Pixar and Dreamworks films discussions

I wasn't impressed by UP.

The first 10 min is the only part that bears hallmark of Pixar's storytelling. The story itself is clunky and formulaic in the sense that towards the middle, the entire 2nd half becomes absolutely obvious, and coasts towards the finale in a refrigerated foods railcar. No new grounds were broken whatsoever in art and animation departments. I do not understand why did they have to go full circle in terms of style, and make their models appear as if they were stop-motion puttets. Either Pixar is trending towards the deep end of the arthouse pool, or they've ran out of ideas.

The use of 3D was tasteful and understated though, and that was nice.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

I wasn't impressed by UP.

The first 10 min is the only part that bears hallmark of Pixar's storytelling. The story itself is clunky and formulaic in the sense that towards the middle, the entire 2nd half becomes absolutely obvious, and coasts towards the finale in a refrigerated foods railcar.

So which Pixar movie had a 2nd half which wasn't absolutely obvious? Did you think Nemo wasn't going to escape and find his dad? Did you expect the Incredible family to not work together to defeat evil? Were you on the edge of your seat wondering if Andy was going to abandon his friends to stay in a perfect toy package in Toy Story 2?

Every Pixar movie is predicable. It is the strength of their storytelling, the quality of the animation, and the skill of the voice actors which carry the movies - not their unpredictable plots.

I saw Up this weekend as well, and everyone in my theater seemed to love it. It was very sentimental, but even parts I thought were sad the kids all around me were enjoying it.

For the adults that don't care much for the serious stuff, everyone loves the talking dogs. Pixar always knows how to personify animals

Teaser trailer for TS3 is up on Yahoo.

Every Pixar movie is predicable. It is the strength of their storytelling, the quality of the animation, and the skill of the voice actors which carry the movies - not their unpredictable plots.

But as I mentioned, the story itself was thin, and the animation was absolutely nothing to write home about.

Edit: wrong thread, stupid tabs.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Every Pixar movie is predicable. It is the strength of their storytelling, the quality of the animation, and the skill of the voice actors which carry the movies - not their unpredictable plots.

But as I mentioned, the story itself was thin, and the animation was absolutely nothing to write home about.

I'll give you that the script wasn't as tight as some of their other films — but the animation was nothing short of breathtaking. Some of the images with the house in the clouds were iconic, and all of the "lost world" was gorgeous.

Saw it last night and it seemed to me to be approaching fairy tale/parable in its story-telling approach. It's not so much about a house flying as it is a man dragging his house/past around behind him.

And parts of it were hysterically funny. The bird was amazing. Dug, the dog was stupid funny, and the voice of Alpha (when his collar is malfunctioning) almost made me pee my pants.

But then I'm a Pixar fanboy and, perhaps, easily amused.

I am looking forward, however, to when they completely shrug off the idea of making a movie accessible to kids and do a straight "adult" movie. Wall•E and Up straddled that adult/kid movie fence pretty finely, and I have to think that sometime they're going to take that leap.

RE: Man tears

Due to a quirk of timing, I went to see UP directly after a viewing for a neighbor who died last weekend. I'm a sucker for sentimental openings, but considering the circumstances I was easily pushed past the point of tears there.

I liked UP, the characters and animation were fun, 3D was good, but I will say the story was the weakest part.

I loved Up. Pixar is the only animation company that can do talking animals without making them boring, cheesy, or obnoxious. They don't make their talking animals sassy, cool, or other words that fit in with the black stereotype.

The beginning stuff was beautiful, and even brought a tear to my eye. The rest just got so batsh*t looney that I couldn't help smile ear-to-ear the entire time. Speaking of ears, I couldn't help but look at the characters' ears throughout. They were so simple. There was absolutely no detail in them, yet they still looked good. I have an odd fascination with ears in 3D games and movies.

Also, the old dude was completely square, but he didn't look crappy. It's tough to make a square character that is enjoyable to look at, even if those squares have rounded edges, and Pixar totally pulled it off! I still have nightmares about what Rare did to Banjo...

I don't care that the movie wasn't as visually impressive as Ratatouille (still the best-looking 3D cartoon), but I do wish it didn't look quite so interchangeable with pretty much any other 3D movie from any other studio. My guess, though, is that after the epic development cycles (for lack of a better term) for The Incredibles and Ratatouille, they're looking for ways to shorten the time from conception to release. Pushing the boundary for every movie is probably not feasible.

The short before the movie was funny, but not the best short Pixar's ever done.

Kung Fu Panda is on cable now and I have to watch it every time I scroll through a channel playing it.

buzzvang wrote:

I plan to see it, but everything I've heard is that it meets and exceeds expectations.

I thought Cars to be mediocre when I saw it.

I found Wall-E a disappointment and even a little insulting when I watched it.

Up was a delight. Go see it.

I wasn't very impressed with this one. The first 10 minutes were just amazing, but after that it was pretty ho-hum. Things often just didn't make any sense at all; I can't be specific without spoilers, so I'll leave it at that. But multiple things simply didn't add up or work correctly in any sense at all.

One of the things Pixar is best at is making worlds that are remarkably internally consistent, ones where you can totally buy whatever's on screen. There's a fundamental respect for the movie's own reality that Up just doesn't have. It goes for the cheap gag, the simple plot, instead of the real story that was lurking underneath. It doesn't really respect itself, and it doesn't respect you, either.

I think Disney may be breaking Pixar.

Malor wrote:

I wasn't very impressed with this one. The first 10 minutes were just amazing, but after that it was pretty ho-hum. Things often just didn't make any sense at all; I can't be specific without spoilers, so I'll leave it at that. But multiple things simply didn't add up or work correctly in any sense at all.

One of the things Pixar is best at is making worlds that are remarkably internally consistent, ones where you can totally buy whatever's on screen. There's a fundamental respect for the movie's own reality that Up just doesn't have. It goes for the cheap gag, the simple plot, instead of the real story that was lurking underneath. It doesn't really respect itself, and it doesn't respect you, either.

I think Disney may be breaking Pixar.

I'm afraid Disney will break Pixar, but if you consider that the partnership gave Steve Jobs the largest chunk of Disney shares in the deal placing him on Disney's Board of Directors and John Lasseter as Chief Creative Officer for all of Disney, I think Pixar will maintain creative control, ultimately-- even if it means making a few turds (*cough* Toy Story 3 *cough*). I'd love to hear your evidence of what didn't work in Up, since I completely disagree. Aside from an old man dragging a floating house around by the garden hose tied around his waist, I fail to recall any inconsistencies in the movie. I thought it was amazingly animated, the first 10 minutes made me cry (and hope my wife and I are that happy together in our own lives), which is a technological feat in and of itself (to tell so much story and emotion, so strongly, in a 10 minute montage was amazing to say the least), characters were well-designed, well rounded, and all were entertaining in their own right. Jokes were funny, and not repeated enough to annoy (the greater majority of audiences, at least). What exactly about this movie was not to like, or felt disrespectful? I can understand some things just don't sit well with some people, but I'm always curious about what exactly that thing does to make it unlikeable by some.

PS. can you put it in spoiler quotes? I'm really curious

I'm betting it's

[color=white]the dogs flying airplanes[/color]

Did the bad guy remind anyone else of Ted Turner?

Side Note: Toy Story 3 teaser trailer got released with the Up movie. Go see it at imdb. It doesn't have anything in it besides a reassurance that all the actors are back, but it's still cute

SPOILER:

[color=white] The jokes are pretty funny, especially the dog parts, and the beginning, as said before, makes people (cough, not me because i'm hardcore, cough) cry their eyes out. But the problem is that the plot is flimsy. The ending only ties up loose ends and doesn't really resolve what's going to happen in the future to the kid and the old guy - basically he gets sent to a nursing home which is NOT the ending a pixar movie would have IMHO...the plot is totally solid for 2/3 of the movie, it's just disappointing when you get to the end and you realise that there isn't the same satisfied feeling you got from, say, Toy Story. [/color]

But having said all that, I LOVE Up. It's still worth it, even if you are mega fussy about movies.

Did you stay for the credits?

YEAH. I did. That's the problem.

[color=white]

Does no one else find the idea that after all of that he just goes back to the nursing home even sadder than any other part of the movie?[/color]
Kurrelgyre wrote:

Did you stay for the credits?

My thought too.

buzzvang wrote:

I'm betting it's

[color=white]the dogs flying airplanes[/color]

Did the bad guy remind anyone else of Ted Turner?

Yeah, I can see the resemblance.

[color=white]But was that really much worse than translating dog collars invented by a guy in the 30s, though? It was already established that he invented numerous "mechanical wonders" in order to train and utilize his dogs. Dog-flown planes might be a bit out there, but not so far out there to fall out of tune with the movie... [/color]
VDOWhoNeedsDD wrote:

SPOILER:

[color=white] The jokes are pretty funny, especially the dog parts, and the beginning, as said before, makes people (cough, not me because i'm hardcore, cough) cry their eyes out. But the problem is that the plot is flimsy. The ending only ties up loose ends and doesn't really resolve what's going to happen in the future to the kid and the old guy - basically he gets sent to a nursing home which is NOT the ending a pixar movie would have IMHO...the plot is totally solid for 2/3 of the movie, it's just disappointing when you get to the end and you realise that there isn't the same satisfied feeling you got from, say, Toy Story. [/color]
[color=white]But the main story was really about Carl's resolution with the loss of his wife. He set out to fulfill her wish and gain some closure for himself. Once he finally saw the rest of the Adventure Book, he gained that closure, and realized he had already inadvertently fulfilled her wishes. Aside from that, he came to terms with his new life, as a part of Russell's life. As Kurrelgyre implied, that bit of resolution was in the credits, aside from his involvement with the Wilderness Explorer ceremony and ice cream scene. But he was able to resolve his past beforehand, which is why we didn't want him to go to the home in the first place. At that point, he was ready for where life took him. Besides, didn't he take the zeppelin? It was floating above the ice cream parlor, basically his at that point. I honestly don't recall seeing him in the nursing home in the credits-- I just remember seeing him and Russell playing together with Doug. And if I did forget some bits of him in a home, why not? He'd led a full life, come to terms with his past, had a new "family" that loved him, and he was simply getting old. That and the court ordered he move to a home. I wasn't sad about it because Carl wasn't either. [/color]
spoiler wrote:

[color=white]There was one scene with Carl and the dogs in a nursing home, but there was no indication whether he was living there or simply taking the dogs to visit the other residents. I interpreted it as the latter.[/color]

spoiler wrote:

[color=white]Same here, because hey: free blimp.[/color]

I cried many man tears during Up.

muttonchop wrote:
spoiler wrote:

[color=white]There was one scene with Carl and the dogs in a nursing home, but there was no indication whether he was living there or simply taking the dogs to visit the other residents. I interpreted it as the latter.[/color]

I assumed he was there permanently. I just felt like...

spoiler wrote:

[color=white] he could have taken that blimp and travelled the world showing people what the bad guy had made and stuff like that. Or something. I am not a Pixar writer, it's just that I hated the message of the movie I think - that you don't need to travel the world to have an adventure. I mean, sure it's true, but the beginning of the movie (when he was at home) was too sad and desperate. I just kept thinking of the bit where he got mad and hit that guy in the head, and thought like, he shouldn't be there because he was happy when he was out in the forest.

[/color]

I don't know, I think I disliked the ending because it was such a sad movie. Sure the ending made sense, it just wasn't ecstatic enough to counteract the beginning.

EDIT: Double post sooo sorry.

VDOWhoNeedsDD wrote:
muttonchop wrote:
spoiler wrote:

[color=white]There was one scene with Carl and the dogs in a nursing home, but there was no indication whether he was living there or simply taking the dogs to visit the other residents. I interpreted it as the latter.[/color]

I assumed he

spoiler wrote:

[color=white]moved in with Russel and his mom.[/color]

VDOWhoNeedsDD wrote:
muttonchop wrote:
spoiler wrote:

[color=white]There was one scene with Carl and the dogs in a nursing home, but there was no indication whether he was living there or simply taking the dogs to visit the other residents. I interpreted it as the latter.[/color]

I assumed he was there permanently. I just felt like...

spoiler wrote:

[color=white] he could have taken that blimp and travelled the world showing people what the bad guy had made and stuff like that. Or something. I am not a Pixar writer, it's just that I hated the message of the movie I think - that you don't need to travel the world to have an adventure. I mean, sure it's true, but the beginning of the movie (when he was at home) was too sad and desperate. I just kept thinking of the bit where he got mad and hit that guy in the head, and thought like, he shouldn't be there because he was happy when he was out in the forest.

[/color]

I don't know, I think I disliked the ending because it was such a sad movie. Sure the ending made sense, it just wasn't ecstatic enough to counteract the beginning.

Hunh. That's now what I thought the message of the movie was at all. I thought...

spoiler wrote:

[color=white] that the message was you have to let go of your past to live in the present. The adventures that he didn't have with his wife were tying him (literally) to a time and place. The fact that his wife considered their life together a great adventure (as shown in the scrap book) was another reminder to be present in the moment, and not regret what you didn't do, but to enjoy what you are doing.

[/color]

Huh. I thought the message of the movie was that crazy old dog men are just as dangerous as crazy old cat ladies.

I think people are reading too much into the ending and the message of the movie. It's blatantly obvious that the message of the movie is SQUIRREL! ...

God, DAMN it this movie has to stop making me sad.

That's amazing. Another reason to love Pixar.