurf. Plus, pop superstar Katy Perry makes her movie debut as the voice of Smurfette.

"The Smurfs" will be smurfing their way onto the big screen on August 3, 2011.

Proves it: as a species, we don't deserve to survive.

Yeah, but I think Katy Perry is perfect for Smurfette.

SandChigger wrote:Proves it: as a species, we don't deserve to survive.

the species is okay, for the most part, needs some toning down on the whole predator-thing;
it's the human cultures that get fucked-up ... agriculture that led to cities was a mistake ....
it's an unsustainable model ... and the societal buffers give shitheels too much time to sit
around and think up stupid shit ...

You can tell they really didn't care about the movie when it's a "crossover" into our world... They couldn't figure out how to make it work in the original setting, so they make it a fish-out-of-water plot.

SandRider wrote:and the societal buffers give shitheels too much time to sit
around and think up stupid shit ...

like painting black Smurfs purple instead of the offensive black?

Is there anything more unsettling than somebody you used to know chasing you and trying to eat you alive? Other than blatant racism, not much, right? This is why we’re unsettled by the early “Smurfs” cartoon episode where a bite from a fly turned Lazy Smurf’s skin purple and sent him on a zombie rampage worthy of 28 Days Later. Speaking gibberish, he would bite other Smurfs on the ass, turning them purple, and so on. Unsettling, right?

Well, prepare to be more unsettled. In the original French Schtroumph comics, their skin didn’t turn purple…they turned black. So just to make sure you’re following along at home, not only did the black smurfs act in a violent manner, they couldn’t speak properly, couldn’t be reasoned with, and they spread their darker skin color through biting other people’s asses. Seems a lot more racist now, doesn’t it? Hell, even the purple smurfs seem kind of racist now. At the very least, we’re certain Al Sharpton disapproves.

"Blatant racism".

The best thing about the Smurfs cartoon was the music. Pictures at Exhibition is in my top five all time whatever, is anyone else into Russian composers?

D Pope wrote:The best thing about the Smurfs cartoon was the music. Pictures at Exhibition is in my top five all time whatever, is anyone else into Russian composers?

Rachmaninoff is good for putting chicks in "the mood".

Try Prokofiev.

TheDukester wrote:"When it comes down to making out, whenever possible, put on side one of Led Zeppelin IV."

Aaaah yes, the movie that turned 'party' into a verb...."...he's probably still in his heavy metal phaze."

Funny thing is, the Zeppelin he played was Kashmir from Physical Graffiti.

Oh, yeah, we spotted that, too.

Fast Times was kind of a ritual for my crowd in high school. One of my buddies had a VHS player (back when they were $1,000 and owning one was a pretty big deal) and we'd just put it on and watch it, zone out, do homework, or whatever. I'd guess I've seen that movie 45 times. At least.

I don't think Sean Penn has fit a role so perfectly since.
Speaking of Led Zepplin, have y'all tried out Dread Zepplin on youtube? I rediscovered them on my birthday. (saw them in concert here in STL years ago) They're basically a reggae band exclusively doing Zepplin covers, which may sound strange- but the lead singer is an Elvis impersonator. May not sound like it works but they are amazing!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Dwh5_hi ... re=related[/youtube]

You know, this doesn't have anything to do with the Smurfs movie per se, but I've always had a question that I've never been able to get answered (Well, I've gotten the answer: "It's fictional, dude, get over it" a lot). Seeing as how we have some linguists among us, I'll give it a shot.

In the English language, the plural of wolf is wolves.

The plural of dwarf is dwarves.

Shelf = Shelves, and so on.

It stands to reason that most words in the English language that end in the letter F will be pluralized in the same fashion.

So...

Why in the hell isn't the show called The Smurves?

smugetsu wrote:Why in the hell isn't the show called The Smurves?

Uh... I wanna smurve Smurffette?

The teaser was kinda atrocious and yet... I can't look away. Now, the only things missing are the green butts! FTMFW!

smugetsu wrote:You know, this doesn't have anything to do with the Smurfs movie per se, but I've always had a question that I've never been able to get answered (Well, I've gotten the answer: "It's fictional, dude, get over it" a lot). Seeing as how we have some linguists among us, I'll give it a shot.

In the English language, the plural of wolf is wolves.

The plural of dwarf is dwarves.

Shelf = Shelves, and so on.

It stands to reason that most words in the English language that end in the letter F will be pluralized in the same fashion.

So...

Why in the hell isn't the show called The Smurves?

According to my copy of The Hobbit the plural of dwarf is dwarfs and I recall reading somewhere else in Tolkien that elves should be elfs. Tolkien apparently just liked the sound of the 'v'.

Conclusion: English is a mess.

SadisticCynic wrote:

smugetsu wrote:You know, this doesn't have anything to do with the Smurfs movie per se, but I've always had a question that I've never been able to get answered (Well, I've gotten the answer: "It's fictional, dude, get over it" a lot). Seeing as how we have some linguists among us, I'll give it a shot.

In the English language, the plural of wolf is wolves.

The plural of dwarf is dwarves.

Shelf = Shelves, and so on.

It stands to reason that most words in the English language that end in the letter F will be pluralized in the same fashion.

So...

Why in the hell isn't the show called The Smurves?

According to my copy of The Hobbit the plural of dwarf is dwarfs and I recall reading somewhere else in Tolkien that elves should be elfs. Tolkien apparently just liked the sound of the 'v'.

Conclusion: English is a mess.

IIRC elves existed before Tolkien, he just invented dwarves to go with them... that, or the other way around.

Tolkein used dwarves over dwarfs because he wanted it to match elves and because he felt they deserved the same "linguistic respect", though he admitted it was a personal bad habit in grammar.

More interestingly, he felt the true plural form should be either dwerrows or dwarrows. I think that was to separate his creations from the mythological variation, as there is a bigger difference between them than there are between his elves and the original.

Redstar wrote:Tolkein used dwarves over dwarfs because he wanted it to match elves and because he felt they deserved the same "linguistic respect", though he admitted it was a personal bad habit in grammar.

More interestingly, he felt the true plural form should be either dwerrows or dwarrows. I think that was to separate his creations from the mythological variation, as there is a bigger difference between them than there are between his elves and the original.

Interesting.

SadisticCynic wrote:

Redstar wrote:Tolkein used dwarves over dwarfs because he wanted it to match elves and because he felt they deserved the same "linguistic respect", though he admitted it was a personal bad habit in grammar.

More interestingly, he felt the true plural form should be either dwerrows or dwarrows. I think that was to separate his creations from the mythological variation, as there is a bigger difference between them than there are between his elves and the original.

Interesting.

I checked up on Wikipedia for a quick confirmation as I'd read something to that effect before. There is some variation to the story so I'm not entirely sure how true it is.

smugetsu wrote:Why in the hell isn't the show called The Smurves?

Because Smurfs is actually correct according to the rules of Modern English (morpho)phonology.

How do you say the plural of laugh used as a noun?

> Her last joke got a lot of [ lafs / lavz ] from the cheap seats.

The noun plural marker (morpheme) in English has three variant forms ([s, z, əz]), and which is used depends entirely on the voicing of the last sound of a word, provided there isn't other "stuff" going on. The first is used with word ending in the (voiceless, unvoiced) sounds [p t th k f] (caps, cats, baths, tacks, Smurfs), the second with (voiced) [b d dh g l m n r v + vowels] (cabs, beds, clothes, cogs, calls, cams, cans, cars, pervs; toys, radios, taboos, bees, etc), and the last with (affricates and sibilants) [j[=dzh] ch[=tsh] s sh z zh] (bridges, churches, buses, dishes, mazes, barrages).

So Smurfs is actually perfectly regular according to the rules of Modern English; it's elves and dwarves and wives, etc., that are exceptional.

Our fossilized spelling actually tells us what was happening with the latter words in earlier English: when the plural ending was added, the voiceless consonant which was usually the end of the word could be voiced. (I forget which it was in Old English: a voiced consonant that got devoiced at the ends of words, like in German; or a voiceless consonant that got voiced between two vowels...back when the vowel in the ending was pronounced. ) When people stopped saying the vowel in the ending, a new rule (noun-final f -> vz in the plural) was added to the language and new speakers (children) simply learned it as an exception. (The same way that people had to learn that the plural of (wo)man was (wo)men when the ending that caused the change in the last vowel disappeared.)

When we coin new words ending in [f], if we choose to give them a [vz] plural, we're just doing it by analogy with the older, now irregular, words we're familiar with. [fs] is actually more correct.

(Are the little Keebler people Elves or Elfs? The latter gets about twice as many Ghits.)

SadisticCynic wrote:Conclusion: English is a mess.

No more so than any other language.

Tolkien liked to bring lost (or hypothetical) old(er) forms into a modern form. That's how he created hobbit, after all.