Disney/Pixar's Up

  takeshi said:

Looking forward to taking my niece to see this over the weekend. Is there short before the film, like Pixar usually does?

Yes, it's about a cloud who makes babies that are delivered by storks, and all the babies he makes are... well, not as cute and cuddly as most babies are. The textures on the cloud people are amazing.

  Echo said:

Fucking LOL and QFT

hahaha

Yeah, Dreamworks just cant compare. It's always been irritating to me to see their hack-job attempts at similar subject material as Pixar. I think the biggest offenders were 'Shark Tale and Robots'. Their biggest mistake was making the sea life in the film anthropomorphized and practically identical to human civilization (big cities, clothes, faces resembling humans, celebrities, etc...) and just throwing in a few contextual underwater-based jokes. Pixar, on the other hand, is brilliant in bringing life and appropriateness to their starring characters by keeping the situations relatively relevant to fish. For example, the conflict in Finding Nemo touches on the fear of being taken far away from your home by a force you are unable to control. This is something that could be related to in a very human way without the need to make the characters needlessly human. The film focuses on the intimidating, mysterious, and magnificent nature of the ocean (arguably the most important and ubiquitous feature in a film about sea life).

I read an interview with the director of Wall-E and he was discussing their method for creating robotic characters in the film. He told his team to design the robots as practical machines first and then to bring out the inherent personalities out of a thing that functions in it's own specific way. I think we can agree that this is far more imaginative than 'Robots' which basically puts humanoid robots into a humanoid society where everything just happens to consist of machinery. I mean c'mon(!), one of the robots is wearing a tie in that movie. What would a robot need a tie for...

I just realized that 'Robots' is not a Dreamworks movie. That doesn't really change any of my complaints about it, though.

  Wall Bird said:

Pixar, on the other hand, is brilliant in bringing life and appropriateness to their starring characters by keeping the situations relatively relevant to fish.

  Echo said:

hahaha! so true! and yes, these dreamwork standard faces are shit.

the only all CGI movie i thought was remotely O.K. that wasnt pixar was Monster House

CGI has become the 'norm' for animated shows and movies now, it's certainly moved beyond Pixar's exclusive domain, but nobody arguably does it better.

  Joyrex said:

CGI has become the 'norm' for animated shows and movies now, it's certainly moved beyond Pixar's exclusive domain, but nobody arguably does it better.

yeah that movie 9 looks pretty promising, i tend to hate the dreamworks movies especially the Ice Age series

I dont think 9 will be that good.

  Wall Bird said:

Yeah, Dreamworks just cant compare. It's always been irritating to me to see their hack-job attempts at similar subject material as Pixar. I think the biggest offenders were 'Shark Tale and Robots'. Their biggest mistake was making the sea life in the film anthropomorphized and practically identical to human civilization (big cities, clothes, faces resembling humans, celebrities, etc...) and just throwing in a few contextual underwater-based jokes. Pixar, on the other hand, is brilliant in bringing life and appropriateness to their starring characters by keeping the situations relatively relevant to fish. For example, the conflict in Finding Nemo touches on the fear of being taken far away from your home by a force you are unable to control. This is something that could be related to in a very human way without the need to make the characters needlessly human. The film focuses on the intimidating, mysterious, and magnificent nature of the ocean (arguably the most important and ubiquitous feature in a film about sea life).

 

I read an interview with the director of Wall-E and he was discussing their method for creating robotic characters in the film. He told his team to design the robots as practical machines first and then to bring out the inherent personalities out of a thing that functions in it's own specific way. I think we can agree that this is far more imaginative than 'Robots' which basically puts humanoid robots into a humanoid society where everything just happens to consist of machinery. I mean c'mon(!), one of the robots is wearing a tie in that movie. What would a robot need a tie for...

 

 

I just realized that 'Robots' is not a Dreamworks movie. That doesn't really change any of my complaints about it, though.

very interesting. its like they strive to retain that purer form of imagination that adult designers lack - designers who would otherwise churn out an amalgamation of 'themed' aesthetic. children can very easily conjure whole worlds from the most mundane or everyday things. the difference between dreamworks and pixar is like the difference between a vacuum cleaner painted in garish colours and a henry.

I love CGi movies like pixar's, But I hate CGI in live action films. Id rather they use stop motion like clash of the titans.

I've never understood that - why people can embrace CGI when it's used exclusively, but frown upon it when it's mixed with live actors. For me, I don't see the difference. Good CGI is good CGI, regardless of whether it's making a fish talk, or a robot skeleton walk around and attack people.

  marf said:

I love CGi movies like pixar's, But I hate CGI in live action films. Id rather they use stop motion like clash of the titans.

Being remade

cause CGI is cartoonish. Just like movies like Up. In live action when someone morphs into a wolf it looks like a cartoon and just looks shitty to me. I can't explain it. Cheap. Takes me out of the film immediately.

  marf said:

I love CGi movies like pixar's, But I hate CGI in live action films. Id rather they use stop motion like clash of the titans.

they should bring back blue screens as well

i'm a twat and really hated ratatouille. with that considered, would i like Up?

Up was awesome; very emotional. Best Pixar movie yet imo. The short was awesome too.

  Awepittance said:

  Joyrex said:

CGI has become the 'norm' for animated shows and movies now, it's certainly moved beyond Pixar's exclusive domain, but nobody arguably does it better.

 

yeah that movie 9 looks pretty promising, i tend to hate the dreamworks movies especially the Ice Age series

That's a Fox movie, but they're arguably the worst offenders

  JohnTqs said:

  marf said:

I love CGi movies like pixar's, But I hate CGI in live action films. Id rather they use stop motion like clash of the titans.

 

they should bring back blue screens as well

...what?

blue(green)screens are used in film now more than ever

I was thinking that also.

cloudy with a chance of meatballs looks good.

Oh fuck, i cried at both ratatouille and wall*e, im going to be bawling my eyes out if even normal people are tearing up at the new one.

Pixar are fucking badboys. Didn't even know this one was coming out! Wall-E was awesome (though much better before the humans turned up). Dreamworks are cack handed shitmunchers in comparsion.

I'm not much of a pixar fan, I'm more of a miyazaki guy. Pixar's ok, but they seem slaves to convention/making a product just like everyone else. Each of their films has parts that really hit home - the conversation between Mike and Sully about friendship; some of the adventure sequences in Finding Nemo; the flashback sequence for the restaurant critic in Ratatouille; the start of Wall-E - yet they usually seem to come up short for me.

As a kid the things that absorbed me most were mystery and adventure; Pixar films seem short on both. They tend to moralize heavily and tie things up with a bow.

  thanks robert moses said:

cloudy with a chance of meatballs looks good.

Yes, yes it does. My daughter says the book is really good too.

  lumpenprol said:

I'm not much of a pixar fan, I'm more of a miyazaki guy. Pixar's ok, but they seem slaves to convention/making a product just like everyone else. Each of their films has parts that really hit home - the conversation between Mike and Sully about friendship; some of the adventure sequences in Finding Nemo; the flashback sequence for the restaurant critic in Ratatouille; the start of Wall-E - yet they usually seem to come up short for me.

 

As a kid the things that absorbed me most were mystery and adventure; Pixar films seem short on both. They tend to moralize heavily and tie things up with a bow.

Here's the thing that I've begun to notice: Pixar, even though one would argue it's primary audience is children, seems more and more intent on catering to adults - most kids are going to gloss over the heart-wrenching moments in Up just because they can't yet comprehend the emotional feelings that losing a lifelong mate and not realizing dreams can produce. I think it's really great they can cater to both the adults, and the children as well - including the ones that still exist in each adult.

Miyazaki, on the other hand, focuses squarely on the childlike wonder and innocence of being a child, and seeing the world from their perspective - Totoro is a good example of that, I think. Makes me want to live in the Japanese countryside in 1986. Even Spirited Away is focused from a child's point of view, rendering the adults as being unable to comprehend the magical world presented in it.

I'd be curious to see what Miyazaki-san thinks of Pixar's movies and storytelling techniques.

As for Pixar being slaves to convention; I'd argue their last few films defy that label, but considering their next three films are all sequels (Toy Story 3 is up next, with Cars 2 (which I don't feel needs a sequel either), and Monsters Inc. 2 for 2012. I'd hoped they'd focus on more original ideas rather than revisiting (arguably wonderful) concepts and characters. That being said, they've let enough time between Toy Stories elapse that perhaps it is time to see how Buzz and Woody are getting on.