That's fabulous news.

I agree with this:

There seems to me to be a world of difference between Rand's "we are your natural free-market overlords" approach and Bird's "don't discriminate against my talent" thing.

if I leave out the "Bird's" - but I've only seen The Incredibles wherein the meddling government mucks up the better society the supers could have created. Admittedly, not a lot of overt economics, but I strongly got the sense that Bird thought he was my free-market overlord.

I'm guessing Ratatouille is lighter on that note, because other than government health codes I'm not sure how he could weave it in.

because other than government health codes I'm not sure how he could weave it in.

No way I can properly respond without spoilers except to say "Huh. I hadn't thought of it that way before."

We just got back from Stardust.

If I wasn't familiar with the source material, I probably would have really liked it. The movie Stardust had barely any of the charm, whimsy, or eccentricity that I love so much about the written version.

I saw the movie first and then read the book. I did think the movie had its charm, although it was a bit conventional. The book was a bit of a shock. I didn't love the book -- although I did like it -- and I wonder if that was because I kept looking for the movie in the pages.

*** The movie sure went looking for more "action" (violence) at the expense of character development and some relaxed charm.

The ending is what has me thinking right now, though. In both, Tristan and the Star get together. But in the movie they have children and grandchilden and then each become stars, united forever. Very conventional ending to a fairy tale - a "Happy Ever After." In the book, the Star cannot bear children, and Tristan ages and dies while the Star does not. I thought it was a more interesting ending. ***

Please, please, somebody at least tell me Claire Danes was good. Because otherwise my heart may completely break.

I didn't love the book -- although I did like it -- and I wonder if that was because I kept looking for the movie in the pages.

I think that's what happened to me, Narrator.

Please, please, somebody at least tell me Claire Danes was good.

I thought she was good. She was haughty and put-upon and eventually soft and lovely, but she's a little toned down from the character in the book, who's a little angrier and insulting.

I liked her well enough. I didn't need her efforts at a British accent, but, ok. I read somewhere that Sarah Michele Gellar was offered the role and declined because she didn't want to be away from her hubby. Well, fine, but she had a chance to be in a movie with Robert DeNiro. I'm surprised anyone would pass that up.

If the British accent was part and parcel of the role, it's no mystery to me why she'd turn it down. I still shudder whenever I hear her speak in "Halloween" .

The more I hear about the differences between the movie and book versions, the more I am convinced to not see the movie.

I agree very much with Jilli's assessment of Stardust and the part that Narrator mentions regarding the end was the part I especially had a problem with, to go from there are no real happily ever afters in the book to a very trite happily ever after ending in the moive was annoying.