Mainly concentrates on forming the dynamic between the furry one and the round one whilst foreshadowing as many events as possible from Monsters Inc.
If I were being nasty I'd say it was an over-inflated DVD extra but it's infused with Pixar's usual high level of charm making it difficult to be nasty.
No doubt features at least one character saying "awwwesome" in an annoying American accent.
ReplyDeleteEd, you should definitely watch some cartoon movies not made in Japan. Two words for you - Toy Story Marathon!
ReplyDeleteJoe, three words for you - I hate Pixar.
ReplyDeleteBased on?
DeleteThe Pixar films I've seen.
DeleteJust curious what they are.
DeleteToy Story and Monsters Inc of the top of my head. To be honest though, my problem isn't with Pixar per se, but rather 3D animations in general, whether it's Pixar, DreamWorks or whoever.
DeleteIt just seems like an endless succession of infinitely similar multi-coloured, boggle-eyed twats spouting turgid transatlantic dialogue. It seems like there's a new one of these 3D animations every month and to me, they're all like completely interchangeable extended merchandising promos. Still, I guess you have to give Toy Story props for having the audacity to actually make a film about the merchandise. That's entering and exiting through the giftshop...
Basically, I detest everything these films stand for - the cookie-cutter CGI, the branding and the franchises, the blatant commoditization of the visual image, and the way these characters are used as puppets to push a banal neo-liberal ideology, which in itself is only a front for the soulless and ruthless commercialism that burns behind their eyes like the fires of Hades.
Besides which, I just prefer hand-drawn cell animation to 3D.
Your third paragraph covers near enough all mainstream cinema, not just animation.
DeleteTrue. The same thought occurred to me as I posted that comment. The branding opportunities are just so acute with 3D animation though - so easy for a fuzzy green bear to come off the screen and onto the shelf...
DeleteKids films have had the same merchandising since star wars and there was movie and TV mercy before, just not to the same extent. In fact I reckon there was more merchandise for ghostbusters than some Pixar movies (not cars, definitely ratatouille).
DeleteToy story was a massive gamble at the time. Its success can be attributed almost solely to its quality. This is something that can be said about almost everything Pixar has produced (except cars). The similar thread through all their films is character and story. There is a gulf in class between their output and the other CG animation studios; an attention to detail sorely missing elsewhere.
Are there too many CG cartoons nowadays? If you're over 12, then undeniably yes. But Pixar have consistently made the diamonds in the rough.
Are there too many commercial tie-ins to movies? If you're not a studio exec, then undeniably yes.
Does the amount of toys made from a film matter? Only if there isn't actually a film in there (I'm looking at you batman and robin). World war z wasn't better than pacific rim because there are less tie ins, but because it was a better film.
If Pixar's strong point is character and story then it's just not for me - I thought Monsters Inc sucked in both departments. I do realize 3D animation is primarily targeted at children, but I'm also pretty sure they wouldn't have appealed to me as a kid - I would have preferred traditional cartoons, probably without being able to put my finger on why.
DeleteWow, been a while since I read a Marxist critique of US cinema. It's like being back at uni! I love classical Hollywood filmmaking, and Pixar knows how to do it when so, so many don't.
ReplyDelete