PDA

View Full Version : Pixar Movie Marathon-Top 4 Pixar Films



Karoht
2012-01-09, 04:20 PM
I was recently inspired to do a movie marathon of Pixar films, after having the sudden urge to watch the film Up, and that urge just sort of snowballed from there.

The where and when seem to be taken care of thus far. But the what?

I figure most people won't have it in them to watch more than 4 Pixar films, so for the moment we are down to picking 4. If we have time and inclination, we may watch the short films as a single compellation but that is scheduled for the end of the marathon.

So I'm trying to collect input on which 4 films we should watch. My friends are all being extremely slow to respond, so I thought I'd crowdsource this one and get some recommendations. As such, I would love to see people's recommendations for 4 pixar films we should watch.

So please list 4 films that you would want to watch, and preferably in the order in which you would like to watch them.
IE-If you feel that film X naturally dovetails into film Y, please ensure they are in a proper order to take advantage of that.

EDIT:
I should also note that we are merely after the works of Pixar themselves. While they have an excellent partnership with Studio Ghibli, those works are not on the table, as they may be a whole separate marathon themselves, and are entirely deserving of their own marathon.

Brother Oni
2012-01-09, 05:05 PM
Up, followed by the Toy Story trilogy in order? :smalltongue:

On a more serious note, Up, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Monsters Inc.


A Studio Ghibili marathon would depend much more on the target audience (Mononoke Hime is one of my favourites, but I wouldn't show it to children and Grave of the Fireflies I wouldn't include in any light-hearted entertainment programme).

Karoht
2012-01-09, 05:34 PM
I think we want to keep it a smattering of Pixar, not really dominated by any one thing. Mind you, the Toy Story and then something suggestion has come up a few times now.
Finding Nemo. I loved that film, but I always forget about it for some reason. Weird.

Mewtarthio
2012-01-09, 05:45 PM
It seems to me like it would sort of become a "Toy Story and some other stuff" marathon if you watched all three Toy Stories. I'd say pick one of them. For any other series, I'd tell you to stick with the first out of sheer nostalgia, but the Toy Story series is stuffed full of nostalgia no matter which one you pick. Even the third one. Especially the third one.

So, you've already got Up on the list, and there's no way you won't end up with at least one Toy Story. For the other two, I liked Finding Nemo and Wall-E. You might want to replace Wall-E with The Incredibles if you want something a little more fun.

Karoht
2012-01-09, 05:52 PM
It seems to me like it would sort of become a "Toy Story and some other stuff" marathon if you watched all three Toy Stories. I'd say pick one of them. For any other series, I'd tell you to stick with the first out of sheer nostalgia, but the Toy Story series is stuffed full of nostalgia no matter which one you pick. Even the third one. Especially the third one.

So, you've already got Up on the list, and there's no way you won't end up with at least one Toy Story. For the other two, I liked Finding Nemo and Wall-E. You might want to replace Wall-E with The Incredibles if you want something a little more fun.Great input.
Can you put that in an order of what you would want to watch if you were attending?

Herpestidae
2012-01-09, 05:56 PM
On a scale of 1-3: How much you want the audience to cry? Pick that Toy Story.

If only 4, including up, I'd go for the following order:

Up
Toy Story X
Finding Nemo
The Incredibles or WALL-E

Dr.Epic
2012-01-09, 06:05 PM
1. The Incredibles
2. Up
3. any Toy Story film (I think it's unfair to do all three; this is a Pixar Movie Marathon, not a Toy Story Movie Marathon)
4. Monsters Inc.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2012-01-09, 06:13 PM
The Incredibles -- In my mind, Pixar's best movie. It's a fun little film with some of the greatest character development of any movie I've seen, and it manages to focus on every character to the point that it's really a movie about the family, which it does beautifully. Not their most visually impressive, but still, in my opinion, their best.

Up -- Not quite at the level of the Incredibles, but damn close. The first 10 minutes tell, without words, one of the best love stories I've seen in a movie...and then there's another story after it. What's not to love?

Toy Story 1, 2, or 3 -- All great, each in their own way. We all know this. Pick one.

Monsters, Inc -- I wasn't a big Finding Nemo fan (strange, I know), so I think this would be a good 4th film.


That said, I'd do the following order:

Up
Monsters, Inc
Toy Story
The Incredibles

You could switch the last two, but this starts off the a great film, segues into the weakest of the bunch (but still a great movie), then really hits home with, say, Toy Story 3, and finally ends in the frantic fun of the Incredibles.

Ravens_cry
2012-01-09, 07:02 PM
Wall-E holds a special place in my heart as a triumph of (mostly) none vocal storytelling, something I have always loved about most of the shorts.
I personally feel it should be on the list.

Dr.Epic
2012-01-09, 07:09 PM
SHOT! I forgot about Wall-E. It's about as good as Monster Inc. so either of those would have to now be my #4 pick.

Mutant Sheep
2012-01-09, 07:11 PM
I'd say WALL-E. Wall-e over any others. Even Toy Story. :smallcool:

Axolotl
2012-01-09, 07:30 PM
I'd say Wall-E, Up, The Incredibles and any Toy Story. I have to say I'm slightly surprised at the love for Monsters, Inc, I wasn't that big a fan of it (don't get me wrong it's great but I don't rank it as Pixar's best).

Jahkaivah
2012-01-09, 07:31 PM
-Toy Story 3
-WALL-E
-Ratatouille
-Up

Herpestidae
2012-01-09, 07:36 PM
Monsters, Inc

Ratatouille


D'oh! I forgot about those.

Pixar makes too many good movies. It's such a frustration to choose favorites.

Goosefeather
2012-01-09, 08:50 PM
That said, I'd do the following order:

Up
Monsters, Inc
Toy Story
The Incredibles

You could switch the last two, but this starts off the a great film, segues into the weakest of the bunch (but still a great movie), then really hits home with, say, Toy Story 3, and finally ends in the frantic fun of the Incredibles.

Seconded. Well, to be more precise, I recommend any two from WALL-E, Finding Nemo, Up and Monsters, Inc. for your first two, but finishing with Toy Story 3 and then The Incredibles sounds perfect :smallsmile:

thegurullamen
2012-01-09, 09:04 PM
Up
WALL-E
Incredibles
Toy Story X

Dienekes
2012-01-09, 09:07 PM
Honestly I'd skip Wall-E. Blaspheme I know. But after the brilliantly done silent beginning I thought it dropped in quality a bit.
The Romance: didn't care for (fine that makes me heartless I don't care)
The villain: pretty bland
The supporting characters: forgettable
The message: ridiculously anvilicious

But that's just me.

My 4 would go:
The Incredibles: My personal favorite Pixar film. I think they got everything I was looking for right. The motivations are believable, the characters interesting, the world entertaining, and the villain was great.
Up: Personally I think it did the silent opening better than Wall-E (well not opening, but almost opening). And from that point it has a more interesting group of characters, still not that great a villain though.
Toy Story (1 or 3, 2 is still great but I thought the others were better): It's Toy Story.
Finding Nemo: The story of a parent trying to find their lost child is to me inherently more interesting than a remake of the Three Amigos with insects, and Monster's Scaring kids for electricity. Also I think it created an interesting adventure. The side characters were interesting and entertaining, I felt for Marlin, and hoped he'd find his son. Though I honestly think the character of Nemo himself was fairly generic.

Haruki-kun
2012-01-09, 09:12 PM
Up
Wall-E
Finding Nemo
Ratatouille

I love those four. I love Toy Story, too, but if you're just gonna watch 4, I don't want to make three of them Toy Story.

Forum Explorer
2012-01-09, 09:59 PM
I would say

WALL-E
Finding Nemo
Up
The Incredibles.

Dr.Epic
2012-01-09, 11:46 PM
Has anyone mentioned Cars yet?

Yeah, that's what I thought.:smallwink:

Dumbledore lives
2012-01-09, 11:51 PM
When we did one of these we planned to watch about six films, but after the Toy Stories and Wall-E we all just talked for like 2 hours, then went home. I'd say you want to start off with something exciting, so maybe the Incredibles, than something a little less, maybe Monsters Inc or Finding Nemo, then either Wall-E or Up depending on personal preferences, and I'd say end on Toy Story 3, yeah it will end on tears/almost tears, but they are joyous, not sad ones, and it really is the perfect ending.

dehro
2012-01-10, 03:45 AM
I'm gonna go with
the incredibles
monsters Inc.
wall-e or ratatouille

in any order..as long as the incredibles is either at the beginning or the end (if you think you'll still be awake by the end)

Sunken Valley
2012-01-10, 06:03 AM
I recommend the first Toy Story because, well ,it's the first.

Then Up, because it got an oscar nomination.

Then Finding Nemo, because it was a big hit.

Finally, your choice of either Wall-E or Monster's Inc.

I am shocked that nobody has mentioned bug's life :smallfrown:.

Do not pick the incredibles or ratatouille. The latter because it's as boring as hell and has a downer ending. And the former because it produces a sick, twisted and corrupted message.

The film "claims" that society is opressing super powered people and that people who are stronger and better than us should command us. That may be true but it's not what I expect from a film as the aesop. I expect that from a morally grey film or one of those villain speeches where they are right all along (like moriarty in the new sherlock holmes film). Not as the happy ending.

The villain. He was sympathetic. They tried to make him a complete monster and failed miserably. I think redemption would have been better for him. Not murder. Plus, he was preaching the correct Aesop.

Then you take into account that the entire family (including a 10 year old) murders mook after mook laughing as they do it and we have an evil corrupt film. Still deserves best animated feature oscar 2004 though.

Herpestidae
2012-01-10, 07:34 AM
The film "claims" that society is opressing super powered people and that people who are stronger and better than us should command us. That may be true but it's not what I expect from a film as the aesop. I expect that from a morally grey film or one of those villain speeches where they are right all along (like moriarty in the new sherlock holmes film). Not as the happy ending.

The villain. He was sympathetic. They tried to make him a complete monster and failed miserably. I think redemption would have been better for him. Not murder. Plus, he was preaching the correct Aesop.

Then you take into account that the entire family (including a 10 year old) murders mook after mook laughing as they do it and we have an evil corrupt film. Still deserves best animated feature oscar 2004 though.

Woah, woah, woah... So much wrong with that.

First of all, society WAS oppressing super-powered people, full-stop. "Hey, I know some of you can totally use your powers to help people, but seeing as people are being total idiots and suing the government, you're gonna have to stop that."

Second, nowhere in the movie did the supers say anything about ruling\commanding the non-supers; all Bob wanted to do was save lives. Maybe it was a bit selfish in that he wanted the adrenaline rush of the glory days back, but nowhere did anyone, except Syndrome, talk about ruling over anyone else.

Second, a superhero declines to allow an eight-year-old boy to fight crime alongside him (You know, because an eight-year-old with jet boots is gonna be so useful against a dude with a gun. That eight-year-old boy then dedicates his life to making giant robots that kill off supers with the intent to do away with one of the greatest, after which he will set the robot on innocents so that he can swoop in and "save the day." That is a complete monster. There is no redemption from that.

And third, The family did not murder anyone. The mooks were totally evil and trying to kill them. Up-to and including chasing down a ten-year-old who was doing nothing but running away. There was also the scene where they throw a champagne party to watch and laugh as civilians were killed by a giant doomsday robot.

Avilan the Grey
2012-01-10, 07:49 AM
The villain. He was sympathetic. They tried to make him a complete monster and failed miserably. I think redemption would have been better for him. Not murder. Plus, he was preaching the correct Aesop.

This is so SO wrong. The man is a mass murderer. As pointed out above he did all this, including killing tens of innocent people, because he wasn't allowed to be a sidekick when he was a kid.

Anyway

My list:


Wall-E
The Incredibles
Monsters Inc.
Finding Nemo


As you can tell I am not much of a Toy Story fan.
My absolute favorite moment in a Pixar movie though is the moment in Ratatouille when Ego remembers his mother. It is truly a crowning moment of tearjerker awesomeness.

Cespenar
2012-01-10, 08:10 AM
Get Up. Watch the first twenty minutes. Pause. You have watched all the Up you need. Skip to the better Pixar movies.

Like Wall-E, Ratatouille, The Incredibles or (maybe) Toy Story.

Also: Watching Pixar movies one after another (aka, a marathon) is making them injustice. Because concentration really falls down after the first movie or so.

Sunken Valley
2012-01-10, 08:40 AM
Get Up. Watch the first twenty minutes. Pause. You have watched all the Up you need. Skip to the better Pixar movies.


True, never thought of it that way. Then again I have always though Up was one of only two Pixar movies that did not deserve the Best animated Oscar (Up because Secret of Kells and Fantastic Mr Fox are genius and Ratatouille because it's rubbish and does not compare to Persepolis.)

Haruki-kun
2012-01-10, 09:18 AM
Do not pick the incredibles or ratatouille. The latter because it's as boring as hell and has a downer ending.

....how is that a downer ending?

The food critic turns into a guy who can actually enjoy the little things in life and he invests in their new restaurant, which they now operate quite happily, Colette and Linguini end up together, and Remi ends up doing what he always wanted to do with his life, which his father now approves of?

Heck, that's how I hope MY life ends.

DiscipleofBob
2012-01-10, 09:26 AM
I'd skip Up and save that first twenty minutes for a "Most Depressing Movies Ever" marathon. Plus after that I spent the rest of the movie thinking of ways I'd like to see the fat kid get offed. Man, he was annoying.

Gotta admit, not a big fan of Toy Story, but that's probably just due to overexposure.

Wall-E
The Incredibles
Ratatouille
Cars lolno.
If you can find it, there's one that's just a collection of the various Pixar shorts, some of which are vastly superior to nearly the entirety of the Pixar library.

Also, looking forward to Brave and "The Untitled Pixar Movie About Dinosaurs" according to Wikipedia.

Sunken Valley
2012-01-10, 09:43 AM
....how is that a downer ending?

The food critic turns into a guy who can actually enjoy the little things in life and he invests in their new restaurant, which they now operate quite happily, Colette and Linguini end up together, and Remi ends up doing what he always wanted to do with his life, which his father now approves of?

Heck, that's how I hope MY life ends.

The restaurant gets shut down, the villain gets a karma houdini, the critic loses his job, Linguni loses his father's legacy, all the other chef's think he's crazy and probably spread it around. Then there's the wacky stuff. The restaurant's future is uncertain due to the fact that everyone thinks Linguini's mad, the villain has nothing preventing the rise of his ready meal empire, Remi dies in 6 months due to his lifespan and worst of all the other rat's know of Remi's puppeteering. Meaning an invasion of rat's pulling our hair will occur enslaving us all.

I for one, welcome our vermin overlords. Do you?



This still doesn't change the fact that it is boring, lacking in imagination and did not deserve to win the animated feature oscar 2008. Persepolis for Oscar! Persepolis for Oscar!

CoffeeIncluded
2012-01-10, 09:48 AM
Personally I'd say go for all of them. If you want continuity, then pick the Toy Story trilogy followed by...I'd say...Wall-E/Up/Ratatouille. If you want the best, I'd say...Toy Story 2/Toy Story 3/Wall-E/Up/Ratatouille.

What? I'm partial to Ratatouille. I love good food and it perfectly captures the joy of creative creation.

Really, you can't go wrong with just watching all of them.

Sunken Valley
2012-01-10, 09:53 AM
Really, you can't go wrong with just watching all of them.

Cars 2. That is all

Karoht
2012-01-10, 10:32 AM
Cars 2 is that good? Awesome. I'll add it to the list. Even though I've never seen it.
/obvious sarcasm

Man, this list is getting tricky.
In the real world logistics of this marathon, I'm very tempted to rent a hall. I also popped off an email to Pixar, just to be very very certain I'm not stepping on toes. Just want to be really really certain to not inadvertantly disrespect these awesome people. Already the potential guest list is approaching 30 (mostly due to some people just inviting themselves, thats what I get for posting about it on Facebook), so we want to make sure we have space, room for food, seating, etc.

Haruki-kun
2012-01-10, 11:06 AM
The restaurant gets shut down, the villain gets a karma houdini, the critic loses his job, Linguni loses his father's legacy, all the other chef's think he's crazy and probably spread it around. Then there's the wacky stuff. The restaurant's future is uncertain due to the fact that everyone thinks Linguini's mad, the villain has nothing preventing the rise of his ready meal empire, Remi dies in 6 months due to his lifespan and worst of all the other rat's know of Remi's puppeteering. Meaning an invasion of rat's pulling our hair will occur enslaving us all.

I for one, welcome our vermin overlords. Do you?




The restaurant gets shut down.
Yes, and Linguini, Remi and Collette, open a new one.


the villain gets a karma houdini, the critic loses his job, Linguni loses his father's legacy,
The villain ends up with no job or career, Linguini does not lose his father's legacy. Skinner no longer has the rights on Gusteau's name. The critic is, to quote the movie "doing quite well as a small business investor".


The restaurant's future is uncertain due to the fact that everyone thinks Linguini's mad, the villain has nothing preventing the rise of his ready meal empire
The restaurant is fine. There were people lining up on the street, and presumably the restaurant got quite good reviews. If the other chefs spread around that Linguini is mad, it took no effect whatsoever, considering his restaurant is doing well, too.
As I pointed out, Skinner loses the rights to Gusteau's name, therefore his ready meal empire is dead.


Remi dies in 6 months due to his lifespan
Yes, but everyone dies at some point. They'll be very sad when he dies, but Colette and Linguini will be fine. Collette's been learning from Remi all this time and she's quite a good chef herself. Pointing this out is like pointing out that Carl Fredericksen will die soon after Up ends, anyway because he's old.


and worst of all the other rat's know of Remi's puppeteering. Meaning an invasion of rat's pulling our hair will occur enslaving us all.

I think you're reading too much into that. Linguini wasn't being mind-controlled, he could have easily swatted Remi out of his head.

Brother Oni
2012-01-10, 01:55 PM
If the other chefs spread around that Linguini is mad, it took no effect whatsoever, considering his restaurant is doing well, too.


Further to this,


All the other chefs are somewhat eccentric as well, from being ex-convicts, former circus acrobats to terrorist gun smugglers. If Linguini believes (to them) that a rat can control him like a puppet and is responsible for his cooking ability, then they're hardly one to point fingers. :smalltongue:

Dr.Epic
2012-01-10, 02:10 PM
Do not pick the incredibles or ratatouille. The latter because it's as boring as hell and has a downer ending. And the former because it produces a sick, twisted and corrupted message.

The film "claims" that society is opressing super powered people and that people who are stronger and better than us should command us. That may be true but it's not what I expect from a film as the aesop. I expect that from a morally grey film or one of those villain speeches where they are right all along (like moriarty in the new sherlock holmes film). Not as the happy ending.

No. No, that's not the message all. The message in the Incredibles is be proud of your strength, and that some people are better than others and they should be praised for their talents. It's not to be ashamed of who you are and how much better you may be at something than most. I really liked this theme especially given it was in a kid's movie during a time when most kid's movie put forth the idea we should all be treated like winners regardless of skill. One of my favorite quotes from the film is "When everyone's super, no one will be." That film really didn't talk down to it's audience which is a great and often rare thing in children's movies.

Kindablue
2012-01-10, 03:23 PM
No. No, that's not the message all. The message in the Incredibles is be proud of your strength, and that some people are better than others and they should be praised for their talents. It's not to be ashamed of who you are and how much better you may be at something than most. I really liked this theme especially given it was in a kid's movie during a time when most kid's movie put forth the idea we should all be treated like winners regardless of skill. One of my favorite quotes from the film is "When everyone's super, no one will be." That film really didn't talk down to it's audience which is a great and often rare thing in children's movies.

"Harrison Bergeron, but with superheroes."

Karoht
2012-01-10, 04:05 PM
No. No, that's not the message all. The message in the Incredibles is be proud of your strength, and that some people are better than others and they should be praised for their talents. It's not to be ashamed of who you are and how much better you may be at something than most. I really liked this theme especially given it was in a kid's movie during a time when most kid's movie put forth the idea we should all be treated like winners regardless of skill. One of my favorite quotes from the film is "When everyone's super, no one will be." That film really didn't talk down to it's audience which is a great and often rare thing in children's movies.

Strong people who are told to not be strong and be normal. Being normal is boring and frustrating and downright challenging. Then being allowed to show off that strength and save the day. It is interesting how some people took to this well and some who took to it negatively.

@Sunken Valley
It never said that any group should be in charge. Rather, the Supers (as a group, Bob somewhat being an oddball here) allowing the non-Supers to tell them what to do speaks to acceptance of current authority, not defiance of it.
The villain saying he's going to ruin Superheroism by bringing everyone on par does not speak to "the strong should rule" but rather that everyone should be equal. Interesting motive for a villian, especially one who is supposed to be a spoof of both fandom AND troped saturday morning cartoon show villians.

Imagine if you were a pro baseball player. You have a bad game or two, you get busted down to the minor leagues. You're not allowed to tell anyone who you are, and you have to intentionally be a sub-par player, and be berated/judged for being sub-par, when you know you could just wind that bat at any second and put that ball out of the park. Imagine how frustrating that would be. For anyone who has tasted that kind of glory, and then being told you're not allowed to ever taste it again... I shudder just thinking about how aweful that would be.
That's the main character.
Then he's given a chance to put a few out of the park. Be himself instead of living a lie. And he revells in it.
Then the bad guy threatens to do it all over again. And to take away everything else that makes him special at the same time, namely his family.
Granted, the character makes mistakes, like lying to his wife, which is made a big point of, and his entire foray into being a Super again is also against the law. They make a big deal about that. The character even admits to being weak to even screw up like that. While his wife isn't exactly happy about it, they all empathize with him on some level because they've also been frustrated in living the same lie, even on their smaller scale.

Then they team up, kick butt, rescue baby, save day.

Sorry, I'm just not seeing a "ruled over by superior beings" message anywhere in there.

Dr.Epic
2012-01-10, 04:41 PM
Does anyone else kind of think Wall-E is just the better version of Space Mutiny but animated:

-takes place in the distant future
-Earth has become so polluted man can not live on it
-all of humanity resides on spaceship
-there's a mutiny on a spaceship

Too bad Reb Brown couldn't play the title character.:smallwink:

Xondoure
2012-01-10, 04:57 PM
Up, Finding Nemo, the Incredibles, Toy Story 3.

Edit: Incredibles moral: I always saw it as a kid who never really understood that being a hero was more than just a game, and how dangerous it can be to live in those delusions even when you are incredibly talented. Especially when. Also not lying, sticking out for those close to you, and accepting what you can do.

Brother Oni
2012-01-11, 03:06 AM
With regard to The Incredibles, it also points to the fact that real strength doesn't come from physical prowess, but internally.

This is best exemplified (in my opinion) with the best scene in the film where Bob says he's not strong enough to lose his wife and children again.

It's also seen in Violet who has significant self confidence issues, which subsequently leads out into her erratic powers.

Talya
2012-01-11, 11:55 PM
How do you pick only 4?

If forced to pick...

The Incredibles
Up
Wall-E
Finding Nemo

I feel terrible for leaving any of the Toy Story movies, or Monsters, Inc., or Rattatouille off the list.

While Cars, A Bug's Life, and Cars 2 were all entertaining enough, they easily fall to the side when discussing great movies, because they were merely good, not great. No studio is perfect. When a movie with as many laughs and giggles as Cars2 is your worst effort, you've got a good track record.

Battleship789
2012-01-12, 01:26 AM
Start off with Cars. Blasphemy, to some of you, but I like it a lot.
Slow things down a bit with Up.
Follow the semi-depressing story with the happy-go-lucky Monsters Inc.
Finish with the awesomeness of the Incredibles.

Avilan the Grey
2012-01-12, 02:04 AM
Start off with Cars. Blasphemy, to some of you, but I like it a lot.
Slow things down a bit with Up.
Follow the semi-depressing story with the happy-go-lucky Monsters Inc.
Finish with the awesomeness of the Incredibles.

Speaking of Cars, I have never understood the bad rep it has with some people (not talking about Cars 2 here). I know it is just a matter of taste, but I also don't get the hype that Ratatouille gets from a lot of people (mainly people, though, who are not cartoon lovers to begin with). It is a sweet story, but I feel it is not re-watchable on the same level as other Pixar movies.

DiscipleofBob
2012-01-12, 09:55 AM
Speaking of Cars, I have never understood the bad rep it has with some people (not talking about Cars 2 here). I know it is just a matter of taste, but I also don't get the hype that Ratatouille gets from a lot of people (mainly people, though, who are not cartoon lovers to begin with). It is a sweet story, but I feel it is not re-watchable on the same level as other Pixar movies.

Cars has car-Owen Wilson and car-Larry the Cable Guy. That's enough to garner disdain from a lot of people (myself included). Not to mention that to me at least the romantic relationships between talking cars is a little more disturbing once you start to take into account certain... "logistics."

I liked Ratatouille, but then again at the time I was watching a lot of Food Network stuff so the material appealed to me a bit more I guess.

Venom3053000
2012-01-12, 11:04 AM
strange i thought that the moral of the incredibles is don't wear a cape :smallbiggrin:

Haruki-kun
2012-01-12, 01:46 PM
Speaking of Cars, I have never understood the bad rep it has with some people (not talking about Cars 2 here). I know it is just a matter of taste, but I also don't get the hype that Ratatouille gets from a lot of people (mainly people, though, who are not cartoon lovers to begin with). It is a sweet story, but I feel it is not re-watchable on the same level as other Pixar movies.

For me the problem with Cars was that Pixar had thus far made a difference between "Entertainment for the whole family" meaning "the whole family can watch and enjoy it" or meaning "it keeps the kids quiet for 117 minutes".

I felt that all other Pixar movies were the former. I went to see several of them while being in my late teens and young adult years and still enjoyed them vastly. But Cars... I just felt like I was just watching a cartoon meant to entertain children. Which is not bad in itself, it IS a children's movie, but the others were children's movies that adults could also enjoy. With Cars I just wanted to turn the TV off and leave. (I watched it on TV a year or so after its release.) My 4-year old cousins, though, were enjoying it.

That's my take on Cars 1. Cars 2 I never saw.

Karoht
2012-01-12, 05:47 PM
Start off with Cars. Blasphemy, to some of you, but I like it a lot.
Slow things down a bit with Up.
Follow the semi-depressing story with the happy-go-lucky Monsters Inc.
Finish with the awesomeness of the Incredibles.
I must say that I rather enjoy the peak and valley this potentially sets up. Interesting.

Battleship789
2012-01-12, 06:48 PM
For me the problem with Cars was that Pixar had thus far made a difference between "Entertainment for the whole family" meaning "the whole family can watch and enjoy it" or meaning "it keeps the kids quiet for 117 minutes".

I felt that all other Pixar movies were the former. I went to see several of them while being in my late teens and young adult years and still enjoyed them vastly. But Cars... I just felt like I was just watching a cartoon meant to entertain children. Which is not bad in itself, it IS a children's movie, but the others were children's movies that adults could also enjoy. With Cars I just wanted to turn the TV off and leave. (I watched it on TV a year or so after its release.) My 4-year old cousins, though, were enjoying it.

That's my take on Cars 1. Cars 2 I never saw.

Hmmm, guess I just have a different opinion, as I greatly enjoyed watching Cars when it was released (I think I was 17 when the first came out? Just checked release date, I was almost 16.) and still enjoy it today at 21.

To DiscipleofBob: if one of your largest problems with Cars was the..."logistics" problems with vehicles, then would it be too far of a stretch that you disliked Toy Story (1-3), WALL-E, and possibly a Bug's Life and Monster's Inc. for the same reasons?

Knaight
2012-01-12, 06:54 PM
Ratatouille
A Bug's Life
Up
Toy Story

DiscipleofBob
2012-01-12, 06:58 PM
To DiscipleofBob: if one of your largest problems with Cars was the..."logistics" problems with vehicles, then would it be too far of a stretch that you disliked Toy Story (1-3), WALL-E, and possibly a Bug's Life and Monster's Inc. for the same reasons?

Not as much. I don't think about it as much as this post seems to suggest, but A Bug's Life and Monsters Inc still had life forms, and organic at that. Same deal with Toy Story, the only hinted relationships were still humanoid even if they were Ken Dolls (sometimes literally), plus they didn't really need to reproduce since they were toys in a human world. Wall-E just had the one relationship between Wall-E and Eva which I saw as more of a cute puppy love sort of thing (plus I'm sure there are programs or attachments for that sort of-DEAR GOD WHY AM I GOING THERE?)

Cars on the other hand takes place in a world inhabited by nothing but car-based life forms, and while nothing explicit is said or done (kids film and all) there are references, like the two fangirl cars, talking about certain cars getting together, and the one girl-car's "tramp stamp." Even the animals are car-based life forms. Maybe the idea of physical relationships are just referenced more in Cars, what with car-Owen and car-Larry crude humor and flirtations with girl-car, but at some point my brain tried to process that information and I got an "Error 404. File not found. Shame on you."

Knaight
2012-01-12, 07:11 PM
Not as much. I don't think about it as much as this post seems to suggest, but A Bug's Life and Monsters Inc still had life forms, and organic at that. Same deal with Toy Story, the only hinted relationships were still humanoid even if they were Ken Dolls (sometimes literally), plus they didn't really need to reproduce since they were toys in a human world. Wall-E just had the one relationship between Wall-E and Eva which I saw as more of a cute puppy love sort of thing (plus I'm sure there are programs or attachments for that sort of-DEAR GOD WHY AM I GOING THERE?)

Regarding Wall-E: Both Wall-E and Eve, as well as the rest of the robots were built for a purpose, and were capable of fulfilling their purposes. They were just also over-engineered and capable of rather a lot in addition to that. Cars, however, had a bunch of vehicles existing in a world where there was nobody who needed transportation. The larger trucks that can move small cars make sense given the rest of the movie, but the Cars aesthetic is just abject nonsense relative to the Wall-E aesthetic.

Dumbledore lives
2012-01-12, 07:26 PM
The problem I find that people have with Cars is that they could have been people. They could have been people driving race cars and it wouldn't have changed the plot at all, as opposed to all the other films where the setting is intrinsic to the plot. People also feel it didn't deserve a sequel, so it garnered some hate there, especially with the lukewarm reception of 2.

Xondoure
2012-01-12, 08:14 PM
Only pixar film I feel needs a sequel at this point is the Incredibles. Everything else works best as a standalone story in my opinion.

edit: And Toy Story is already an amazing trilogy. No need for a fourth. Really.

McStabbington
2012-01-12, 08:44 PM
Up
Wall-E
The Incredibles
Toy Story/Monsters Inc.

Toy Story is objectively a better movie, but I've always had a soft spot for Boo.

I would also add regarding the moral of The Incredibles that there has always been an undercurrent who read it as a manifesto for the strong being able to do what they will and the weak suffering what they must, but I don't think that reflects the movie so much as what people brought to the movie. Put simply, Mr. Incredible is not John Galt. While they are both written as being supermen of sorts, Mr. Incredible doesn't use his powers to make his own life better. He gives his talents away freely to help others. And in what is one of the most touching moments I've ever seen, he admits that he's not strong enough to endure losing his wife and kids. In short, being able to bench press a train car is what Mr. Incredible can do. Facing death because his care for others runs that deep is who he is, and it's his empathy that truly makes him Mr. Incredible.

Karoht
2012-01-12, 09:36 PM
Only pixar film I feel needs a sequel at this point is the Incredibles. Everything else works best as a standalone story in my opinion.

edit: And Toy Story is already an amazing trilogy. No need for a fourth. Really.
Monsters Inc 2 is coming out some time soon.
I doubt they're going to do a Toy Story 4, but most of the voice cast said that they are up for it.
Wall-E and it's world could stand with some fleshing out, but probably does not need a whole sequel to do it, therefore it's likely best left to the imagination.

As for Incredibles, yes. I totally want more of that. And I would laugh if Pixar can pull off not one but two Fantastic Four films and Fox couldn't.
Yeah, I know The Incredibles and Fantastic Four are not the same thing, but you really can't shrug off the similarities. I recall Pixar saying that they aren't likely to do an Incredibles sequel unless they can find a Villian and a script with enough depth, and so far they just haven't come up with anything that wasn't already done better elsewhere. And such a deep script probably wouldn't have as many homages or spoofs, and just wouldn't be as much fun.


@Monsters Inc 2
Just checked Wiki really quick. Nov 2nd or somewhere around there. So not long after Brave, which looks to be incredible.

Haruki-kun
2012-01-12, 09:59 PM
Only pixar film I feel needs a sequel at this point is the Incredibles. Everything else works best as a standalone story in my opinion.

edit: And Toy Story is already an amazing trilogy. No need for a fourth. Really.

Agreed on both.


I would also add regarding the moral of The Incredibles that there has always been an undercurrent who read it as a manifesto for the strong being able to do what they will and the weak suffering what they must, but I don't think that reflects the movie so much as what people brought to the movie. Put simply, Mr. Incredible is not John Galt. While they are both written as being supermen of sorts, Mr. Incredible doesn't use his powers to make his own life better. He gives his talents away freely to help others. And in what is one of the most touching moments I've ever seen, he admits that he's not strong enough to endure losing his wife and kids. In short, being able to bench press a train car is what Mr. Incredible can do. Facing death because his care for others runs that deep is who he is, and it's his empathy that truly makes him Mr. Incredible.

YES! Thank you! :smallbiggrin:

I've always thought The Incredibles is a very deep and intricate plot hidden behind what appears to be a simple friday night superhero film.

thegurullamen
2012-01-12, 11:22 PM
The real problem I've always had with Cars, and I had to have a review put this into words for me because I was unable to articulate it myself, is that there is no real conflict. Compared to the other films, it's just so hard to care about the characters' problems because they're minor or their motivations are unbelievable. For example, the town dying, while a bad thing, isn't as final or life-shattering as losing your son (Nemo), family (Incredibles) or hope for a better life (...pretty much all of them, in one way or another). If the town were to die, the cars would mourn, but they would move on. Some for the better, some for the worst, but life would continue and it's hard to see how it would really hurt anyone besides the old Model T.

The same thing applies to the Piston Cup thing. It's important to Lightning, but only so far as his ego is concerned. If he hadn't made it to the race, would it have affected him beyond one lost (and arguably unneeded) sponsorship and some chiding from Chick? Hardly consequential in the long term.

The Hudson Hornet plot. Doc liked his life in Radiator Springs. If Lightning had never come along, it's not hard to believe he would have died years later a very happy man. (Does this fly in the face of the town dying point? Not really--the movie didn't make it a point to bring up that the town dying was a sore spot for Doc, or even have him acknowledge the fact. It just leaves Doc as a gold-hearted curmudgeon who's oblivious of anything going on regarding the future of the town. If the movie's not going to mine his feelings about the town for all of the drama it's worth, it's hard to care about the possibility here.) As far as that plot is concerned, there wasn't much at stake one way or another there.

Don't get me wrong though. I do like Cars--I tend to watch it about twice a year and regardless of the reviews, I still intend to watch the sequel--it's just that the movie does have its flaws and most of them can be found in the story structure.

Karoht
2012-01-13, 12:00 AM
For example, the town dying, while a bad thing, isn't as final or life-shattering as losing your son (Nemo), family (Incredibles) or hope for a better life (...pretty much all of them, in one way or another). If the town were to die, the cars would mourn, but they would move on. Some for the better, some for the worst, but life would continue and it's hard to see how it would really hurt anyone besides the old Model T.Before watching the film, I had this weird urge to watch some of the making of stuff on the DVD. And I'm glad I did. They detailed some of the inspiration, stuff like ole Route 66 and the potential loss of such a culture icon. To me, this made it easier to empathize with the potential loss of the town, and connect the towns people attempting to help him win the cup as their victory and the town's victory as well. Mcqueen stopping and pushing the other car across the line was acknowledgement to that older time, those ideals and manners, that sense of justice from a time that some look back upon fondly and think 'those were the days.'

Granted, that means that supplimental material made the narrative better for me, and that the narrative didn't sell this point on it's own. Which is why I will fully agree, it was a weak narrative and difficult to empathize with the characters.

As for the Piston Cup race itself, it was important to Lightning in the beginning. In the end it became important to the towns people, who had accepted him, kind of like family. Again those old fashioned ideals came through.
It also struck me as a realization of true sportsmanship. At the beginning of the film Lightning followed the phrase "Winning isn't everything. It is the only thing." By the end of the film he had come to realize that there was more than just winning that was important, "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game."

I dunno, maybe the movie spoke to my inner nostalgia freak more than any other part of my brain.

dehro
2012-01-13, 05:36 AM
strange i thought that the moral of the incredibles is don't wear a cape :smallbiggrin:

nope...that's just common sense.


Only pixar film I feel needs a sequel at this point is the Incredibles.

does it really? I fear little whatshisname will turn into a Gary Stu..
if they do work on it though...I'd love to see it take on a "dark" vein..say disgruntled ex supers turning to the dark side, or new super villains (if I remember correctly, all supers were heroes before the great wave of lawsuits)

Avilan the Grey
2012-01-13, 05:44 AM
The real problem I've always had with Cars, and I had to have a review put this into words for me because I was unable to articulate it myself, is that there is no real conflict. (and stuff)

But this is no different from Ratatouille, really. Nothing that happens there is of any real importance for anyone outside the restaurant.

Or 99% of any movie that has to do with sports. Miracle... cute movie, based on a real story, but neither in the movie or IRL the victory over the Soviet hockey team were really that important. No real conflict. Etc.

I like Cars, it is one of my favorite cartoon feature films. But then I am also in love with classic cars, the mythology surrounding Route 66, and it's cultural and historical heritage. Of course, as my wife tells me all the time, I am not an American (she is) and therefore I am naive enough to believe in "myth America" unlike Americans. :smallbiggrin:

Mewtarthio
2012-01-13, 10:23 AM
(if I remember correctly, all supers were heroes before the great wave of lawsuits)

Bomb Voyage seemed kind of villainous to me. Also, while the Underminer showed up after the lawsuits, I'm not sure if he was directly affected by them on account of living underground.

Ravens_cry
2012-01-13, 10:25 AM
Regarding Wall-E: Both Wall-E and Eve, as well as the rest of the robots were built for a purpose, and were capable of fulfilling their purposes. They were just also over-engineered and capable of rather a lot in addition to that. Cars, however, had a bunch of vehicles existing in a world where there was nobody who needed transportation. The larger trucks that can move small cars make sense given the rest of the movie, but the Cars aesthetic is just abject nonsense relative to the Wall-E aesthetic.
Also, EVE and WALL-E both were designed to do their tasks independently of human intervention, so intelligence, if not the anthropic intelligence we see, makes a good deal of sense.
Making the rest sentient didn't make as much sense, but not all of them were, or at least I hope not. Otherwise the rampaging game robot is serial killer.
I love Wall-E, I do, it made me cry, it made me laugh, it gave me that wonderful goosebumps feeling of awe and delight.
Two words: "Define dancing."

dehro
2012-01-13, 11:20 AM
Bomb Voyage seemed kind of villainous to me. Also, while the Underminer showed up after the lawsuits, I'm not sure if he was directly affected by them on account of living underground.

an underground vessel doth not a super make.
neither Bomb Voyage, the Underminer or Syndrome displayed any actual superpowers. being rich/successful/good with bombs doesn't really qualify

Herpestidae
2012-01-13, 11:47 AM
an underground vessel doth not a super make.
neither Bomb Voyage, the Underminer or Syndrome displayed any actual superpowers. being rich/successful/good with bombs doesn't really qualify

It's my own headcanon that Syndrome had super-intelligence; how else could he rig jet boots at age 8?

Ravens_cry
2012-01-13, 11:52 AM
an underground vessel doth not a super make.
neither Bomb Voyage, the Underminer or Syndrome displayed any actual superpowers. being rich/successful/good with bombs doesn't really qualify
It did make him a supervillain.
Look at the Joker. Aside from meta powers of plot immunity, he doesn't exactly have any superpowers either.
Even the main villain of the piece, Syndrome, didn't exactly have superpowers either, at least not in an overt sense.

dehro
2012-01-13, 12:14 PM
It's my own headcanon that Syndrome had super-intelligence; how else could he rig jet boots at age 8?

ACME mail order??
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Wile_E_Coyote.gif

Caesar
2012-01-13, 01:48 PM
Up, followed by the Toy Story trilogy in order? :smalltongue:

On a more serious note, Up, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Monsters Inc.


A Studio Ghibili marathon would depend much more on the target audience (Mononoke Hime is one of my favourites, but I wouldn't show it to children and Grave of the Fireflies I wouldn't include in any light-hearted entertainment programme).


This list. Exactly. Tho if they should be in order, I would say Up, The Incredibles (a cooler movie, but Up was more touching), Monsters Inc., and Finding Nemo.

thegurullamen
2012-01-13, 02:00 PM
Granted, that means that supplimental material made the narrative better for me, and that the narrative didn't sell this point on it's own. Which is why I will fully agree, it was a weak narrative and difficult to empathize with the characters.

Same thing for me; I love reading about cultures and cultural traditions and 50's-esque Americana is one of those things I've read up on, so I came into the movie with the 'baggage' needed to appreciate it the way that I do. I wonder if they could add some scenes in a future re-release that would flesh out the theme a little more. Sure, it's revisionism, but I think most Pixar fans would approve if it was done well.


But this is no different from Ratatouille, really. Nothing that happens there is of any real importance for anyone outside the restaurant.

Or 99% of any movie that has to do with sports. Miracle... cute movie, based on a real story, but neither in the movie or IRL the victory over the Soviet hockey team were really that important. No real conflict. Etc.

Possibly, but I think Ratatouille handles the heart of its story--accepting yourself and those around you for who they are--better than Cars, which sort of spoon feeds it to you from time to time. It's easier for us to relate to Remy because his struggles are not being told to us, they're being shown in various ways, as are the struggles of his family and friends.

I would like to know more about this 'myth America' of which you speak. I think I have an idea of what you mean, but I'd like to verify. It sounds intriguing.

Karoht
2012-01-13, 05:32 PM
Regarding Wall-E: Both Wall-E and Eve, as well as the rest of the robots were built for a purpose, and were capable of fulfilling their purposes. They were just also over-engineered and capable of rather a lot in addition to that. Cars, however, had a bunch of vehicles existing in a world where there was nobody who needed transportation. The larger trucks that can move small cars make sense given the rest of the movie, but the Cars aesthetic is just abject nonsense relative to the Wall-E aesthetic.

It's Disney. Talking animals are a norm now. Music numbers in the middle of a forest with no audience (other than us) are a norm now.

Talking cars? In a world where there is no need for cars? And it's a Disney picture?
Still in my normal zone.

Brother Oni
2012-01-14, 10:33 AM
And in what is one of the most touching moments I've ever seen, he admits that he's not strong enough to endure losing his wife and kids.

Lose his wife and children again.

He's been there once and has no wish or confidence in his personal strength to make it through another time.

Knaight
2012-01-14, 09:04 PM
It's Disney. Talking animals are a norm now. Music numbers in the middle of a forest with no audience (other than us) are a norm now.

Talking cars? In a world where there is no need for cars? And it's a Disney picture?
Still in my normal zone.

Pixar and standard Disney are very different, and Pixar tends not to have the characters break into song.

Avilan the Grey
2012-01-14, 09:15 PM
A world where monsters builds a society powered by the screams of kids?
Fish that talk?
Living Toys?
Cars that talk?

Why would the fourth one be more unbelievable than the others?

Axolotl
2012-01-14, 09:20 PM
I always assumed that Cars was a sequel a Stephen King short story where vehicles become sentient and kill all the humans. It makes the whole thing more funny in a dark way. (Interestingly enough Alan Moore wrote an identical story to King).

Ravens_cry
2012-01-15, 10:52 AM
A world where monsters builds a society powered by the screams of kids?
Fish that talk?
Living Toys?
Cars that talk?

Why would the fourth one be more unbelievable than the others?
Because the fish are animals, they can exist without human intervention.
The toys of 'Toy Story' may be artefacts, but they exist in a world with artefact builders, the humans.
But in 'Cars', 'Cars' you have artefacts, said automobiles, but without anyone who could have built them.
For some of us, myself included, that is unnerving.

Knaight
2012-01-15, 03:47 PM
Because the fish are animals, they can exist without human intervention.
The toys of 'Toy Story' may be artefacts, but they exist in a world with artefact builders, the humans.
But in 'Cars', 'Cars' you have artefacts, said automobiles, but without anyone who could have built them.
For some of us, myself included, that is unnerving.
Plus, they are vehicles on top of that. They are things which carry things, only they have nothing to carry. They have seats that are clearly built for beings that don't exist in universe, and are just all sorts of weird as a result.

Ravens_cry
2012-01-15, 10:57 PM
Plus, they are vehicles on top of that. They are things which carry things, only they have nothing to carry. They have seats that are clearly built for beings that don't exist in universe, and are just all sorts of weird as a result.
Indeed. Toy Story admittedly has it's own terrors, some of which were addressed in Toy Story 3, but Cars?
That <expletive redacted/> is messed up, man.

DiscipleofBob
2012-01-16, 09:12 AM
Plus, they are vehicles on top of that. They are things which carry things, only they have nothing to carry. They have seats that are clearly built for beings that don't exist in universe, and are just all sorts of weird as a result.

In the land of mechanical beings without opposable thumbs or hands of any sort, clearly Mater is some sort of evolved god for havine a prehensile hook.

That, and the one thing that Cars doesn't have that Finding Nemo, Toy Story, and Monsters Inc do is consistency with the human world. The latter three supposedly exist in the real world with humans and all, just they represent a facet of the world undiscovered by humans.

Though admittedly, the scene with Woody and the deranged toys confronting the bratty neighbor kid always unnerved me. If all toys are sentient and can choose to be sentient whenever, why do they all stay quiet? Especially the ones like Buzz who don't initially recognize themselves as toys?

Haruki-kun
2012-01-16, 10:29 AM
Though admittedly, the scene with Woody and the deranged toys confronting the bratty neighbor kid always unnerved me. If all toys are sentient and can choose to be sentient whenever, why do they all stay quiet? Especially the ones like Buzz who don't initially recognize themselves as toys?

I usually assume it was a natural reflex thing with Buzz. As for the rest of the toys... well, yes, they could, but why would they? It looks like an easy road to getting thrown away, burned, and maybe even have humans stop making more toys. I'm reminded of "why do Harry Potter Wizards stay in hiding?" There's consistency with the real world, as you pointed out.

DiscipleofBob
2012-01-16, 11:24 AM
I usually assume it was a natural reflex thing with Buzz. As for the rest of the toys... well, yes, they could, but why would they? It looks like an easy road to getting thrown away, burned, and maybe even have humans stop making more toys. I'm reminded of "why do Harry Potter Wizards stay in hiding?" There's consistency with the real world, as you pointed out.

Oh, sure, I'm sure the majority would stay quiet as being played with is apparently the end goal for all toys, but all it takes is one Spawn action figure not realizing he's a toy and threatening some poor kid with hellfire, or some GI-Joe's to go all Small Soldiers on people, and suddenly people would be asking a lot of questions.

PhantomFox
2012-01-16, 12:27 PM
I agree that going limp is an involuntary reflex for the toys that takes some effort to overcome.

Ravens_cry
2012-01-16, 12:45 PM
I agree that going limp is an involuntary reflex for the toys that takes some effort to overcome.

That seems logical. Even Buzz, when he thought he was 'real', didn't blow the masquerade.

Dr.Epic
2012-01-16, 02:22 PM
Bomb Voyage seemed kind of villainous to me. Also, while the Underminer showed up after the lawsuits, I'm not sure if he was directly affected by them on account of living underground.

"I live beneath you! But nothing is beneath the Underminer!"

I love this guy! He's a cheesy Silver Age villain.

That's another thing I love about the Incredibles. It seamlessly combined all the different ages of comics and superheroes: the grit, the cheese, and the serious moments.

DiscipleofBob
2012-01-16, 02:29 PM
See, I once read a children's book with a similar premise to Toy Story (animated, talking toys, etc.) but they had a good reason for not always coming alive: If they were ever caught being someplace other than where they were last left, said toy would immediately lose any life in him and become completely inanimate and lifeless...


Unless they were revived via abstract Christmas miracle.


But Toy Story doesn't have that. In fact, ANY abusive kid in that universe would probably have to deal with their toys making death threats.


"Daddy, instead of toys this year, can I have a baseball bat? ... Yes, for sports. That's definitely the reason, and not for self-defense." O_O

Ravens_cry
2012-01-16, 02:29 PM
"I live beneath you! But nothing is beneath the Underminer!"

I love this guy! He's a cheesy Silver Age villain.

That's another thing I love about the Incredibles. It seamlessly combined all the different ages of comics and superheroes: the grit, the cheese, and the serious moments.

One could even argue it did the grit better than 97.3% of Dark age comics as we actually had reasons to care about the characters.

Karoht
2012-01-16, 06:47 PM
Pixar and standard Disney are very different, and Pixar tends not to have the characters break into song.
Curse you. Now I want to see if Pixar can nail a musical. Even though that is the last thing I want Pixar to do is be Disney.
I still think Pixar could out-musical their own parent company if they so chose to.


Even if Pixar and Disney are separate entities (they no longer are really), anything made by Pixar still has some people in the mindset that it is from Disney. Hence, oddities such as Cars really aren't all that odd to me.


Then again, I've always viewed fantasy as something you don't over-analyse. Partly because it ruins the illusion and on the far end of the spectrum you get things like rule 34, eventually. I'm not saying people should turn their brains off or anything, or even turn their brains off to enjoy it. But it is fantasy. Logic-defiance is sort of norm in fantasy.

And no, I'm not suggesting that anyone in this thread is too logical for fantasy or anything equally discouraging. Just saying.

Dr.Epic
2012-01-16, 07:44 PM
One could even argue it did the grit better than 97.3% of Dark age comics as we actually had reasons to care about the characters.

Meh, caring about the characters doesn't equal grit. Bitter realism equals grit, and the film really didn't talk down to kids or have too many light fluffy moments.

Karoht
2012-01-16, 07:48 PM
Meh, caring about the characters doesn't equal grit. Bitter realism equals grit, and the film really didn't talk down to kids or have too many light fluffy moments.Light fluffy moments aside, I don't think many of Pixar films talk down to kids. Not even Toy Story, or at least it doesn't seem that way.

Haruki-kun
2012-01-16, 07:58 PM
Even if Pixar and Disney are separate entities (they no longer are really),

Actually, they are. Pixar is operating under Disney, but Disney lets them work as they see fit. Besides, if I'm not mistaken, Pixar's executives are now also in charge of Disney Animation.

EDIT: Which... I suppose would get them a little closer to being one entity, but you still see big differences between their works...

Karoht
2012-01-16, 08:02 PM
Actually, they are. Pixar is operating under Disney, but Disney lets them work as they see fit. Besides, if I'm not mistaken, Pixar's executives are now also in charge of Disney Animation.

EDIT: Which... I suppose would get them a little closer to being one entity, but you still see big differences between their works...
I respectfully disagree. Read the wiki on the deal with Pix/Dis, the closing of Circle 7, etc. Yes, Pixar has it's autonomy now, but it's the same kind of autonomy that the parks have from the animation department. Also, John Lasseter now works directly for Disney.

I'm not claiming an evil partnership, heck, it's been rather positive so far. But for the most part they really just are less and less separate entities.

Ravens_cry
2012-01-16, 08:59 PM
Meh, caring about the characters doesn't equal grit. Bitter realism equals grit, and the film really didn't talk down to kids or have too many light fluffy moments.
You need to care about the character in all fiction. Otherwise, the events have no impact. Look at Bob Parr. We can feel his frustration at not been able to help people in his job at the insurance agency. Or Helen, a mother, literally, been pulled many directions at once. These are character who, while larger than life, are also drawn from feelings and sit we can all relate to.
When things happen to the characters, it hurts in a way that having one dimensional cardboard cut-outs like, say, Gunzgirlee and BludHuntz, just wouldn't no matter how much 'realism' was added.

Talya
2012-01-19, 12:08 PM
I respectfully disagree. Read the wiki on the deal with Pix/Dis, the closing of Circle 7, etc. Yes, Pixar has it's autonomy now, but it's the same kind of autonomy that the parks have from the animation department. Also, John Lasseter now works directly for Disney.

I'm not claiming an evil partnership, heck, it's been rather positive so far. But for the most part they really just are less and less separate entities.

Just a clarification: After the merger (which made the late Steve Jobs the single largest Disney shareholder), he made John Lasseter "Director of Disney Animation. The Pixar boss is in charge of Disney projects, not the other way around. All animated Disney projects now get direct approval from Lasseter.

Karoht
2012-01-19, 06:08 PM
Just a clarification: After the merger (which made the late Steve Jobs the single largest Disney shareholder), he made John Lasseter "Director of Disney Animation. The Pixar boss is in charge of Disney projects, not the other way around. All animated Disney projects now get direct approval from Lasseter.
Exactly.
Which, from a non-expert looking at it, comes across as the two companies getting closer together and less separate, not the other way around.

Mewtarthio
2012-01-19, 08:51 PM
Exactly.
Which, from a non-expert looking at it, comes across as the two companies getting closer together and less separate, not the other way around.

Is that a bad thing? I don't believe that Disney is corrupting Pixar's work. If anything, Pixar's been influencing Disney.

Jahkaivah
2012-01-19, 09:04 PM
Because the fish are animals, they can exist without human intervention.
The toys of 'Toy Story' may be artefacts, but they exist in a world with artefact builders, the humans.
But in 'Cars', 'Cars' you have artefacts, said automobiles, but without anyone who could have built them.
For some of us, myself included, that is unnerving.


Plus, they are vehicles on top of that. They are things which carry things, only they have nothing to carry. They have seats that are clearly built for beings that don't exist in universe, and are just all sorts of weird as a result.


Indeed. Toy Story admittedly has it's own terrors, some of which were addressed in Toy Story 3, but Cars?
That <expletive redacted/> is messed up, man.



That, and the one thing that Cars doesn't have that Finding Nemo, Toy Story, and Monsters Inc do is consistency with the human world. The latter three supposedly exist in the real world with humans and all, just they represent a facet of the world undiscovered by humans.

Incidentally, my Pixar crossover theory is that Cars takes during the period after humanity abandoned Earth on the Axiom.

One of Syndrome's plots was to fill the world with robots subservient to him under the guise of regular toys and cars.* The Toys we see develop personalities over time while the Cars are generally forced to remain lifeless due to their large size and programming which requires them to remain under cover.

With the humans gone the cars became free to move about and develop a whole new society based on the cultures humanity left behind, with time they all die and decay however resulting in the Earth we see in Wall-E.

*There is a bit of a complication with regard to old toys like Woody but it's not too much of a stretch that Syndrome began this at a young age during the 50s.

Karoht
2012-01-19, 10:10 PM
Is that a bad thing? I don't believe that Disney is corrupting Pixar's work. If anything, Pixar's been influencing Disney.It may not be, now. But there were years where Disney was very much influencing Pixar's work.

Toy Story 2 was going to be a direct to DVD sequel. Like so many other Disney sequels. Think about what that would have done to Pixar.

I'm all for Pixar influencing Disney's work, especially now with John Lasseter where he is, and the position works such that Disney isn't really going to have much influence on Pixar in return. I'm very glad the deal is beneficial, where in the past it was highly detrimental to Pixar.

Reverent-One
2012-01-19, 11:20 PM
It may not be, now. But there were years where Disney was very much influencing Pixar's work.

Toy Story 2 was going to be a direct to DVD sequel. Like so many other Disney sequels. Think about what that would have done to Pixar.


It would have given Pixar an excellent direct to DVD sequel?

thegurullamen
2012-01-19, 11:36 PM
It would have given Pixar an excellent direct to DVD sequel?

For one tenth the budget of the movie we got. I don't doubt Pixar's ability to turn that challenge into an enjoyable movie, but think of the message that would have sent to Disney--1) DtDVD sequels can work [and, God help us all, they might have kept coming after that], 2) Pixar's spending too much when they can easily cut corners and keep their profitability.

I hate Eisner.

Karoht
2012-01-19, 11:37 PM
It would have given Pixar an excellent direct to DVD sequel?

Would you call any of Disney's other Direct to Video/DVD sequels worth watching?

Here's a better view of the story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixar#Disney
Pixar was basically getting screwed by Disney at the time. Had this sequel gone through, not only would it have greately lowered the bar for Pixar films, but they basically wouldn't really have made any money on it.

We likely would not have got even half as good a film, it probably would have flopped, and Toy Story 3 likely would not have been made either.

Reverent-One
2012-01-19, 11:39 PM
Would you call any of Disney's other Direct to Video/DVD sequels worth watching?

How many of Disney's other Direct to DVD sequels were made by Pixar?

One of the reasons why Toy Story 2 switched over to a theatrical release was because the work Pixar was doing for it was that good.

Talya
2012-01-19, 11:42 PM
First thing John Lasseter did when he took over Disney Animation was immediately cancel all direct-to-dvd sequels just to cash in a story. Gone are the half-assed lower-tier animation studios. Everything gets the same attention now.

Also, to be fair, Disney's body of theatrical animated work has been outstanding for 75 years ever since Snow White first came out, and it's not like it has been in decline of late. Disney studios still have the creative genius they always did. Of course, Tangled was Lasseter's baby, but Princess & The Frog was great. In my personal opinion, the best movie Disney ever made was one hardly anybody bothered to see back in 1999... Mulan.

This isn't a situation where a great studio merged with a mediocre studio. These were the two best animation studios (albeit with very different styles) in the world, now working together. Most of the drek Dreamworks puts out doesn't even come close. ("How to Train Your Dragon" being a very noteworthy exception.)

Karoht
2012-01-19, 11:53 PM
First thing John Lasseter did when he took over Disney Animation was immediately cancel all direct-to-dvd sequels just to cash in a story. Gone are the half-assed lower-tier animation studios. Everything gets the same attention now.Which is good.

Back at the thread...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_home_entertainment#Sequels_and_Orig inal_Stories
Mulan 2?
Pocahontas 2?
Hunchback of Notre Dame 2?
Tarzan and Jane?
Lion King 2?
Any of those worth watching? Hardly. Your tastes may vary and all that jazz, but these were terrible, even for sequels.
There is no reason to suggest that Toy Story 2 made as a direct-to-home sequel under Disney's direction would have been any better, given their previous track record, had they not been green-lit for a theatrical sequel.

Cinderella III: A Twist in Time? Really Disney? Really? You just had not spat on Walt Disney's or Hans Christian Andersen's work enough? You had to create not one but two terribad sequels?

Don't get me started on the Aladdin sequels.

Either way, now the deal for them is good. It wasn't previously.

Side Note-I'm actually curious what John Lasseter could potentially pull off if given control of the parks. I think we'd have something either off the wall, or just a higher quality version of the parks we have now.
Oh, and Studio Ghibli would probably feature in there somewheres.

Reverent-One
2012-01-19, 11:58 PM
There is no reason to suggest that Toy Story 2 made as a direct-to-home sequel under Disney's direction would have been any better, given their previous track record, had they not been green-lit for a theatrical sequel.

Except for the big thing, which is that it was being made by Pixar. The fact that Pixar's early work on the movie was so good that Disney decided to green-light it for a theatrical release supports this.

Karoht
2012-01-20, 12:11 AM
Except for the big thing, which is that it was being made by Pixar. The fact that Pixar's early work on the movie was so good that Disney decided to green-light it for a theatrical release supports this.

All we know is that "the film was eventually upgraded to a theatrical release during production."
We have no way of knowing if this is due to quality, begging and pleading on the part of Pixar, or Disney coming to their senses and realizing that a theatre run + home sales > home sales alone. I would not bank on the former and would instead bank on it being a combination of the other two.

We also have no way of knowing if any of their original footage made it into the theatrical release, or if they started from scratch. Given the restart of production, odds are that original footage hit the cutting room floor.

Either way, we got the superior sequel out of the deal, rather than an inferior one.

Reverent-One
2012-01-20, 12:18 AM
All we know is that "the film was eventually upgraded to a theatrical release during production."
We have no way of knowing if this is due to quality, begging and pleading on the part of Pixar, or Disney coming to their senses and realizing that a theatre run + home sales > home sales alone. I would not bank on the former and would instead bank on it being a combination of the other two.


Oh really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Story_2#Development) It got upgraded because the Disney higher ups were impressed with the work and it was costing more than they expected. In other words, it got upgraded to a theatrical because Pixar was doing what they usually do and wasn't slacking off just because it was originally direct to DVD.

Ravens_cry
2012-01-20, 12:18 AM
Cinderella III: A Twist in Time? Really Disney? Really? You just had not spat on Walt Disney's or Hans Christian Andersen's work enough? You had to create not one but two terribad sequels?

What does Cinderella got to do with Hans Christian Anderson?
It's a much, much older story than him. I don't think he even had anything to do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella#Plot_.28Cenerentola.29) with the version with the glass slipper we most recognize today.
I think you might be thinking of the "The Little Mermaid".

DiscipleofBob
2012-01-20, 09:37 AM
I actually really liked the Aladdin sequels and the Lion King 2.

Sure, neither Return of Jafar or King of Thieves were as good as the original, but that's an awfully high standard to live up to. They were both good plotlines in their own right, and we get three awesome villain songs from those two movies.

The Lion King 2 might have some gaping plot holes, but I appreciate that they continued the whole Shakespeare on Safari theme. It's a good movie in itself.

Truth be told, I couldn't realize why the Disney sequels were all getting such a bad rap. And then I watched Return to Neverland, or rather got a third of the way through before I switched it off in disgust.

Haruki-kun
2012-01-20, 09:48 AM
Mostly, I think... because those sequels all smell of milking the franchise. The original might be a high standard to live up to, but that doesn't mean it can't be reached. Look at Toy Story 2 and 3.

Mewtarthio
2012-01-20, 10:25 AM
The important thing is, Toy Story 2 was not a direct-to-DVD sequel, regardless of Disney's plans for the franchise. That's a good sign. It shows that Pixar had the ability to make Disney do what they wanted (whether through clout or bargaining skills or just being that good), even before Lasseter took over Disney's animation studios.

PhantomFox
2012-01-20, 12:08 PM
Regardless, Pixar is inherently awesome. It's a pity their critically perfect track record is broken now. Now, I can't say that they are awesome by definition without someone bringing up Cars 2. But out of the Toy Stories, I like 3, since it was the first movie in a long time that blew me away with how awesome it was.

The claaaaaaw......

Forum Explorer
2012-01-20, 12:13 PM
Side Note-I'm actually curious what John Lasseter could potentially pull off if given control of the parks. I think we'd have something either off the wall, or just a higher quality version of the parks we have now.
Oh, and Studio Ghibli would probably feature in there somewheres.

I think it would be a mistake. Just because he is good at one thing doesn't mean he can handle something compleatly different. Worse it would divide his attention so his work in the animation studios would suffer.

Talya
2012-01-20, 01:24 PM
On John Lasseter and the Disney Parks:

John Lasseter is part of senior management of "Walt Disney Imagineering" (the company that does all the creative design and engineering for park attractions.) His title is "Principal Creative Adviser."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Imagineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lasseter

Karoht
2012-01-20, 05:49 PM
Regardless, Pixar is inherently awesome. It's a pity their critically perfect track record is broken now. Now, I can't say that they are awesome by definition without someone bringing up Cars 2. But out of the Toy Stories, I like 3, since it was the first movie in a long time that blew me away with how awesome it was.

The claaaaaaw......

I think Toy Story is one of the only trilogies (other than LotR) I can think of where I actually liked all 3 parts.


@Talya
He's involved in Imagineering? Oh well then.
Imagineering is that department of Disney that I always have high hopes for and pay close attention to. It's amazing what they've put time and effort into, and quite a bit of it has paid off for both the parks and Disney films.

Brother Oni
2012-01-20, 08:58 PM
It's amazing what they've put time and effort into, and quite a bit of it has paid off for both the parks and Disney films.

Especially since a ride inspired the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. :smalltongue:

Talya
2012-01-21, 09:52 AM
I think Toy Story is one of the only trilogies (other than LotR) I can think of where I actually liked all 3 parts.

In general I agree...most sequels aren't that well thought out.

How about the Star Wars original Trilogy?

I actually liked the PotC trilogy prior to them adding a 4th movie so it's no longer a trilogy.

We've gotta wait a bit longer to see if Chris Nolan can deliver a nice conclusion to his Batman trilogy.


@Talya
He's involved in Imagineering? Oh well then.
Imagineering is that department of Disney that I always have high hopes for and pay close attention to. It's amazing what they've put time and effort into, and quite a bit of it has paid off for both the parks and Disney films.

I may be the world's biggest Disney fan (when I visit WDW and see the big bronze statue of Walt and Mickey hand in hand, I feel the same type of reverence a devout catholic might feel in front of a statue of the virgin and child), and also their biggest critic when they do something stupid, and I agree 100%.