Pixar's Inside Out

[UncouthHayseed]

Pixar, the studio that can do no wrong (except maybe Cars 2, Brave, and Monsters University - and potentially Finding Dory, Toy Story 4, The Incredibles 2, and Cars 3, arriving in the next few years), have released another trailer for their new movie, "a major emotion picture": Inside Out.

Here be that trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkBSRadEv8A

Though I don't approve of the ukulele accompaniment at the start (too YouTube vlogger for my tastes), I am way on board. The art direction is stunning - bold, bright, stylised, reminiscent of UPA in the 1950s - and the cast seems expertly chosen. We also have Pete Docter at the helm, director of the quite frankly PERFECT Monsters, Inc and Up.

Thoughts?

[Blinder Data]

The original trailer made it seem like a good idea for a sketch but I struggled to see how they were going to make a whole film out of the premise. This looks pretty imaginative and a nice change from the relentless cash-kine of Pixar sequels.

I like the way it appears to be going down the route of what makes people feel sad - I wonder if therapy and anti-depressants will feature at all? Trust Pixar to make a fun family movie that purports to deal with a major taboo that is rarely addressed in mainstream cinema. I've read some criticism of Pixar on CaB but in my view when they are on-form they're totally unique and make fuckin' A films.

[Old Nehamkin]

I can already tell that the internal logic of this film is going to end up winding me right up.

[madhair60]

Not really into that trailer, but it's Pixar so I'll give it A Look

[UncouthHayseed]

I like the way it appears to be going down the root of what makes people feel sad - I wonder if therapy and anti-depressants will feature at all? Trust Pixar to make a fun family movie that purports to deal with a major taboo that is rarely addressed in mainstream cinema.

Yes, I think this will be interesting.

I read a bit of criticism, when the previous trailer was released, about Inside Out's representation of gender; the mother and father are stereotypes, it's been said. Though I believe it's too early to make that conclusion, I wonder if this is purposeful and the movie will examine the nuclear family model - how puberty and depression impact it.

[BritishHobo]

I'm gonna avoid this trailer 'cos I'm so absurdly uptight about spoilers, I love to go in as fresh as possible with next to no ideas . But I'm excited. I enjoyed Cars 2 and Monsters University far more than most people seemed to, so I guess I've not lost as much faith. The second trailer did seem a bit contrived and very tired in its stereotypes (tee-hee dad's thinking of football and mum's wishing she could have sex with a hunky man), but I TRUST THEM, MAN.

I'm sure it'll be fine.

[kittens]

this looks quite bad

[BritishHobo]

IT'LL BE FINE, KITTENS

I'm sorry for snapping.

[UncouthHayseed]

I enjoyed Cars 2 and Monsters University far more than most people seemed to, so I guess I've not lost as much faith.

I liked 'em both, too. Liked 'em both A LOT.

But I think Cars 2 was unnecessary. At least when the Muppets did their around-the-world adventure in Muppets Most Wanted, they recognised it was a tired plot and made a joke about it.

"All we need now is a half-decent plot..."

http://youtu.be/HXppfX-mBsE?t=1m29s

[Kelvin]

I don't think Pixar have produced an out and out great film since Finding Nemo. The two films which came closest - Wall-E and Up - both suffer from significant drops off in the second half, where they seem to lose confidence in their initial, interesting concept and start padding it out with generic action plots which no-one ever comments on when saying how bloody great the films are. Apparently if you included an old lady dying in the opening ten minutes, people forget the last 60 entirely.

This trailer looks like another idea bursting with potential, and a nice thematic undercurrent, but littered with cliches and shallow sterotypes

Spoiler alert

(the dad doesn't get emotions because he's a man, ha!)

[close]

and a load of characters saying a line quickly, and in a quotable way, to make up for it not being very funny. Not impressed overall, although like others, I thought the plot's focus on sadness was commendable.     

[Pit-Pat]

The two films which came closest - Wall-E and Up - both suffer from significant drops off in the second half, where they seem to lose confidence in their initial idea and start padding it out with generic plots which no-one ever comments on when saying how bloody great the films are. Apparently if you included an old lady dying in the opening ten minutes, people forget the last 60 entirely.

I'm so glad someone feels the same way about Up. It was my favourite film of that year for the first half, and became the most disappointing film of the year by the end.

Fucking talking dogs flying planes all with a single joke: "Aren't animals funny, especially when they have incongruous voices?"

A film about a lonely, depressed old man and a boy who needs a father figure healing each other could've been enough, surely, without all the wacky antics.

[Kelvin]

If you also agree with me that Aardman films are a load of twee shite, we can get married.

[Old Nehamkin]

If you also agree with me that Aardman films are a load of twee shite, we can get married.

My bad opinion detector just blew itself up, mate.

Smithereens.

[BritishHobo]

If you also agree with me that Aardman films are a load of twee shite, we can get married.

You and me, mate. Outside. Right now.

[UncouthHayseed]

You and me, mate. Outside. Right now.

PLEASE, won't somebody think of the children?!

Other than Pixar.

[Steven]

Aardman pretty much do Victoria Wood type shtick in plasticine.

I was a very early fan of Pixar with their shorts like Luxo Jr, Tin Toy, Knick Knack etc, I think lovable old Rolf used to play some of Lassiter's stuff on Cartoon Club back in as they say the day. Seeing as they have this potential to do wholly 3d generated movies with high quality graphics it seems a bit lacklustre they keep mostly churning out the standard rag tag group of anthropomorphic whatevers with a cocked eyebrow and wisecracking topical music reference that come together to achieve whatever goal it is this time.

Every other animation company is churning out the similar so they could afford to branch out a bit, do some weirder more conceptual stuff - like Fantastic Planet but not as bad and Mormonism influenced, stuff more adult orientated or whatever, hell even something for kids that's dark and bleak in a Watership Down/Plague Dogs kind of way. They really need to switch up their art style as well, everything's so generically manufactured between all these animation companies these days.

[Blinder Data]

Aardman pretty much do Victoria Wood type shtick in plasticine.

I was a very early fan of Pixar with their shorts like Luxo Jr, Tin Toy, Knick Knack etc, I think lovable old Rolf used to play some of Lassiter's stuff on Cartoon Club back in as they say the day. Seeing as they have this potential to do wholly 3d generated movies with high quality graphics it seems a bit lacklustre they keep mostly churning out the standard rag tag group of anthropomorphic whatevers with a cocked eyebrow and wisecracking topical music reference that come together to achieve whatever goal it is this time.

Every other animation company is churning out the similar so they could afford to branch out a bit, do some weirder more conceptual stuff - like Fantastic Planet but not as bad and Mormonism influenced, stuff more adult orientated or whatever, hell even something for kids that's dark and bleak in a Watership Down/Plague Dogs kind of way. They really need to switch up their art style as well, everything's so generically manufactured between all these animation companies these days.

I think your first paragraph would be better targeted towards Dreamworks, not Pixar, who have generally been much more original with their film concepts (well, until a few years ago). Lately it's disheartening to see so many sequels to established brands, produced in order to pay the bills I suppose (even if I am excited at the prospect of The Incredibles 2). Since Lasseter's move to Disney I've found it harder to distinguish between the two, which is a shame, but at least it's led to overall improvement in Disney releases (Tangled is a modern Disney classic). Pixar's shorts are pretty unique, but if you're after Watership Down or Fantastic Planet then you're better off living in the past, because that's probably the only time features like that will be produced (might be some foreign weird animation stuff, I dunno).

Also, Victoria Wood is great and The Wrong Trousers is one of the best things ever, so fucking ner.

[Steven]

Also, Victoria Wood is great and The Wrong Trousers is one of the best things ever, so fucking ner.

I loved The Wrong Trousers as a kid, I'll still laugh at the name Feathers McGraw. Aardman's plots were usually a bit weirder than the current lots. It's hard to parse this kind of stuff as an adult, I may have enjoyed most of these newer titles as a kid but grown up you can see they are basically all the same formula and are boring, same types of characters, same animation and art style, same pointless celebrities voicing them. It's a cushy formula to work as you basically get an entirely new gestation of audience every 3 or 4 years that can't catch on to this.

Can't stand Victoria Wood though, bit too jolly hockey sticks for me. I think Gervais' parody in Extras was quite on the nose, and I never compliment Gervais.

[UncouthHayseed]

Pixar's shorts are pretty unique

I'm consistently impressed by them. Blue Umbrella is a beautiful film.

To whet your appetite/soak your brolly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVFNRrL79w0

[Kelvin]

Aardman pretty much do Victoria Wood type shtick in plasticine.

I can't agree with that. Victoria Wood in her (television) prime was a beautiful blend of carefully observed characters, melancholia and cynicism.

Aardman has nothing even approaching that depth; certainly not in their film catalogue. It's Middle England's wet dream; a revolting, misty eyed vision of what right wingers imagine Britain was or should be, with every possible rough edge or sense of danger smeared into oblivion. Where the word "bottom" would seem genuinely shocking and upset a third of their audience. Where the names of cheeses are considered amusing and where the only highlight is when a dog rolls his eyes for the six hundredth time. If they didn't feature an occasional token Indian, or funny chicken with a northern accent, it could be the wank fantasy of a near deaf Tory Colonel, complete with greasy fingerprints. Their films are the British equivalent of America's Brady Bunch and the worst thing they ever did was 10 years ago, when they put the fucking flames out.         

[Kelvin]

Since I've already been negged for that post, I might as well add that the only way that fire could have amused me more was if it was Nick Park and his bowtie trapped inside, instead of morph.

[Steven]

If they didn't feature an occasional token Indian, or funny chicken with a northern accent,

Yeah I'm mainly thinking of Chicken Run aren't I? I thought that's about when it looked like they sold out and features Hollywood actor voice plus the inevitable rag tag group of anthropomorphics overcoming an obstacle. The Victoria Wood thing mainly comes from the Northern accents things though I suppose, Jane Horrocks et al.

Can we have more cartoons that feature a segment where the hero is put onto an assembly line of danger and has to dodge the various elements? This was a cliche even in the 80s, nevermind now.

[Phil_A]

The ultra-twee oh-crikey tea-and-crumpets part of Aardman is basically just Nick Park, isn't it. Not all their other stuff has been like that. Especially Rex The Runt, which is still a wonderment of a series.

As I'm fond of pointing out, The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists(directed by Peter Lord, not Park) was great, and none of you chuckleheads went to see it. For goodness' sake.

[Steven]

Rex The Runt was good but twas a series of shorts though. Similarly, Creature Comforts was their first big noticeable thing and had the added novelty of it being animated over real vox pops, which they quickly sold out with to do adverts. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Trying to do something a bit more experimental like Rex The Runt on movie form is a risk, movies require a lot of time and a huge budget, you don't want to take risks.. hence the current problem.

I was looking at bits of Liquid Television only the other day which I barely remember from back in the 90s and it's striking how weird and off-beat a lot of animated content allowed onto TV was back then. You used to get some very strange and experimental shorts back then, some still stick in my head like this one.. along with many many others. Though trying to scale projects up like that into film budget/length is the tricky issue, just throwing money at one of these talents tends to come with a lot of other provisos.

[Phil_A]

On Pixar, I think it's the case that the Disney merger has slowly killed off what made the studio so unique. They are now entirely integrated into the corporate ideology, just another cog in the giant industry machine that exists to make a few fuckers very rich indeed. From everything I've heard it sounds like the working culture there has really soured, with directors of at least three recent features having found themselves forced off their own projects when they were well into production(Brave being the most famous example).

And John Lassetter himself I can't see as anything but a fucking vile corporate stooge now. One of the biggest scandals of recent times in the US animation industry has been a giant, decades-long wage-fixing cartel, the short explanation of which is that almost all the major studios(Apple, Disney, Dreamworks, Lucasfilm, Pixar, etc) conspired to keep staff pay rates consistently low across the board, ensuring that employees of each individual company would not be tempted by competitive pay rates offered by their rivals, because there wouldn't be any. Yes, they decided the best way to prevent talent from going elsewhere was fix it so they would have no choice but to stay, because there were no other options. Although Pixar president Ed Catmull was apparently the chief culprit, Lasseter it seems was fully aware and complicit in screwing over his employees for years to come. What a guy.

[Phil_A]

Rex The Runt was good but twas a series of shorts though. Similarly, Creature Comforts was their first big noticeable thing and had the added novelty of it being animated over real vox pops, which they quickly sold out with to do adverts. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Trying to do something a bit more experimental like Rex The Runt on movie form is a risk, movies require a lot of time and a huge budget, you don't want to take risks.. hence the current problem.

I was looking at bits of Liquid Television only the other day which I barely remember from back in the 90s and it's striking how weird and off-beat a lot of animated content allowed onto TV was back then. You used to get some very strange and experimental shorts back then, some still stick in my head like this one.. along with many many others. Though trying to scale projects up like that into film budget/length is the tricky issue, just throwing money at one of these talents tends to come with a lot of other provisos.

Have you seen any of the new Liquid Television that started last year? It doesn't quite have the same lo-fi vibe as the original, but it does have that same sense of a free-form ideas splurge that's sadly rare in television these days.

American TV and internet animation seems to be where all the interesting stuff is happening at the moment. with the success of Adventure Time having prompted a mini-renaissance of sorts. Some of the stuff on the Cartoon Hangover (youtube) strand is really good as well.

"Manly" is particularly good, it puts me mind of an even weirder and more psychedelic Aeon Flux.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfrPf9IgHjI

[Small Man Big Horse]

As I'm fond of pointing out, The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists(directed by Peter Lord, not Park) was great, and none of you chuckleheads went to see it. For goodness' sake.

I loved it too, I saw it in 3D and it's the only time I've been really impressed with the format. I've no idea why it's not become a modern family classic, but hopefully one day soon this will be rectified.

[Steven]

Have you seen any of the new Liquid Television that started last year? It doesn't quite have the same lo-fi vibe as the original, but it does have that same sense of a free-form ideas splurge that's sadly rare in television these days.

I saw some bits and pieces, I might sit down and watch the full episodes at some point but I've not really been into animation since I was doing it myself in the 90s and just have a peripheral interest. I'm really out of touch. The Liquid TV thing is good format to mesh together a bunch of different shorts in a stream of consciousness interface, that's the other way to take these small productions and make use of them rather than expanding them to longform I suppose. I think it's obvious shorts don't make money though so this is the see-saw we have with good art/ideas and trying to expand them into something requiring money which comes with its own issues.

This Manly and from the little I've seen of Adventure Time I've instantly disliked the art style so it will require some effort for me to sit down and watch as the content may actually be good. I did watch bits of The Misadventures of Flapjack years ago and liked that, nice style with obvious John K influences on the close-ups. I loved John K's stuff but he's had his problems and jaunts into internet formats, I've noticed giving some artists complete freedom then allows you to see a rather unpleasant side to them.. as Robert Crumb commented about with his work particularly referencing the binned piece with the decapitated woman which I think was in the Zwigoff documentary.

[BritishHobo]

I loved it too, I saw it in 3D and it's the only time I've been really impressed with the format. I've no idea why it's not become a modern family classic, but hopefully one day soon this will be rectified.

Both Pirates and Arthur Christmas were brilliant, real shame they didn't get more love. Especially since they were the first big releases from Aardman in a while.

Perhaps it's just being outside of the target audience. Chicken Run got quoted en-masse when I was in primary school - for all I know, kids were/are doing the same thing with Pirates! An Adventure With Scientists.

[DukeDeMondo]

I don't think Pixar have produced an out and out great film since Finding Nemo. The two films which came closest - Wall-E and Up - both suffer from significant drops off in the second half, where they seem to lose confidence in their initial, interesting concept and start padding it out with generic action plots which no-one ever comments on when saying how bloody great the films are.

I agree on Up (but not Wall-E, which I think is brilliant throughout), although I found that when I watched it again fairly recently, I enjoyed the second half much more than I did first time around. Probably because I knew what was coming. Everything up to and including the house being carried off by the balloons remains wonderful, though, and there's still lots of great stuff scattered about elsewhere.