Topic: Has Pixar frinally broken the spell?

[lovemunkey187]

No-one discussed Kung Fu Panda like this

That's because Kung Fu Panda is one of the most childish movies ever made. Even children consider it to be banal.
Worst of all are the awful attempts to copy manga-elements into a otherwise completely western production. 
So there's no need to discuss Kung Fu Panda.

I really liked Kung Fu Panda. This and Shallow Hal are the only times I've been able to tolerate Jack Black.

[Najemikon]

Just out of interest for context, do you like any animations? Particularly those aimed at younger audiences, so I don't mean Anime, but just the Pixar, Disney and Dreamworks stuff.

Yes!
I even found something positive in Ice Age.
How to Train Your Dragon, Madagascar, Finding Nemo and Shrek are good examples of what I like.
One might argue that those aren't exclusively developed for children but are considered to be "Family Features". In fact this might be the core of my problem with so many Pixar titles. They are written too much for the younger audiences and lost me somewhere while going below puberty-level.
Probably it's like with the Teletubbies, they may be a great program for the audience they are aimed at, but that doesn't mean I have to like them, or even the concept to produce TV-Shows for audiences younger than 3.

I am now truly astonished. I feel like you're in some sort of mirror dimension!   Finding Nemo and Cars are Pixars "youngest" films. Everything else works for all ages. Take Toy Story and consider how dark the storyline is where Woody essentially goes nuts and the other toys gang up on him. He finally rescues Buzz, who's definitely lost his mind and his arm! The moment he tries to convince the other toys Buzz is ok by waving the dismembered arm at them is fantastic, while the whole sequence in Sid's room leading up to Woody's revolving head, traumatising Sid for a lifetime is very dark. Brave choices for a first film and in fact, the story goes that in the first draft, Woody was basically a bastard.

I'll give you Shrek though. That's the only time Dreamworks have thus far been able to write something at the same level of Pixar, but they have been left a long way behind now. How To Train Your Dragon is good, but it panders spoon fed morsalising to a young audience (plus the voice acting is terrible: American, Scottish mix is very off-putting), while Pixar challenges them instead and gives the grown-ups a laugh at the same time.

You should watch Up. If anything, Pixar were criticised for going too adult in the opening sequence. For me they are simply demonstrating what they have always done and telling the story honestly without treating the kids like kids. In fact, other reviews of Up accepted that and said the whole middle section was too silly, but I actually think they did something with the narrative never attempted in animation (for kids) before; they split between a realist drama and a fantasy metaphor (did the old man ever really leave his house?). That's just so far beyond the capabilities of Dreamworks at the moment.

I really liked Kung Fu Panda. This and Shallow Hal are the only times I've been able to tolerate Jack Black.

Why the bag? Kung Fu Panda is great fun. For Jack Black, I like him anyway, but have you ever seen High Fidelity or School of Rock?  

[DJ Doena]

I have to admit, I've never seen any of the Toy Story movies, so I can't say anything about them.

The first Pixar I've seen was Monsters, Inc. and I loved it. I also love The Incredibles, Cars and Wall-E (the latter one especially).

Finding Nemo was aimed to strongely to children for my taste. It's a nice movie but that whole fish story wasn't for me. Neither was the rat (Ratatouille).

But what really did nothing for me was Up. I didn't know much of the story (except for old man, young boy, flying house) but when I watched it I couldn't really get into the story. No, that's not entirely true. I loved the prologue, but then it fell flat. It already started with that small error that you couldn't see the boy on the porch before old man found him. Then there was this annoying talking dog (and I even like the life-action Scooby Doo movies!) and the story as a whole...

So, I'm probably going to enjoy Cars 2 and Monsters 2 but I also never put Pixar on any pedestal. It's just a company after all.

[Najemikon]

It already started with that small error that you couldn't see the boy on the porch before old man found him. Then there was this annoying talking dog (and I even like the life-action Scooby Doo movies!) and the story as a whole...

I thought Dug was fantastic! "I love you, temporarily!"  But why do you consider to be an error how the boy was introduced?

So, I'm probably going to enjoy Cars 2 and Monsters 2 but I also never put Pixar on any pedestal. It's just a company after all.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter, you take each film as it comes, but they aren't just a company. They're an ideology and one that's forged it's own path without bending to the will of anyone, including the audience. It's still a small number of people at the top who all share the same vision and that's what we should ask of any creative producers: have a purpose and commit to it honestly. They share a lot of ideals with Studio Ghibli, as I'm sure Dave would agree, ideals started and almost completely forgotten by Disney (hopefully showing signs of coming back now) and never had by Dreamworks. The day we can truly dismiss Pixar as just another company will be a sad one.

[Achim]

But why do you consider to be an error how the boy was introduced?

IIRC there is a moment before the boy is found where the ok'd man steps on the porch and we actually don't see the kid! I guess it's usually overlooked since it is rather funny when the boy is discovered, that not seeing him earlier is quickly forgotten.

Disclaimer:
I am going strictly by memory here, which you may remember is not always very good...

[DJ Doena]

But why do you consider to be an error how the boy was introduced?

IIRC there is a moment before the boy is found where the ok'd man steps on the porch and we actually don't see the kid! I guess it's usually overlooked since it is rather funny when the boy is discovered, that not seeing him earlier is quickly forgotten.

Yep, that's it. I knew from the trailer that the boy was found on the porch. But everytime you saw the porch it was empty and there was no hiding space. They should have come up with something or simply don't show the house from that angle.

[Najemikon]

That isn't a mistake. It's farcical, visual comedy that puts the viewer in the same frame of mind as the old man and makes it as much of an absurd surprise for us as it is for him. If you don't like the film, things like this will annoy you, but they are not mistakes.

Earlier I said: "...they split between a realist drama and a fantasy metaphor (did the old man ever really leave his house?)". I might be wrong about the extent, but at the very least, the film shifts from a real world to a surreal one and from a film-making perspective, that changes the rules.

[Achim]

Well, then don't show the house from that angle, like Karsten said. Then at least we wouldn't know better. As much as I love Up myself, that scene is a bot odd and expecting from the general audience to recognize this moment as the shift of reality is a bit far of a stretch. Not buying it

[lovemunkey187]

I really liked Kung Fu Panda. This and Shallow Hal are the only times I've been able to tolerate Jack Black.

Why the bag? Kung Fu Panda is great fun. For Jack Black, I like him anyway, but have you ever seen High Fidelity or School of Rock?  

Not seen all of High Fidelity, but didn't really do a lot for me.
School of Rock, I found tedious and tiresome.

[Najemikon]

Not seen all of High Fidelity, but didn't really do a lot for me.
School of Rock, I found tedious and tiresome.

Fair enough! 

Well, then don't show the house from that angle, like Karsten said. Then at least we wouldn't know better. As much as I love Up myself, that scene is a bot odd and expecting from the general audience to recognize this moment as the shift of reality is a bit far of a stretch. Not buying it

I'm not selling it!  They spend years animating these things, from very detailed storyboards to studies of every element for realism. They're always going to miss a shadow here or a door knob there (others from IMDB's list), but with this you're talking about a crucial plot point. Are you seriously suggesting that in all the meetings they had, over several years, no-one said, "er... but where's Russell when the house takes off?". Or that if they did, everyone else just stuck their fingers in their ears, started to cry and sobbed, "no, no, no... we don't TALK about THAT!".

The real joke is, I'm sure they never did need to question it, because I just watched the sequence again and there is a hiding space for Russell and it's perfectly logical.

I withdraw my comment about a visual shift from drama to reality; I still think that's a possible theory for the story overall, but you can't escape the fact that the audience at the very least are being drawn into Carl's fantasy because other people in the film see the house lift away and in the case of Russell, he had a safe area to be in and would be hidden from every angle. It's explained in the dialogue; just have another look and think about how the house has been built. Heck, they probably even thought, "we need somewhere for Russell to hide so even the viewer doesn't know he's there..."

[Blair]

Based solely on the pitch, I think that Monsters Inc. was the most brilliant. Toy Story and Monsters Inc. both hold a lot of childhood truth in them: most kids at some point played with their toys as if the toys were alive, and almost every child had a fear that monsters were in the closet.

Toys going on an adventure, then, is largely an extension of what you might expect since there are already tens of thousands of cartoons of inanimate objects acting alive at some point. But for monsters, the fact that frightening kids has an actual need and purpose other than personal pleasure is something I'd never heard of before.

[Najemikon]

 

[Achim]

I'm not selling it!  They spend years animating these things, from very detailed storyboards to studies of every element for realism. They're always going to miss a shadow here or a door knob there (others from IMDB's list), but with this you're talking about a crucial plot point. Are you seriously suggesting that in all the meetings they had, over several years, no-one said, "er... but where's Russell when the house takes off?". Or that if they did, everyone else just stuck their fingers in their ears, started to cry and sobbed, "no, no, no... we don't TALK about THAT!".

While, admittedly, improbable, stranger things have happened...

The real joke is, I'm sure they never did need to question it, because I just watched the sequence again and there is a hiding space for Russell and it's perfectly logical.

Fair enough.


So, after rethinking this for a while and with your comment after rewatching the scene, I guess it would be one of those cases where the audiences is given the chance to make up there mind, whether it's all just in Carl's head or if he and Russel indeed go on an adventure...

[Blair]

So, I saw it today, and the general reviews were, unfortunately, correct. This is now my least favorite Pixar film

Great animation (as expected), but there were not nearly as many laughs as other Pixar films. Worse, though, the story was likely way too complicate for children, and the two directions that the story took practically had no connection, making it two stories that linked only because characters knew each other.

Basically, it felt more like a long tv episode of an already-running series (as opposed to a pilot episode) than a good movie.

[goodguy]

"Toy Story 3"?   Matthias, for crying out loud, Toy Story is the only truly artistically successful mainstream trilogy. It is beyond reproach.

Apparently there is a Toy Story 4 already in the works. So "lumping" it in with the other cash-in sequels seems about right.   Not entirely sure how serious Tom Hanks' little comment should be taken, though.


The only thing the new Brave trailer does is making me want to watch Secret of Kells again.