Disney/Pixar's Up

it was fucking boring; basically it was a dreamworks movie, apart from the first 20 minutes. the boy scout character was undeveloped, the villain was complete cheese, the talking dogs were complete cheese, there were way too many 'action' scenes, and the premise was ultra-fucking cheese and made NO SENSE. what, he's going to fly his house to a cliff in south america and then ... die of dehydration in a week?

you should probably stop watching films if you hate them so much .

  Joyrex said:

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.

It is comparing apples and oranges, but I'd disagree. The main character in Howl's Moving Castle was an old lady, for one...Miyazaki seems more focused on loss and transition; moving from the dreamlike/magical to the practical/worldly...even in cutesy Totoro...I remember at the end you learn the girl's mom is sick? So it casts everything in a different light, as escapism from worldly trouble...I find Miyazaki's themes deeper and much more gray...as in Mononoke, where you have the world of magic being destroyed to make way for the tamer world of man...it's not necessarily shown as a bad thing, just a loss...Spirited Away can be read as a dream sequence of a brothel girl, if you want...man I love me some Miyazaki, wish I had rips on my comp.

Pixar on the other hand...I haven't seen "Up", but there's a certain sort of "wisdom" that I find myself instinctively bucking, which is the forced "wisdom" of guys like the guy who wrote that article on marriage playbynumbers referenced, talking about the "solemn sacrifice men make to the institution of marriage" and shit like that...it's what people imagine wisdom should be like, a simulacrum of wisdom, usually used to mask some sort of uglier, messier truth. I could be wildly off base, but given Pixar's track record I wouldn't be surprised if the "emotional feelings that losing a lifelong mate and not realizing dreams can produce" are merely comforting constructs of what those feelings might really be...I mean have you felt this sort of loss or failure? I don't know, I guess I'll have to watch the film...I just don't like moralizing in general, like "aw the evil restaurant critic had his rosebud moment and rediscovered his humanity." It was handled really well, but whatever. In something like Princess Mononoke the bitch queen representing progress is shown as being multidimensional (caring for lepers, etc) - not patently "wrong." Miyazaki certainly has his favorite themes that he bangs on, sometimes to the point of being repetetive/boring...in the end I think Pixar is too tame, needs more pigs vomiting writhing blood maggots, less sentimentalizing...

  messiaen said:

you should probably stop watching films if you hate them so much .

evidently you aren't enjoying pbn's transformation into theo :D

  Joyrex said:

  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.

I agree about pixar catering to adults. I think it is great. I remember watching the early montage and hearing kids rustle around, kind of impatient with it. I wanted to be like YOU KIDS JUST DONT FUCKING GET IT DO YOU

Cant wait for Toy Story 3. I am glad this isnt the direct to dvd thing they were planning just a few short years back.

  playbynumbers said:

it was fucking boring; basically it was a dreamworks movie, apart from the first 20 minutes. the boy scout character was undeveloped, the villain was complete cheese, the talking dogs were complete cheese, there were way too many 'action' scenes, and the premise was ultra-fucking cheese and made NO SENSE. what, he's going to fly his house to a cliff in south america and then ... die of dehydration in a week?

No dude. hes going to take the house to the cliff and then die probably.

But that doesnt matter. Plans change, and he was forced to live in the moment and think about something bigger than himself. And he found a reason to live again. :breathes in deeply:

  playbynumbers said:

it was fucking boring; basically it was a dreamworks movie, apart from the first 20 minutes. the boy scout character was undeveloped, the villain was complete cheese, the talking dogs were complete cheese, there were way too many 'action' scenes, and the premise was ultra-fucking cheese and made NO SENSE. what, he's going to fly his house to a cliff in south america and then ... die of dehydration in a week?

In what way was Russel, "the boy scout character" underdeveloped? We learned that his father is no longer around, and his mum keeps him busy by having him involved in scouting. He's also the first Asian lead character in a Pixar movie, and they didn't ram that down your throat like other films typically do. He was the perfect foil to the curmudgeonly Carl, and provided an avatar for kids to related to in the film.

The villain (aside from the obvious plot hole about his age), I thought made an interesting twist to things - I couldn't imagine what the antagonist could be in this film other than the journey's obstacles themselves. The talking dogs was unexpected as well, and explained why and how Doug could talk, and his reason for being there. The villain also provided a way for them to get back home, since it was obvious the house was on a one-way trip to begin with.

There were no 'action' scenes to speak of until the last 20 minutes or so of the film.

And yes, as it was stated before, he was flying his house out to a cliff in South America so he could finally realize he and his wife's lifelong dream, and yes, to die. That's a pretty deep concept for a 'kids' movie.

people, i like all kinds of films; please, pull it together.

they sure didn't IMPLY that he was going to die. and it makes absolutely no sense that he would be so nonchalant and charmingly grumpy about a small child accompanying him to the south american jungle, where i guess the child would also die.

russell was given tiny outlines of 'character'; a few throwaway lines about his absent father, without any real 'payoff' or point. except for maybe turning carl into a father figure, but that's sort of cheesy and wouldn't actually work.

the villain was one-dimensional and boring; a dreamworks villain, basically. and the talking dogs, wtf, don't get me started on how fucking annoying they all were ...

flipping through the photo album at the end and reading the line from his wife just made me roll my eyes; i'm sure it sounded touching and sentimental in theory, but it just didn't work.

the first 15 minutes were impressive, though.

Ratatoile

  playbynumbers said:

people, i like all kinds of films; please, pull it together.

 

 

 

they sure didn't IMPLY that he was going to die. and it makes absolutely no sense that he would be so nonchalant and charmingly grumpy about a small child accompanying him to the south american jungle, where i guess the child would also die.

 

russell was given tiny outlines of 'character'; a few throwaway lines about his absent father, without any real 'payoff' or point. except for maybe turning carl into a father figure, but that's sort of cheesy and wouldn't actually work.

 

the villain was one-dimensional and boring; a dreamworks villain, basically. and the talking dogs, wtf, don't get me started on how fucking annoying they all were ...

 

flipping through the photo album at the end and reading the line from his wife just made me roll my eyes; i'm sure it sounded touching and sentimental in theory, but it just didn't work.

 

the first 15 minutes were impressive, though.

Just me guessing here, but I don't think Carl planned on having Russel accompany him on his final journey, and once Russel was there, he had to figure out some way of getting him home, even if it wasn't in Carl's plans to return himself. He wanted to finally go to Paradise Falls, and fulfill his dream his wife captured in the painting she did in the living room.

I think you're just too jaded to enjoy the film for what it offered instead of what you think it needed to offer you.

  Joyrex said:

  playbynumbers said:

people, i like all kinds of films; please, pull it together.

 

 

 

they sure didn't IMPLY that he was going to die. and it makes absolutely no sense that he would be so nonchalant and charmingly grumpy about a small child accompanying him to the south american jungle, where i guess the child would also die.

 

russell was given tiny outlines of 'character'; a few throwaway lines about his absent father, without any real 'payoff' or point. except for maybe turning carl into a father figure, but that's sort of cheesy and wouldn't actually work.

 

the villain was one-dimensional and boring; a dreamworks villain, basically. and the talking dogs, wtf, don't get me started on how fucking annoying they all were ...

 

flipping through the photo album at the end and reading the line from his wife just made me roll my eyes; i'm sure it sounded touching and sentimental in theory, but it just didn't work.

 

the first 15 minutes were impressive, though.

 

Just me guessing here, but I don't think Carl planned on having Russel accompany him on his final journey, and once Russel was there, he had to figure out some way of getting him home, even if it wasn't in Carl's plans to return himself. He wanted to finally go to Paradise Falls, and fulfill his dream his wife captured in the painting she did in the living room.

 

I think you're just too jaded to enjoy the film for what it offered instead of what you think it needed to offer you.

I dont think carl ever planned to return home. I think he planned to get there and die knowing he fulfilled the dream. Just seems to make the most sense.

i don't get how you can cry at a movie.

You have to be a human who has experienced things

only queers cry

fucking lol

  JohnTqs said:

only queers cry

Queers and awesome people

  abusivegeorge said:

fucking lol

is that a pubefro or a penis cloud on your avatar's head?

A penis cloud lol, essines dickbeard. Thats the real thing as well, he sent me the pic himself, I think it's only a camera phone though.

  abusivegeorge said:

A penis cloud lol, essines dickbeard. Thats the real thing as well, he sent me the pic himself, I think it's only a camera phone though.

what a pointy prick essiness has

Saw this today in 3D (it was the only option so bite me zaphod).

Pretty good, not as good as Wall-E or Ratatouille for me. But for a movie with the whole family in mind, it was pretty damn good.

The short at the beginning was great and yes "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" looks like it will be great fun.

I thought it was pretty obvious that it was a one way trip, I mean he had to get out of dodge or go to the Shady Oaks retirement home. Anyways..it was good. I'll definitely add it to the kids movie folder when a good rip comes out.

basically, pixar open really well but don't know how to seal the deal. they've done this with almost every movie, especially with walle and up. walle was basically perfect until he gets onboard the spaceship, then it turns into a ridiculous kids movie. up was note perfect for about fifteen minutes and then it...turns into a kids movie. as lumpenprol said, miyazaki seems to have this shit down, although his movies often go off the deep end into obscure weirdness where pixar just tend to streamline so much that everything becomes a generic mess. having said that, i enjoyed up once i accepted it for what it was.

also did i transfer a bunch of negative energy to pbn? lol

no, i think the spirit of Theo has come to reside in pbn, much like Bob inabited Leland Palmer

  Solo Strike said:

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 love wall e, but the fat people in that flick disgust me!

that was the whole fucking point

i have watched wall e twice, the first time i lost interest when the humans showed up as well, but the second time i really enjoyed the entire movie, including the spaceship part.

  JohnTqs said:

i have watched wall e twice, the first time i lost interest when the humans showed up as well, but the second time i really enjoyed the entire movie, including the spaceship part.

that was my experience too. I think its overall a really great movie

saw this last night. it's a wonderful film. some of the criticisms here are laughable. rather than conforming to convention, this movie takes on the often taboo issues of aging, dying, and life's bitter disappoinments more than most live action "adult" movies. perhaps you have to have experienced some of these things for the film to fully register with you. but if you have, it's really touching.

seen in that light, the comic relief of the dog and the innocent persistence of russell offer welcome balance and relief from some of these subjects.

quit being such cynical dicks all the time.