CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › The Pixar Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Pixar Thread - Page 3

post #101 of 310

agracru: Yeah, you're correct about Colette, although I'd also argue that Remy believes he is outright superior to both her and Linguini at the beginning. And one thing I always loved about Ratatouille's third act is how many unexpected directions it goes in because of that bad decision to let in the clan. Linguini makes a passionate speech when he reveals Remy as the secret of his success... and everyone quits, except Colette (who has that great bit where she's all "Just tell me what to do before I change my mind about this crazy plan"). There's Anton Ego's AMAZING turnaround. Skinner and the health inspector actually succeed in shutting down Gusteau's. Then we have that marvelous ending scene when our four heroes open a small bistro together. They are moderately successful, but extremely happy.

 

As far as Carl goes, the moment that hurts the most for me is when he calls Dug "Bad dog!" Again, brilliant acting from both Asner and the animation.

post #102 of 310

Is it bad, though, for Remy to feel outright superiority toward Colette? I mean, she's been training for years to be the chef that she is, while Remy...well, he's gifted. I mean, fuck the fact that he has no formal training, just a spirit companion takes the shape of Gusteau, he's a rat. The fact that he can cook at all is amazing, let alone cook food so excellent that it completely restores the restaurant's image and success on its own merits. Not that Colette has nothing to brag about, either, but if Remy seems superior then, well, maybe it's because he is. Certainly that smugness doesn't cast him in the same unfavorable light as letting his friends and family into the kitchen.

 

I love, love, love where Ratatouille goes in the end. In fact, it's the way that the movie splinters off into so many unexpected directions that makes it a favorite of mine. Ego's ending soliloquy is pretty wonderful, maybe not for its content but for the massive discussion it opens up about the relationship between the critic, the artist, and the art. (Or, in this case, the food.) And it ends in a great place where everyone has achieved the goal they're after but on a different scale than another movie might have envisioned. (E.g., all their success is front-loaded by failure and disgrace first. Ego loses credibility, the restaurant shuts down, etc.)

 

As for the "bad dog!" moment-- yeah, I'd forgotten about that. But it makes me wince just to think about it!

post #103 of 310

Yeah, I suppose that's true about Remy's smugness. And he does eventually come to quietly respect Colette and her contributions.

 

Speaking of, is Janeane Garofalo amazing in that role or what? It's like nothing I've ever heard from her before, and she completely nails the character in all of her various emotions. I mean, the whole cast, down to bit parts like Will Arnett as Horst ("I killed a man... with this thumb") or John Ratzenberger's Mustafa ("I TOLD THEM I WOULD ASK!"), is great, but she's just astonishing.

post #104 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post

I love, love, love where Ratatouille goes in the end. In fact, it's the way that the movie splinters off into so many unexpected directions that makes it a favorite of mine. Ego's ending soliloquy is pretty wonderful, maybe not for its content but for the massive discussion it opens up about the relationship between the critic, the artist, and the art. (Or, in this case, the food.) And it ends in a great place where everyone has achieved the goal they're after but on a different scale than another movie might have envisioned. (E.g., all their success is front-loaded by failure and disgrace first. Ego loses credibility, the restaurant shuts down, etc.)
Yes, absolutely. The ending, for me, is what really sells the movie (especially Ego's reveal as, if an unreasonably tough critic, a completely honest one. Woulda been so easy to go with yet another strawman like so many other stories...) The small-scale success is also just heartwarming, and feels like kind of a nice step back from/answer in moderation to the perceived Randianism of The Incredibles; maybe they're not in the position they deserve to be, but they're doing what they love and they're doing it with people they like, and really, isn't that good enough?

Also, yes, Garofalo kicks ass in the role; she's very closely tied with Peter O'Toole's Ego for my favorite performance in the movie.
post #105 of 310

Well, we can't forget Patton either. I can't picture anyone else in the role of Remy; without him, even with the other amazing performances, the film would fall apart. I also really love Brad Garrett's Gusteau here; he's always been a natural at voiceover (he was doing it for YEARS even before Everybody Loves Raymond), but he tends to play funny loudmouths or simpletons, so to see him as such a warm, friendly presence is a remarkable indicator of his skill. And his French accent ain't half-bad either.

post #106 of 310

As a matter of fact, most of the accent work is so good here I can't really distinguish the people providing the voices. I didn't know the cast--outside of Patton-- until I watched the credits at my first screening.

 

And I love that Ego's honest, but I still struggle with his ending monologue to this day. Without question, I value something like Moonrise Kingdom or The Grey or Cabin in the Woods more than the criticisms-- positive or negative-- surrounding it. But how much value does a movie like Battleship have on its own? Does Chernobyl Diaries, one of the top three worst movies I've seen this year, bear more worth than a well-written and thoughtful review breaking it down piece-by-piece? I understand the point being made-- critics, by criticizing, don't risk as much as someone making art. But should we admire that inherent risk if the resulting art is just fucking terrible?

 

I wrote a pretty mediocre essay about it ages ago, and I still haven't come to a totally satisfying conclusion. But I think the fact that I'm still pondering the question both,

 

a) speaks well to Ratatouille's quality as a film, and

b) speaks well to Pixar's proclivities as an animation studio

 

Dreamworks could never leave me mulling over an intellectual topic that toothsome and essential to what I love to do.

post #107 of 310

See, I could kinda tell it was Brad, if only because I'm so familiar with his distinct voice as a presence in animation. And he has a lot of different modes to that voice, and has played around with accents. Hell, he gets to do that here as well with the brief scene of the international Gusteaus. But Ian Holm as Skinner? No idea until I read the credits. The same goes for Garofalo, whose voice is already so distinctive that you almost HAVE to pile on an accent.

 

Also deserving of praise is Brian Dennehy, who has the perfect mix of fatherly warmness and a gruff attitude as Remy's dad. I love his delivery on the line when he admits while he may disagree with Remy on a lot of things, they're still family.

 

Regarding Ego's speech, it's definitely a defining moment in the film. I don't think Ego is saying that you can't criticize poorly made junk; he (and by extension Brad Bird) is merely pleading for tolerance, giving junk a chance because who knows, it might surprise you. What's so beautiful about the speech is that it simultaneously can be read as applying to things outside the film, and yet fits in perfectly within the themes and characterizations of the story. It's not like when Shyamalan killed off Bob Balaban in Lady in the Water; that was correctly seen as a whiny, childish reaction.

post #108 of 310

Speaking of Brian Dennehy...

 

Anyone ever listen to Patton's routine about him and Dennehy at a Hollywood premiere party where everyone stays away from the amazing food everywhere.  But not Dennehy! 

 

 

Quote:
One of Oswalt’s best bits recalls a lavish Hollywood party where he’s tempted by a glorious display of food that none of the thin celebrities are eating, when who should emerge but actor Brian Dennehy, who embraces Oswalt as he grabs a plate full of food, telling him “Character actors, who gives a fuck if we’re fat?”

 

 

Fantastic.

post #109 of 310

YES. I was gonna mention that bit, but figured everyone already knew it. "THANKS BRIAN DENNEHY!" If I recall correctly, he was discussing the Batman Begins premiere party, and he mocks the idea of him being there amongst the much thinner stars by asking "Who let the bridge troll in?"

post #110 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Spider View Post

Regarding Ego's speech, it's definitely a defining moment in the film. I don't think Ego is saying that you can't criticize poorly made junk; he (and by extension Brad Bird) is merely pleading for tolerance, giving junk a chance because who knows, it might surprise you. What's so beautiful about the speech is that it simultaneously can be read as applying to things outside the film, and yet fits in perfectly within the themes and characterizations of the story. It's not like when Shyamalan killed off Bob Balaban in Lady in the Water; that was correctly seen as a whiny, childish reaction.

 

Ego's speech at the end wasn't about appreciating crap. It was about not dismissing experiences a priori. And when experiencing something that fails finding a way to be constructive. Like critics that watched Suckerpunch and instead of treating it like Black Book treated Carice Van Houten, advised Snyder to find good scripts instead of writing them himself. It applies to type of critic we on the internet do not often come upon but really exists. Critics who would dismiss Die Hard simply becuase of its genre the same way he dissmised ratatouille simply because it was 'peasant food.'

post #111 of 310

That too. Honestly, it has a bunch of layers. In-film, it's exactly that: Ego learns to let go of his pretensions and remember that great food and cooking can come from anywhere, even the humblest origins. Outside the film, it can be used for other purposes.

 

Incidentally, I love the over-the-top design of Ego's office. It's like a supervillain lair.

post #112 of 310

The fact that it's shaped like a coffin?

post #113 of 310

Well, yeah, and just the overall atmosphere. I think his typewriter is even shaped like a skull. Of course, all the supervillain trappings just lead to the greater impact to his character turn.

post #114 of 310

I think you can take a great deal away from Ego's speech, but he does literally confess that what he does is completely valueless next to even a piece of junk. That's where I get stuck. Frankly, I refuse to believe that Dark Shadows is more valuable than a well-written review that picks it apart, but then again I may need to just listen to the speech again. Again, there's a ton to take from it. Notably, I agree that the monologue feels like a call for tolerance, as Stel suggests; I think it's possible to be harsh without being cruel when you're critiquing something trashy and bad. (Though I was recently told by an old classmate at my 10 year high school reunion that I'm too nice in my negative reviews. Go figure.)

 

Basically, tearing up something wholesale and deriding it without any thought for constructive verbiage isn't a good use of one's time as a critic. I think that's a fine lesson to hold onto.

post #115 of 310

He just says that a piece of junk will mean more to most people than what he does.  And really, that is kinda true for most people. 

 

Not people here, obviously.

post #116 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post

Frankly, I refuse to believe that Dark Shadows is more valuable than a well-written review that picks it apart,

 

The argument could be made that since the review doesn't exist without the film, the film has more inherent worth.

post #117 of 310

All great points, guys. My next question/thought: what Pixar films has everybody seen in theaters? And how were the experiences? Here are mine:

 

A Bug's Life-I saw both this and Antz at the theater. I don't remember which one I liked more at the time.

 

Toy Story 2-Even at that age, "When She Loved Me" absolutely crushed the audience.

 

The Incredibles-Still one of my favorite theater experiences ever. Every joke worked, every action scene thrilled, and I do remember some cheers as the film ended.

 

Up-Yeah... I'm still pissed at myself for not seeing Ratatouille, WALL-E or Toy Story 3 in the theater. Thankfully, this more than makes up for that.

 

I definitely plan to see Brave within the next week, possibly on Tuesday with some friends of mine. We learned on opening weekend of The Avengers that maaaaaybe it's a good idea to at least wait a couple days for a huge summer release.

post #118 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

He just says that a piece of junk will mean more to most people than what he does.  And really, that is kinda true for most people. 

 

Not people here, obviously.

 

Okay, yeah. That's right on. And that's also why I come to CHUD in the first place!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

 

The argument could be made that since the review doesn't exist without the film, the film has more inherent worth.

 

I can't dispute that at all. But does having inherent worth mean that the film is more valuable than the review? So, the film has natural, irrefutable value just by virtue of the fact that it's essentially the catalyst for the review, but if the review is insightful and constructive and thought-provoking enough, could it wind up trumping that inherent value?

 

I'm sorry if I'm getting hung up on this. It's something that I think about pretty frequently, and the more I see success in my amateur film critic ventures, the more I roll it around in my brain.

 

As to Pixar experiences in the theater...the only ones I haven't seen in a theater are A Bug's Life, Cars, and Cars 2. Really. I have to say that the experience of seeing Wall-E in a theater with a ton of awestruck people surrounding me was pretty great, though Up and Ratatouille are so good that they transcended the experience of seeing them in nearly empty theaters. (Though there were plenty of "oohs" and "aahs" during the climax of Up and the movie got a smattering of applause at the end.)

post #119 of 310
The only Pixar movies I haven't seen in a theater are A Bug's Life (missed it on release, never got around to seeing IMAX re-release, sadly) and the Cars movies (knew I wouldn't like the first, gave it a chance on video and hated it, never saw the second and plan to keep it that way.)

I still remember going to see Toy Story with my aunt and uncle and cousins; I was excited because I was a young nerd and my primary thought was "holy crap, you can make movies with a computer?" I was too young then to appreciate how nice it was to get a really good movie instead of mere novelty value, but I did thoroughly enjoy it.
post #120 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post

I can't dispute that at all. But does having inherent worth mean that the film is more valuable than the review? So, the film has natural, irrefutable value just by virtue of the fact that it's essentially the catalyst for the review, but if the review is insightful and constructive and thought-provoking enough, could it wind up trumping that inherent value?

 

Dark Shadows is probably a poor example, since it's an adaptation.  But I'd say a review of an original film, no matter how thought-provoking and constructive, still found its spark in someone else's creativity.  Every idea expressed was inspired by someone else's ideas.  If that film isn't there, there's no spark, and therefore, there's no review.  Not that films and books don't have their influences, but they don't exist solely to comment on them the way a review does.  In a way, you could say a review is a sort of creative parasite, requiring a host to exist.

 

EDIT:  That comes across as too dismissive of good criticism, which wasn't my intention.

 

EDIT 2:  Bearing in mind there's a distinction in my mind between "review" and "criticism".

post #121 of 310

As for Pixar in the theater, I've seen every one but Cars 2 opening weekend (still haven't seen it yet).  I'm going to see Brave tonight, as a matter of fact.

 

The best experience had to  be Finding Nemo.  Saw it with a busload of daycare kids who were just the perfect audience for this thing.  I thought they were going to wet themselves when Dory was speaking whale.

 

Up was sort of personal  because I saw it five months before my wedding, and the montage at first was everything I hoped my marriage would be, and then suddenly I was a total wreck imaginging something happening to her.  My marriage eventually falling apart has made this one a little tough to rewatch.

post #122 of 310

On the subject of unlikable protagonists - Woody annoyed the hell out of me in "Toy Story 3". His constant whining about Andy to the other toys drove me nuts. He was just a huge bummer for a long stretch of the movie. Fortunately, he softened up and the movie itself got better as it went along. He was horribly grating at the beginning, though.

 

I was surprised, but the friend I watched it with mentioned that he was a bit of a dick in the first one too, particularly with his treatment of Buzz. Was he annoying at all in the second one? I don't remember and have nothing but fond memories of that movie, except for the awful Sara Mclachlan song. "Toy Story 2" would be my favourite Pixar movie if not for that thing stopping the flick dead in its tracks.

 

One of the reasons I love "Monsters Inc." so much is because there are no gratuitous, unnecessary songs in it. Unfortunately there's some Randy Newman crap over the credits. Fortunately, the movie is over by then, so I can just shut it out and not miss anything.

post #123 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naisu Baddi View Post

I don't remember and have nothing but fond memories of that movie, except for the awful Sara Mclachlan song. "Toy Story 2" would be my favourite Pixar movie if not for that thing stopping the flick dead in its tracks.

 

toy-story-3-02.jpg

post #124 of 310

Yeah, I'm all for tolerating different opinions, but... huh? Personally, I always thought Randy Newman's stuff fit best in these movies. Then you have Princess and the Frog, which has terrific songs, but we don't have to listen to him sing them.

 

Well, or Sarah, who knocks that song past the fucking outfield.

post #125 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Spider View Post

Personally, I always thought Randy Newman's stuff fit best in these movies.

 

The whole "I Will Go Sailing No More" sequence is the strongest thing in the first film, and a lot of it has to do with the song.

 

"You Got a Friend in Me," not so much.

post #126 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

 

Dark Shadows is probably a poor example, since it's an adaptation.  But I'd say a review of an original film, no matter how thought-provoking and constructive, still found its spark in someone else's creativity.  Every idea expressed was inspired by someone else's ideas.  If that film isn't there, there's no spark, and therefore, there's no review.  Not that films and books don't have their influences, but they don't exist solely to comment on them the way a review does.  In a way, you could say a review is a sort of creative parasite, requiring a host to exist.

 

EDIT:  That comes across as too dismissive of good criticism, which wasn't my intention.

 

EDIT 2:  Bearing in mind there's a distinction in my mind between "review" and "criticism".

 

Ah, now, that second edit-- that's interesting. Again, I can't really refute the logic here, but when you step away from "review" and get into "criticism", how much does the conversation change? (Which requires definitions for "review" and "criticism" that separates them from one another. In my mind, reviews are broad reactions to a film intended to inform an audience of its subjective quality, whereas criticism is scholarly, analytical, and far more in-depth in the service of deriving greater meaning from the film rather than just commenting on it. You may have your own definitions, though.)

 

So, yes, a review is kind of parasitic in that it exists on the life of a film. I think criticism is parasitic in the same ways, but it's also doing something more than just remarking on whether a film is "good" or "bad" (yes, I realize that this is boiled-down simplicity at its finest, but I'm aiming for succinctness here). A review tells you why you should see or avoid a film; criticism (good criticism) shows how that film has meaning and how its meaning extends to and applies to us.

 

Maybe good criticism still can't be said to have the same value as an original work of art, but maybe it doesn't have to in order to hold great value?

 

Re: Up. Oof. Sorry to hear that.

post #127 of 310

I guess a review would be, "Here's why this movie did or didn't work, in my opinion," whereas criticism would be something that dives more into the themes, the influences, the resonances, something that requires a broader base of knowledge to pull from than just having watched a film.

 

Cataloging the plot and character issues in Prometheus is a review.  Discussing its similarities to Alien, its biblical influences, its references to Frankenstein, that's criticism.  Not that I expect those definitions to be embraced by everyone, that's just how I see it.

post #128 of 310

I think that's a pretty fair division. It's pretty close to what I laid out above, anyways, so I think we more or less see this the same way.

post #129 of 310

Seen every single Pixar film in the theaters.  Yes, even CARS 2 (which I still enjoyed as a one-and-done).  

 

Saw UP in the theater . . . on a first date.  That was a brutal exercise in trying to bottle up one's emotions in front of a stranger.  

post #130 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post

Seen every single Pixar film in the theaters.

 

*Christian Bale voice*

 

Goooooood for yoooooooooooouuuuu!

 

...but seriously that's pretty cool.

post #131 of 310

Loving this thread. For those of you wanting the full Patton Oswalt bit about Brian Dennehy, check below. It starts at 4:30.

 

post #132 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Spider View Post

 

Well, or Sarah, who knocks that song past the fucking outfield.

I actually like some of her singles. Growing up in Canada, I had to hear a lot of her music (it's a rule that a significant percentage of all music played on the radio has to be from Canadian artists). I just felt that this particular song did not work at all, both on its own, and in the context of the movie. Way too maudlin.

 

I appreciate the way Pixar tries to make their movies deeper than the average animated fare by infusing them with some sentimentality. I just don't think it always works. The beginning of "Up" is an effective example, although to me the most moving moment of that film was the note in the photo album. And of course the more emotional stuff in "Monsters Inc." got to me. I consider that movie a good example of balancing a more playful tone with some sentimentality.

 

The shift from one to the other with the Sarah Mclachlan song in "Toy Story 2" was WAY too jarring for me. Not that the movie was completely devoid of emotion before it (there's poignancy to the idea of the toys worrying that they'll be forgotten when their owner grows up), but the song went too far.

 

Even old Disney movies don't have tunes that schmaltzy. I'm a sentimental person in general, but there are certain things that seem to really get to other people that just strike me as trying way too hard. Another is that "Futurama" episode about Fry's dog. There are other episodes of that series that have brought tears to my eyes (i.e. "Luck of the Fryish"), but the dog thing just made me roll them.

 

I think too many people give Pixar a free pass because they're so wowed by the quality of the animation (the only thing that I think has consistently improved from one movie to the next) and the fact that they always put effort into making the movies accessible to both kids and adults by bringing the emotion. Personally I think they could stand a little more scrutiny, instead of people saying stuff like " They have 'the Midas touch' ".

 

It's happening a little more now with "Cars 2" and now "Brave" getting a little more criticism than Pixar movies tend to get, but it could have happened earlier. To say their record was flawless from 2003 ("Finding Nemo") to 2008 ("Wall-E") is far too generous in my opinion. I didn't much care for any of their movies that I saw in that period.

 

"The Incredibles" and "Finding Nemo" in particular are examples of movies that were basically kiddie fare disguised as something deeper by paying lip service to the theme of family bonds or something. I liked some of their more wacky characters. I wasn't as keen on their attempts to unconvincingly meet the Pixar quota for depth.

 

In contrast, I think "Wall-E" has the opposite problem. It starts off as a really touching little story, then gets undercut by its need to also be a fun movie for kids. All the crap with funny robots going all over the place and fat humans taints the brilliant simplicity of the beautiful first and third acts.

post #133 of 310

Talk to a parent about Finding Nemo and then tell me it's "kiddie fare".

post #134 of 310

Don't you think that's a little exclusionary, though? It's like when people told me I probably don't appreciate "Jurassic Bark" because I never had a pet for a long time. If the movie really works, shouldn't it be appealing regardless of whether or not you can relate directly to what its characters are going through?

 

I find the appeal of movies like "The Incredibles", "Finding Nemo", and "Ratatouille" much narrower than that of the "Toy Story" movies, "A Bug's Life", "Up", and "Monsters Inc.". Those movies are all basically about love and friendship, so anyone can relate. Those first three I mentioned are about um, the joys and challenges of having children and being passionate about cooking...I guess?

post #135 of 310

I don't know if you're being deliberately myopic, or really can't see that those films are about so much more than that.

 

Really, being exclusionary is saying, "eh, just kiddie fare."

post #136 of 310
Count me in as someone that has seen all PIXAR in the theater. Probably always will. Some more than once like Toy Story 3 and Finding Nemo. In fact I burned myself out on Nemo. I think four times? After the second time they were free but still. Toy Story blew my mind so much and the animation in bugs life was ao awesome they made a hardcore fan for life. It is likely why I am so forgiving of even their lesser works and own every damn movie of theirs.
post #137 of 310
Just got back from seeing Brave. I don't know what I was expecting, but whatever it was, it was very different from it. But, it was also quite good (and in tackling the old "rebellious tomboy princess" bit, proves once again that the best deconstructions of a trope tend to also be some of the best examples thereof,) and I have a feeling that it's a movie I'll enjoy more on subsequent rewatches, not less. (Also, Billy Connoly is a hoot. He always is, but damn, they could start putting him in every movie, as far as I'm concerned.) My fears of Cars 2 marking the start of a slump are allayed; even the teaser for Monsters University looked a lot better than I was expecting.

(Now I just have to hope they'll get their marketing act together, but I do have to admit that Brave is probably a hell of a hard movie to cut a trailer for without spoiling everything. Still, the Japanese trailer managed it and was so much better...)

La Luna was beautiful on every level. I was a little thrown by expecting a traditional gag-punchline short, which it isn't in the slightest, but God is it lovely for what it is.
post #138 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naisu Baddi View Post

I find the appeal of movies like "The Incredibles", "Finding Nemo", and "Ratatouille" much narrower than that of the "Toy Story" movies, "A Bug's Life", "Up", and "Monsters Inc.". Those movies are all basically about love and friendship, so anyone can relate. Those first three I mentioned are about um, the joys and challenges of having children and being passionate about cooking...I guess?

 

I won't dance around it-- you are being incredibly myopic here with your thematic cherry-picking. Ratatouille, Finding Nemo, and The Incredibles are all about "love and friendship", too, which is also-- by the way-- an incredibly narrow and flavorless way of viewing any of the six films you mention. So why do the first three have narrower appeal then the second three? They're all about the same fucking things. Ratatouille is as much about conflicts in friendship and family relations as any of the Toy Story movies or Up. Same with Finding Nemo. So why do those movies get the short straw in your mind? I guess I'm just not getting the distinction you're drawing between them.

 

I'm glad that people seem to be taking to Brave. Though there does seem to be a dividing line on the film-- e.g. those who think the movie doesn't live up to the peak of Pixar's standards, and those who think it shouldn't have to-- at least nearly everyone agrees that it's good, which I think is rare.

post #139 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post

 

I won't dance around it-- you are being incredibly myopic here with your thematic cherry-picking. Ratatouille, Finding Nemo, and The Incredibles are all about "love and friendship", too, which is also-- by the way-- an incredibly narrow and flavorless way of viewing any of the six films you mention. So why do the first three have narrower appeal then the second three? They're all about the same fucking things. Ratatouille is as much about conflicts in friendship and family relations as any of the Toy Story movies or Up. Same with Finding Nemo. So why do those movies get the short straw in your mind? I guess I'm just not getting the distinction you're drawing between them.

This is a fair enough point. I guess what it all boils down to is I just couldn't be made to care about the characters in "Finding Nemo" and "The Incredibles". As a result, any thematic depth you may see in them is lost on me. It's the same way I feel about "Lord of the Rings". If they come across as a bunch of forgettable characters on an adventure I don't give a shit about, it's hard for me to find anything insightful or engaging in their interactions.

 

The characters in those movies came across as one-dimensional and dull to me. In contrast, I find the people in the "Toy Story" movies, "Monsters Inc"., and "Up" more sympathetic and endearing. And I'm starting to regret bringing up "Ratatouille" at all. To be honest, I don't really have the right to analyze it since it bored me so much that I couldn't even finish it. I'll refrain from saying anything more about it until I've given it another chance.

post #140 of 310

Well, yeah, you have to be able to connect with the characters in a film in order for it to matter (most times anyways). I'm just surprised that you can't relate to any of the characters in those particular movies. In any event, I'd definitely give Ratatouille another shot, especially if you haven't seen it from start to finish; you might find your mind changes!

post #141 of 310

Picked up the second collection of Pixar shorts, and it's another excellent one. I'm not as fond of some of the shorts in this pack (namely the Cars Toons starring Mater), but it's still a great collection, and it's nice to have them all in one place so I don't have to pull out my Blu-rays any time I just want to watch some of these shorts.

 

Also, in addition to having commentary on every single short, we get a real treat in the form of several student films made by Pixar directors when they were at CalArts. There's two from John Lasseter, two from Andrew Stanton, and three from Pete Docter. Obviously, being student films made in the 70s and 80s, they're a tad rough, but still quite fascinating and entertaining to watch. For me, the best are Lasseter's "Nitemare", which serves as an intriguing precursor to Monsters, Inc.; Stanton's "A Story", which takes the piss out of 70s children's TV shows; and Docter's "Next Door", which has creative visuals and a surprisingly heartwarming ending.

 

Now that that's out of the way, here's another question: what are the biggest laughs you've gotten from Pixar films? We've discussed the hilarity of most of the shorts, so I'm thinking mostly films. I'll start us off:

 

Toy Story-Woody's "YOU! ARE! A! TOOOYYY!" rant, brilliantly delivered by Tom Hanks. Tim Allen's awesome "drunk" acting in the Mrs. Nesbitt scene (his insane cackling is particularly hilarious). The fact that Buzz Lightyear's head squeaks when you hit it. Nearly all of Rex's lines. And those damn Pizza Planet aliens still make me crack up helplessly, especially when Woody calls them "zealots".

 

A Bug's Life-The stunned, horrified and queasy reactions from the circus bugs when they learn what the ants actually expect them to do. And, of course, the outtakes.

 

Toy Story 2-Again, the outtakes. Al griping about having to drive "all the way to work, on a Saturday!", and it's just across the street from where he lives. Hamm insisting that he has to "go around the horn" with the TV remote. All the toy satire in Al's Toy Barn, especially Barbie's "take that" line about short-sighted retailers not ordering enough Buzz Lightyear figures to meet demands. And of course, nearly all of the stuff with Deluded Buzz, especially the pitch-perfect Empire Strikes Back parody.

 

Monsters, Inc.-When the opening scene quickly goes south. John Ratzenberger's booming but friendly "Welcome to the Himalayas!", if only because it's so unexpected.

 

Finding Nemo-"I don't wanna play the gender card right now. You wanna play a card? Let's play the 'not die' card." Almost everything with the sharks and Crush. "SHARKBAIT HOO HA HA!" "Enough with the Sharkbait." "SHARKBAIT HOO... ba-ba doo." The seagulls' constant "Mine!"

 

The Incredibles-All the tweaking of superhero tropes, especially the talk about "monologuing", Syndrome accidentally throwing Bob away and muttering "oh, brilliant" to himself, the darkly hilarious "No capes!" montage, and everything ELSE Edna Mode does. Frozone's line "We look like bad guys! INCOMPETENT bad guys!" The hilarious face and noise Mirage makes after Elastigirl punches her.

 

Cars-The first movie is actually better when you go back to it, although it's still not GREAT. Michael Keaton's awesomely douchey Chick Hicks helps add to the entertainment value.

 

Ratatouille-A lot of big ones, but my favorite has always been the lawyer's reaction after Skinner's rant about what he thinks Linguini is hiding: "Should I be... concerned about this? About... you?"

 

WALL-E-Any time EVE gets frustrated, especially when she silently blasts the security camera with her and WALL-E's image on it.

 

Up-Carl muttering "Well, that's not gonna work" after he daydreams about how to get rid of Russell. Nearly everything Dug says or does, or all the other note-perfect dog behavior/dialogue. Alpha's voice. "But's it a talking DOG!" Most of Kevin's physical behavior. And the contrast between the bride and groom's families at Carl and Ellie's wedding.

 

Toy Story 3-For some reason, Hanks' delivery of "He was putting you IN THE ATTIC!" makes me laugh. Everything with Ken, Tortilla Head, and Spanish Buzz. And Bonnie's toys provide a lot of great little laughs, especially since the actors playing them (Kristin Schaal, Timothy Dalton, Jeff Garlin, Bonnie Hunt, etc.) are so naturally funny. The reveal of Chuckles.

 

Cars 2-Bruce Campbell's great cameo.

 

Brave-Most of the physical comedy borne from Elinor's transformation.

post #142 of 310

This is full of all sorts of wacky fun (Note: it's a theory how all of the Pixar movies take place in the same universe):

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/09/pixar_theory_this_grand_unified_theory_explains_how_monsters_inc_s_boo_grows.single.html

post #143 of 310

Incredibles sequel?

 

 

Quote:

It’s official: we’re currently working on new films featuring your favorite characters from The Incredibles and Cars! pic.twitter.com/HzdvF0rvpA

— Disney•Pixar (@DisneyPixar) March 18, 2014
post #144 of 310

The wording of that is a little weird. Maybe they'll try to pull an Avengers and do a Disney Infinity movie.

post #145 of 310

TOY STORY 4 is coming.

 

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/11/06/john-lasseter-will-direct-toy-story-4-breaking/

 

So yeah, all that shit about 3 being the last one?  Yeah...

post #146 of 310

Of course it is.

post #147 of 310

There should be a special word for that magical period between the end of a trilogy and the inevitable point where the studio can no longer resist that extra billion dollars.

post #148 of 310
Toy Foury!
post #149 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post
 

There should be a special word for that magical period between the end of a trilogy and the inevitable point where the studio can no longer resist that extra billion dollars.

DON'T TELL ME YOU WOULDN'T DO THE SAME THING!!!

YOU'RE NOT MADE OF STONE!!!!

(weeps in petulant crisis)

post #150 of 310
Will the toys finally overcome their insecurities and reunite after an elaborate chase sequence?!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › The Pixar Thread