Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 04:58:04 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Up

Started by wherearethespoons, October 31, 2009, 07:34:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

wherearethespoons

I went hunting for the 'last film you watched' thread only to find it had been locked.  So here we are.

Has anyone seen the Disney/Pixar animation Up?  I watched it a couple of nights ago and was really blown away.  I remember seeing the trailer for it when I went to see Ice Age 3 (with a mate and his younger brother, I haven't got a thing about children's films) and not being in the slightest bothered by it.  But the trailer really couldn't do it justice.  The first twenty minutes survives more or less without any dialogue, as it really doesn't need it.  There's some wonderful jokes, touching bits of drama (men: take a lady friend, she'll love it when you cry) and there's plenty of slapstick too.

Great fun.

If I were Paul Ross I'd give it, out of a possible 5 balloons, 5 balloons.  I'd also be a complete cunt.

Let's discuss.

SavageHedgehog

I thought it started well and then got kind of boring and bland. I love cartoons/animation/whatever, but I don't really "get" the big deal with Pixar.

The short they showed before it was great though.

biggytitbo

Quote from: SavageHedgehog on October 31, 2009, 08:04:40 PM
I thought it started well and then got kind of boring and bland. I love cartoons/animation/whatever, but I don't really "get" the big deal with Pixar.

The short they showed before it was great though.

I've never 'got' Pixar. I remember going to see Finding Nemo, and whilst everyone around me was enjoying it, I just felt 'why am I not getting this?'. Give me Wallace and Gromit anyday.

An tSaoi

I agree. I liked Toy Story when it came out (I was a child), but looking at their films now, I don't see what all the fuss is about. A Bug's Life, Cars, Finding Nemo; all pretty average children's cartoons. I have no idea why they're so well regarded.

wherearethespoons

I didn't like Finding Nemo and Toy Story bores the arse off me.  Give it a go you whores.

Vitalstatistix

Quote from: SavageHedgehog on October 31, 2009, 08:04:40 PM
I thought it started well and then got kind of boring and bland. I love cartoons/animation/whatever, but I don't really "get" the big deal with Pixar.

The short they showed before it was great though.

I found it boring at first, and thought it got a lot better!

This was my first 3D experience and it was pretty underwhelming. It seemed fairly pointless and I'd have rather spent 3 quid less for a normal showing. The 3D element was just not utilised enough to justify the fanfare.

I didn't get a short beforehand grrr.

ThickAndCreamy

I've yet to see Up (although I'm desperate to) but I adore Pixar. To me they make some of the greatest childrens films of all time, they aren't knowingly stupid and don't usually contain such generic messages like most modern Disney* films. They you usually have a deeper, yet simple meaning and are packed full of emotion.

They are also highly original, beautifully made and oozing charm and wit. The Incredibles, Wall-E and Ratatouille are my personal favourites by them. Wall-E especially is glorious to me.


*I know Pixar is now a subsidiary of Disney, but it's a standalone company really.

jimmy jazz

The Incredibles, Monsters Inc., Wall-e, Ratatouille, the Toy Story films and now Up are pretty special children's films. They're clever, well-paced and beautifully animated. I personally find it pretty unbelievable that anyone would knock them too heavily, they're great fun and tend to be quite touching. The Wallace and Gromit films are great fun, but the sheer age range that enjoy Pixar films make them that bit more special. Of course, all ages are fond of W&G but films like Monsters Inc. and Toy Story 2 are loved by toddlers as much as grandparents.

Saying that, I don't think Up is Pixar at their best. The first twenty minutes or so are incredible, absolutely fantastic and had everybody I watched it with welling up. After that it turns into a pretty normal adventure film but it's still enjoyable. Pixar seem to be victims of their own brilliance, they create these almost philosophical, gorgeous "bits" in their films, such as the first 40 minutes of Wall-e and the first 20 minutes of Up, but then almost remember they make kids films and people end up saying "but then it descends into nothing more than a standard kids film, albeit a very good one." Perhaps one day a balance will be struck between the two, and if it does happen then I have a feeling it'll be one of the greatest films ever made. 

CaledonianGonzo

Mentioned this already in the other thread, but I love Pixar and I loved Up.  It may even be their best movie.

Quote from: An tSaoi on October 31, 2009, 08:42:18 PMA Bug's Life, Cars, Finding Nemoa; all pretty average children's cartoons. I have no idea why they're so well regarded.

Conveniently, you've mentioned in Cars and A Bug's Life the two least-well regarded Pixar movies.  Adding Finding Nemo into the mix, you have respectively got there a remake of the Seven Samurai, a lament for the demise of small town America at the hands of corporate modernisation and as good an examination of the father-son bond as any you're likely to see.  Admittedly, Cars isn't much cop, but then it's not as bad as it's sometimes made out to be.  A film like Finding Nemo - where the brutality of the undersea world is hammered home in the first scene, and the underlying message is about the possible damage inflicted on disabled children by overprotective parents, is as far from average children's animation as just about any you're likely to see. 

Up joins ranks with the best of Pixar as as good as modern animation gets.  At their best, Pixar movies stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Pinocchio and The Jungle Book.

ThickAndCreamy

Quote from: jimmy jazz on October 31, 2009, 08:59:51 PM
Saying that, I don't think Up is Pixar at their best. The first twenty minutes or so are incredible, absolutely fantastic and had everybody I watched it with welling up. After that it turns into a pretty normal adventure film but it's still enjoyable. Pixar seem to be victims of their own brilliance, they create these almost philosophical, gorgeous "bits" in their films, such as the first 40 minutes of Wall-e and the first 20 minutes of Up, but then almost remember they make kids films and people end up saying "but then it descends into nothing more than a standard kids film, albeit a very good one." Perhaps one day a balance will be struck between the two, and if it does happen then I have a feeling it'll be one of the greatest films ever made.
I completely agree with that, the silent scenes of Wall-E were spectacular really, especially as it is after all a childrens movie. Their target audience is so vast that the amount they need to include must overwhelm them, I'm really surprised they've managed to get better and better and still retain such huge audiences. I cannot wait to see what they do in the future.

CaledonianGonzo

Quote from: ThickAndCreamy on October 31, 2009, 09:04:41 PMI completely agree with that, the silent scenes of Wall-E were spectacular really, especially as it is after all a childrens movie. Their target audience is so vast that the amount they need to include must overwhelm them, I'm really surprised they've managed to get better and better and still retain such huge audiences. I cannot wait to see what they do in the future.

Wall-E should be manna from heaven for just about any sci-fi geek worth their salt.  It's up there with the best sci-fi films of the last couple of decades.  It's just beautiful to look at.  The use of lighting and focus - presumably steered by Roger Deakins and Dennis Muren - is exemplary.

One of Pixar's many great attributes - and they do share this with the work of Nick Park - is their insistence that humour come from character, not from weak puns and pop culture riffs.  I'd heard good things about Monsters vs. Aliens, but it still left me cold with its feeble gags and Al Gore references.

SavageHedgehog

But it had an anarchic Bob Clampett/Tex Avery spirit which I enjoyed, same goes for that Meatballs thing.

And to me Coraline (which I know you weren't mad keen on) is much closer to the spirit of something like Pinocchio than any of Pixar's efforts.

I don't want to seem like someone who "knock(s) them too heavily". I loved Toy Story as much as anyone who was 9 in early 96, Ratatouille was pretty good and Cars wasn't as bad as everyone said. But I don't get the big picture with Pixar, and I wish I did.

biggytitbo

I still don't get the 'magic'. Every pixar film I've ever seen I have had to conspicuously hide my sense of bordom.

CaledonianGonzo

MvA passed the time admirably enough, it just lacked anything to really take it above the the three star level.  Could have used either more zaniness/50s-style madcappery to spill it into genuine hilarity, or some kind of meaning.  For me, Brad Birds' ever-underrated The Iron Giant dipped a toe in similar waters to far greater effect.

Coraline frustrated me not from a technical POV but from the haphazard elements of the plotting (seeing stones that spring from nowhere, games that the villain agrees to play - I've not read the book, but assume they originate from there).  Wonderful atmosphere, though, and I agree it twins nicely with the darker, grotesque elements of something like Pinocchio - an area where Pixar have, admittedly, yet to head.

An tSaoi

Quote from: CaledonianGonzo on October 31, 2009, 09:01:48 PMAdding Finding Nemo into the mix, you have respectively got there a remake of the Seven Samurai, a lament for the demise of small town America at the hands of corporate modernisation and as good an examination of the father-son bond as any you're likely to see. A film like Finding Nemo - where the brutality of the undersea world is hammered home in the first scene, and the underlying message is about the possible damage inflicted on disabled children by overprotective parents

That's funny, it seemed oddly like a children's film about some cartoon fish and stoned turtles to me, not some thoughtful treatise. It's either your typical child goes missing, needs to find parent(s), meets a cast of colourful characters film, or it just looks deceptively like your typical child goes missing, needs to find parent(s), meets a cast of colourful characters film. I'm not saying you're wrong (I probably missed all the subtext), but I can't help not seeing what makes it any better than regular animated fare. To me the Pixar originals are not measurably better than the Dreamworks ripoffs.

CaledonianGonzo

Quote from: An tSaoi on October 31, 2009, 09:35:02 PMThat's funny, it seemed oddly like a children's film about some cartoon fish and stoned turtles to me, not some thoughtful treatise. It's either your typical child goes missing, needs to find parent(s), meets a cast of colourful characters film, or it just looks deceptively like your typical child goes missing, needs to find parent(s), meets a cast of colourful characters film. I'm not saying you're wrong (I probably missed all the subtext), but I can't help not seeing what makes it any better than regular animated fare.

Well - every story can be broken down into a) what happens and b) what it's about.  You're describing the a) and have overlooked the b).

On a fundamental level, everything that happens in the movie is informed by the premise that Marlin is scared that he has to relinquish some of the hold he has over his son in order to allow him to grow, and Nemo is annoyed that his dad won't let him do anything exciting.  Marlin's fear is intensified by the death of his wife and all of Nemo's unborn siblings, but other than that it's something that just about everyone experiences as a parent or child at some point in time and should be able to relate to when watching the movie.

All that without mentioning Dory, who's one of the best (and best voiced) animated characters of recent years.

Plus, the scene with the sharks at Fish-Eaters Anonymous is a hoot.

ThickAndCreamy

Quote from: An tSaoi on October 31, 2009, 09:35:02 PM
That's funny, it seemed oddly like a children's film about some cartoon fish and stoned turtles to me, not some thoughtful treatise. It's either your typical child goes missing, needs to find parent(s), meets a cast of colourful characters film, or it just looks deceptively like your typical child goes missing, needs to find parent(s), meets a cast of colourful characters film. I'm not saying you're wrong (I probably missed all the subtext), but I can't help not seeing what makes it any better than regular animated fare. To me the Pixar originals are not measurably better than the Dreamworks ripoffs.
Pixar films generally have a hell of a lot more subtext and meaning though, especially Wall-E. It almost reminds me of Brave New World even, showing the grotesque excessiveness of the human race, the strive to simply live in comfort, yet to never truly live at all. To feel no real emotions other than acceptance and slight happiness.

It's also a story about the hinderence of technology on the human race, for with it it often deprives us of real humanity. Instead of gaining knowledge technology leads us to sit down and do as little as possible, to forever be surrounded by endless electronic systems distorting the vision of nature, eventually destroying it. Finally, it deals with the idea of global warming, pollution, globalisation and urbanisation as well as the obvious message of waste.

It's rare a childrens film ever goes into the form of depth and metaphorical and clearly implied meaning, therefore it isn't just an average Dreamworks picture, it's something special. It's a comment about the human race, about how we function and about how we will destroy ourselves if we continue to live this way. That's why Pixar are so good, they experiment and produce films that appeal to such mass audiences with often forgotten and brilliant undertones.

An tSaoi

I appreciate the responses, but till can't grasp the really special quality that Pixar films (undoubtedly) have. Might have to watch Nemo again.

jimmy jazz

Quote from: An tSaoi on October 31, 2009, 09:35:02 PM
That's funny, it seemed oddly like a children's film about some cartoon fish and stoned turtles to me, not some thoughtful treatise.

Even for you this is a spectacularly stupid thing to say.

An tSaoi

"Personal insults will surely convince him."

Artemis

Just saw this tonight in 3D at the London Imax. I thought it was magnificent. The first ten minutes or so rate as highly as any movie Ive ever seen, it's THAT good, and if you're not a blubbering mess by the end of the opening sequence, you're deficient.

That said, I do think a couple of factors stop it from becoming a masterpiece. I think they made the lead character too dislikeable after what happens at the start. It put me off him in some ways. Also, they should have introduced the inventor as the dog collar creator before they introduced the dogs as it was a stretch too far for me.

Those crticisms aside, it was Pixar maybe not at their finest but certainly on form. These guys are producing authentic classic after authentic classic. I can think of few better story tellers in cinema today than John Lassatar and his team.

I laughed, I cried, but I didn't leave with quite the same sense of feel good as I did Toy Story (both of them). I left a bit sad. But I also left knowing I'd just seen the masters of kids movies hit another home run.

madhair60

Quote from: An tSaoi on October 31, 2009, 09:35:02 PMI'm not saying you're wrong

You are though, aren't you?

jimmy jazz

Quote from: An tSaoi on October 31, 2009, 10:46:09 PM
"Personal insults will surely convince him."

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. My comment had nothing to do with your views on Pixar, I just found it a stupid thing to say.

"Its just a short story about a woman wanting a cat in the rain, it doesn't even mention children!"

"It's just a book about some animals on a farm and how greedy pigs are."

An tSaoi

Quote from: madhair60 on October 31, 2009, 11:16:41 PM
You are though, aren't you?

Not really, I'm saying that he's picking up on something that's undoubtedly there, but which I can't see. It's an admission of my own possibility of being wrong if anything.

Artemis

Hang on, you could possibly be wrong?! What an admission!!

Lt Plonker

Quote from: CaledonianGonzo on October 31, 2009, 09:14:48 PM
One of Pixar's many great attributes - and they do share this with the work of Nick Park - is their insistence that humour come from character, not from weak puns and pop culture riffs.  I'd heard good things about Monsters vs. Aliens, but it still left me cold with its feeble gags and Al Gore references.

That's pretty much it, I reckon. They don't really have the faith in producing really appealing personalities, and just fall back on that lazy, ironic, wise-cracking architype. Plus their insistence on using recognisable A-list celebrity voices, not only to populate the films, but to sell them too.  Pixar have faith in their stories and characters enough to not have to rely on stamping their 'sleb voices on the film poster. Not that Pixar don't use celeb voices of course, but they do seem to deploy them with some degree of tact and taste that have eluded DW so far.

There's a sense of wonder in Pixar's films, something that is so sorely lacking in Dreamworks' films. The space dance in WALL*E, the sight of a hundred rats cooking, the moment in Toy Story when all the toys spring to life and start shuffling off to Woody's meeting, the sheer magnitude of the ocean in Finding Nemo, the thrill-ride of the 100 mile dash,  the triumph of Carl Frederickson releasing the balloons and seeing his house take off and cruise through the city - it's moments like those that you just don't get with Dreamworks.

Maybe I'm being unfair (I am), but it sort of says something about a company that their [urlhttp://lotgk.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/shrek.jpg]most bankable asset is so ridiculously unappealing.[/url]

biggytitbo

Quote from: An tSaoi on October 31, 2009, 10:46:09 PM
"Personal insults will surely convince him."

Hello An. You are like a less drunk version of me.

biggytitbo

Quote from: ThickAndCreamy on October 31, 2009, 09:54:08 PM
Pixar films generally have a hell of a lot more subtext and meaning though, especially Wall-E. It almost reminds me of Brave New World even, showing the grotesque excessiveness of the human race, the strive to simply live in comfort, yet to never truly live at all. To feel no real emotions other than acceptance and slight happiness.

It's also a story about the hinderence of technology on the human race, for with it it often deprives us of real humanity. Instead of gaining knowledge technology leads us to sit down and do as little as possible, to forever be surrounded by endless electronic systems distorting the vision of nature, eventually destroying it. Finally, it deals with the idea of global warming, pollution, globalisation and urbanisation as well as the obvious message of waste.

It's rare a childrens film ever goes into the form of depth and metaphorical and clearly implied meaning, therefore it isn't just an average Dreamworks picture, it's something special. It's a comment about the human race, about how we function and about how we will destroy ourselves if we continue to live this way. That's why Pixar are so good, they experiment and produce films that appeal to such mass audiences with often forgotten and brilliant undertones.

It's funny because I don't get any of that when I watch a Pixar film. I tend to get the impression I'm reading the exam paper of a really boring but brilliant grade A student. Yeah, that's all very impressive but you have no inspiration, no character and no heart. That's why Nick Park's films have a real sense of real quirkiness and soul, whereas Pixar's film just seem like mass produced factory fodder with a sheen of limitlessly expensively produced artfulness.

ThickAndCreamy

See, I personally find Pixar films to be charming and full of originality and brilliantly created characters. Most characters usually seem deep, well devised and perfectly suited to the film. To me it's not soulless in the slightest, especially compared to virtually every other modern childrens film.

I think you may not want to like any of their films, however if it's just personal preference it doesn't matter, does it?

vrailaine

They seem to operate on some sort of formula which each release has watered it down a little bit more.

...and while that does annoy me in retrospect, I still enjoy most their films loads when they're on.
Wall E has me absolutely overjoyed on my first watch, done absolutely nothing for me afterwards though... which seems to be a running trend with their films from this decade, except for The Incredibles oddly.