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 29, 2024, 03:17:27 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Up

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

Previous topic - Next topic

SavageHedgehog

Quote from: Lt Plonker on November 01, 2009, 12:55:25 AM
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]

I agree with you for the most part, but I would say some of Pixar's human characters are also quite unappealing visually. In Up I found the boy and the young gap-toothed Ellie quite unpleasant to look at in a way I couldn't quite put my finger on. I don't want to be one of those John K types who drone on about "squash and stretch" and whatnot, but I think I prefer my cartoon characters to look, well, cartoony. In that Cloudy Meatballs thing (which I'm not going to pretend was truly any great shakes, but I enjoyed it) I liked that the characters had a pleasingly cartoony design, along the lines of an early Hannah-Barbera character, rather than trying to make them look pseudo-realistic.

Quote from: biggytitbo on November 01, 2009, 01:57:56 AM
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.

I wouldn't go quite that far but I can see what you mean. There was an admittedly fairly sneery article when Cars came out (a "the bubble has finally burst" kind of thing) which talked about a studio tour where they were shown "the creativity room, where the creators create creativity" and in a way that kind of sums up the way I feel about most Pixar films.

CaledonianGonzo

Quote from: biggytitbo on November 01, 2009, 01:57:56 AMThat'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.

It's perfectly possible to love both Pixar and Park - I do. 

Pixar's work is plentifully supplied with both quirks and soul.  Up is possibly the best example of this - it's quirky to the point of bordering on bizarre.  It's simultaneuously adult and childish in a way that is rare.  It's more idiosyncratic by far than something like Were-Rabbit (which I love), Chicken Run or (not a Park film) Flushed Away.  That it works at all is by very dint of the soul with which it is steeped to the gills. 

I also refute any idea that it's formulaic.  If, vrailaine, Pixar had a formula - buddy movies (Woody'n'Buzz, Sully'n'Mike, Marlin'n'Dory), they've long-since jettisoned it and are freewheeling from genre to genre limited, seemingly, by almost nothing.  If anything, for me, it's their lack of adherence to any type of formula that pleases.  For me, perhaps more controversially now, they even trump the likes of Miyazaki in terms of how their films use sheer imagination to power story.

The first ten minutes of Up - and I've heard it described as one of the best pieces of visual filmmaking ever, never mind in animation - embodies everything that's wonderful about Pixar - inspiration, character and heart, the sense of awe that Lt Plonker rightly identifies as one of their stand out skills.  It shares its DNA with the best of its animated forebears - its hallmarks are dignity and simplicity.  I defy anyone to have predicted it - or to say that such sequences are typical of "any other animated movie", childrens or otherwise.

CaledonianGonzo

Quote from: SavageHedgehog on November 01, 2009, 08:26:08 AMI agree with you for the most part, but I would say some of Pixar's human characters are also quite unappealing visually. In Up I found the boy and the young gap-toothed Ellie quite unpleasant to look at in a way I couldn't quite put my finger on. I don't want to be one of those John K types who drone on about "squash and stretch" and whatnot, but I think I prefer my cartoon characters to look, well, cartoony.

Oddly, I'd say that Pixar get the balance right with keeping their human characters suitably cartoony, at least post-Incredibles (I don't think anyone would make great claims for Toy Story in this regard).  It's companies like Dreamworks that seem to stumble headlong towards uncanny-valley related issues.

Compare:



with



Not liking the character design - and Up's design is a bit unusual in this regard - is fair enough, I suppose.  Except Kevin.  If you don't like Kevin, there's no hope:



SavageHedgehog

I liked Kevin. And the dog. And the old men were fine. It's just the kids I had a problem with I guess.

Vitalstatistix

I have no problem with Pixar, but I disagree that the humour comes mainly from character.

Up is chocked to the gills with visual humour. In all respects it's a fantastically, and unusually, visual film.

Spoiler alert
I didn't find any of the characters were particularly subtly shaded.. We knew little about the old guy except his loneliness and his dream to fulfil his wife's wishes. The kid was obviously sad about his father, but that's all we find out. And the crazy old explorer was... crazy.

However, I didn't think it mattered. The zaniness and unpredictability were what made the film stand out for me.

Also, the opening twenty minutes I've seen and heard bigged up soo much as the saddest thing you'll ever see. Really didn't feel that at all. For me, it really got going after they'd got that stuff out of the way.
[close]


Feralkid

I have to say I absolutely adored Up and was moved to tears by that opening ten minutes that cut from
Spoiler alert
them painting the nursery to Ely crying in the doctor's office was devastating
[close]
.  I also liked the fact that it continued to hurl inventive ideas at us right to the end.   A lesser studio would have mined a whole movie out of
Spoiler alert
the dogs in their aircraft
[close]
but here it's just one of dozens of wonderful flourishes.   




George Oscar Bluth II

Accusing Pixar of soullessness is a pretty big stretch I'd say. Shark Tale was soulless. Shrek 2 was cynical and soulless. There's not one Pixar film you can say that about.

(I reckon most of Dreamworks' stuff is pretty good. I love Madagascar but...it's just not on the same level as Pixar. Or even close.)

El Unicornio, mang

Quote from: CaledonianGonzo on November 01, 2009, 08:59:55 AM
Oddly, I'd say that Pixar get the balance right with keeping their human characters suitably cartoony, at least post-Incredibles (I don't think anyone would make great claims for Toy Story in this regard).  It's companies like Dreamworks that seem to stumble headlong towards uncanny-valley related issues.

Compare:



with



Not liking the character design - and Up's design is a bit unusual in this regard - is fair enough, I suppose.  Except Kevin.  If you don't like Kevin, there's no hope:



That's something which, if I was an art teacher, would be one of the first things I'd tell my students to do when designing a cartoon character: don't try to make it look like the real thing. Most of the well known cartoon characters don't look anything like the real thing or are extreme exaggerations. Mickey Mouse looks nothing like a mouse, The Simpsons look nothing like people, and the characters in something like Ratatouille are all kinds of odd shapes and sizes. Remy the rat looks like a salt shaker with fur and a tail. Compare this with something like Nemi, who is a really boring drawing of a goth girl. So if I was designing a cat, I wouldn't start with an outline of a cat, I'd start with a shape like a tree branch or a lampshade, and go from there. As long as you have a few basic details like whiskers and a stripy tail, people will know what it's supposed to be. Something like Shrek tries to make everything real but cartoony at the same time, and it just looks forgettable and ugly.

That said, Dreamworks do come up with the goods sometimes, like with Kung Fu Panda, but again that had characters who were drawn in an exaggerated way.

Quote from: CaledonianGonzo on November 01, 2009, 08:59:55 AM
If you don't like Kevin, there's no hope:



I don't know why but I found the bit where
Spoiler alert
Kevin's beak slides in to steal a bit of chocolate
[close]
way, way funnier than I probably should have. I was nearly in hysterics.

ThickAndCreamy

I've just watched Up finally and I can't help but adore it in every way possible. It made me cry throughout and I couldn't help but marvel at it all. It's just... perfect. I've never seen such an imaginative childrens film and just oozed originality and charm. I can't praise it enough really and I just find it unbelievable how Pixar can get better and better over time, and still make millions of dollars.

I'm being serious when I say this is one of the greatest films I've ever seem. It's utter simplicity is just unbelievable.


Sherringford Hovis

Quote from: wherearethespoonsBender.

Señor Rodrigez is in it? I'm going tomorrow!

Lt Plonker

For anyone who is interested in this sort of thing, Lou Romano has posted lots of colour keys and design work he did for Up here. The Up stuff begins someway down the page, but it's all gold.

actwithoutwords

Finally finally got to see this tonight. And (once I got over my disgust at the spoiler in the crying thread in GB just before Christmas) I thought it was utterly wonderful. Beautiful and funny, and I'm really surprised at the somewhat muted reception here. Every bit as good as WALL-E I thought. I'm not sure if I could choose between them. The depth of characterisation drawn from such simple elements is staggering. Though I might agree that Russell wasn't quite so strong. So many superb ideas packed into the film, any time I felt it start to sag slightly it would take another turn. I had stupidly high expectations, but it was truly truly brilliant.

SQUIRREL!

CaledonianGonzo

Quote from: actwithoutwords on January 07, 2010, 11:45:32 PMSQUIRREL!

If you dig Dug the Dog, you'll be pleased to hear that he's the star of the short on the DVD, Dug's Special Mission. 

http://www.trailerspy.com/trailer/6722/Up-Featurette-Dugs-Special-Mission

wherearethespoons

The HMV exclusive DVD comes with a phone charm; http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=280;5;-1;-1;-1&sku=303229

I've never seen the point of those things.




idunnosomename

So just one disc or those stupid blu-ray things they've been doing in America with one disc being a digital copy that no one wants? And it is a shame Disney never throw on the 3D version in anaglyph as a bonus.