|
axleblaze posted:I didn't think KFP2 was awful but other than the animation itself I found it rather unremarkable and no where near as good as the first one on pretty much any level. Yeah, I enjoyed it and the art was great (love those 2D animation sequences!) but it just didn't have whatever made the first movie so good, for me. HTTYD 2 on the other hand still looks crazy awesome and I hope I don't overbuild my expectations. But for real. I'm also pretty stoked because the 3D showings were already out of the theaters by the time I managed to see the first. People seemed to really enjoy the 3D on that so I'm hoping it's as good this time around. Speaking of dragon designs and junk everyone should totally go grab a copy of the HTTYD art book if you can. Seriously, so gorgeous.
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
Senior Scarybagels posted:No. Ghibli is the exception (along with Satoshi Kon, but he is dead so nothing new will be coming from him). I really like the new shorts and as much as I'd like to be optimistic about Disney's future as a 2D animation studios, I think that falls more under the umbrella of 'propping up Disney's animation legacy' and sort of throwing animation fans a bone rather than evidence that they're interested in keeping it up. Paperman on the other hand is a real innovation and might lead to something more, but true 2D seems to be dead as far as Disney is concerned. This used to make me kind of sad but now I feel like it just opens the doors for fresh blood, if there's an opportunity. I don't think there's any good reason that 2D animation can't be a box office hit. Disney just can't really be bothered with it anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Fatkraken posted:I don't think that tonally Dreamworks or Pixar films are any less child oriented than Disney/Disney-esque 2D feature animation, with the possible exception of Shrek (given that those movies are lampooning other animation/storytelling traditions). They're very accessible to adults and children alike, sure, especially the best ones, but so are classic Disney films. I agree. My parents aren't nearly as into animation (or film in general) as I am, but they both really enjoyed a lot of the Disney films they took me and my sister to as kids, particularly bigger stuff like the Lion King. I don't really consider a lot of Disney films for kids, not stuff I grew up on like Aladdin or TLK, or the old classics like Pinocchio or Bambi. Nothing about them necessarily screams 'for children', although it's hard to divorce that from the films and animation now since it's so ingrained. Some Disney movies are more overtly child-oriented than others but it would be impossible to really debate the specifics, I feel. For that matter, it's fairly evident that Pixar is at least somewhat removed from what it used to be, post-Disney takeover. The atmosphere there is also apparently more corporate and a little more rigid than it used to be. Obviously that doesn't have much to do with Disney's abandoning 2D, but I don't know if Pixar's vast audience appeal will last forever; I think a lot of that came from a level of creative freedom they had that I'm not really sure persists. E: not that they're making bad movies, I really enjoyed MU, but Brave wasn't all that great in my opinion and the constant shuffling around of directors and such on projects doesn't look that good either. But there's nothing definitive there yet.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Senior Scarybagels posted:What I meant is that they caused the perception of 2D animation being for kids, where as 3D Animation has the perception that it's for children as much as adults. Yeah, I don't see evidence for that really being the case. I'm assuming now Ratchet and Clank is going to suck. The writing for the PS3 games really mediocre at best, and generally pretty boring. I think the movie would have been much more timely in 2005.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
AnimeJune posted:I have a confession to make - I have *not* seen the original Kung Fu Panda. I adored Dreamworks' Prince of Egypt and later on, How to Train Your Dragon, but everything in between (except maybe the first Shrek movie) I've either avoided or hated. I took one look at the trailer for it with the stupid smirking panda and the Instantly Recognizable Celebrity Voices and was turned right the gently caress off. Yeah, there's obviously no guarantee that you'll like it but it's a really well-made movie and generally considered pretty funny. The designs are great and the animation is fantastic too. Definitely worth a single watch at the least.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Yeah, the games were awesome for what they were on the PS2 but whether I outgrew it or the writing just got worse, it seemed way more Saturday morning cartoon/definitely for young kids than the old games had. They dropped the double-entendre naming scheme and everything. More than that the series' originality kind of went out the window, the biggest appeal was the crazy guns and by the PS3 games they were basically just recycling all the good ones from the previous games. Eh. At the end of the day it's shifted from good full price games to tower defense spin-offs and $30 installments. I think it'll be dead before too long.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Secrets of the Furious Five is the all-2D one, right? The content is so obviously kids'-show level but I can't help watching it occasionally because the animation is so nice. I really love that style. Is the Masters one done in the same fashion?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
Weirdly I looked it up a few hours after I posted it and I have seen it before somehow. I know I've watched the Furious Five one on Netflix before but I don't remember seeing this one! The character designs are fantastic though. The animation is great, I would love to see a movie that looked like that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Pyrotoad posted:The director's commentary says something like they didn't want all the kids in the audience to think there were no pandas left. I can see why they'd want to avoid that. I didn't really have strong feelings for it either way, but it might have been neater to explore that option without throwing in 'his dad/parents(?) are alive!' I'm not really opposed to that in and of itself, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Vargo posted:Except that Sully and Mike do accomplish their dreams, and we went into the movie knowing that they do? (Well, Sully does, anyway. Mike kinda does.) They just fail in their initial plan, and are then shown in the credits bootstrapping in and making their way up from the mail room after flunking out of college, which I thought was insanely stupid. Maybe, but it absolutely resonated with me that you can work your way to places you wanted to get by taking paths you never planned for. And Mike managed to get a career that he loved and was good at that put him near where he was originally aiming, but he didn't plan to go in as Sully's buddy/trainer/supervisor guy — he wanted to be Sully, a scarer. It's showing that you can fail at something no matter what you want, but it doesn't mean it's over, you're done, get out, give up — you can still find something that works for you. It even doubles up nicely with the original movie in that Mike turns out to be WAY better at making kids laugh than scaring them; it just wasn't a career that existed when he went to college. I also LOVE broadcasting the message that you can't magic your way to being the best at something just because you wish really hard. Wanting it bad enough isn't actually enough to get something, and sometimes what you want just isn't going to happen no matter how hard you work (but when properly applied, hard work can get you to great places). Hell, I love the fact that Sully cheating got him booted out of school and there was no "WOW you guys really are amazing scarers! Back in the program!" at the very end. Essentially, you can really, really screw up, and there will be consequences, BUT you can also go on to get where you want to be; there are real consequences for lovely behavior, but your life isn't over, either. I'm finally seeing Frozen today so yay, then I can slog through the hundreds of pages in the thread, haha! I'm looking forward to it though. And yeah, I think MU is getting snubbed for Pixar movies that should maybe have been passed over in previous years. I do feel bad for Dan Scanlon 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:I like the Dean in the movie actually. She's completely right about them for the most part. At the point in the movie where she ruins them both are so single minded in how they're going about their lives, that if they continue on their path they will fail. Mike will never be a good scarer and Sully just assumes he's better than he actually is. As they are, both of them don't really have a chance of making it. When they unexpectedly overcome their flaws, she admits that she was wrong about them. I think this is dead on. She was a pretty realistic portrayal, in my experience. And yeah, I do now see the angle where 'work your way up from the mailroom!' is kind of bullshit, but I've had some similar experiences in my own life that gave it some credibility for me. Not literally the same, but true enough that your circumstances don't necessarily mean you're shut out of your career choice or whatever opportunities you're looking for. computer parts posted:And even in American Universities even though it's not explicit there's a long tradition in some fields of making the student take a bunch of bullshit classes that are extremely hard and only tangentially related to their major in order to make sure most of them drop out. My sister went to school for architecture and her (American) university program starts with 300 people. By graduation, roughly 30 people were left, mostly due to rounds of cuts each year, but also many students dropping out from sheer exhaustion. They basically don't want you to graduate unless you can really, really hack it. mareep fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Jan 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
neonnoodle posted:
I have no opinion on this, but why not?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2014 04:11
|
|
what? No.
|
Atlantis is one Disney movie that I've seen a bunch of times and still can never remember the bulk of it. It just kind of slides out of the mind. There is a lot of cool stuff in it, both concepts and visuals, but it just doesn't ever come together.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
Kojiro posted:The animation in Atlantis really bugs me on occasion, like it's a bit overanimated, or something. Don't really know how to put it into words, it's no Bluth-style-jigging around but it just doesn't look great. Milo's enormous glasses that get in the way of his face are pretty annoying, too. Yeah, and for something distinctly Mignola-inspired I really find most of the designs and general aesthetic pretty unappealing. I love Mignola's style but I don't think it translated well.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Gotta Wear Shades posted:I've always enjoyed just about every part of Brother Bear. Not many movies have the protagonist deliver a "Sorry I killed your mom, kid" scene. That is some seriously heavy poo poo honestly. Even I don't really remember a lot of Brother Bear but it strikes me as a movie that deserves some more appreciation. I remember it being nicely animated, the story was solid as far as I can remember and that really is a hell of a plot point.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:On the DVD the moose have an in-character commentary track and if your DVD player supports it they get shadowcast onto the screen like in MST3K I do remember watching some of that, but I have a soft spot for them anyway because my dad loved Bob and Doug McKenzie. I'll have to watch it again sometime soon just to see how it holds up, since yeah, it is pretty forgettable apparently!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
Nothing particularly helpful to add to this discussion but I actually find the racism in Disney chat a very interesting read. And I'm happy the Lego Movie is getting good reviews. The more I see of it the more childish and kind of dumb it looks but for some reason I'm still super hyped for it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
^^^ your mom sounds awesome and you just made me finally buy I, Claudius off amazon  Macaluso posted:I think the "for some reason" is because of who is behind it. Ah I think you nailed it. Cloudy gave me kind of the same 'this is dumb and really for kids' sort of vibe but I LOVED it. And some of the stuff in the mock up 'behind the scenes of the Lego Movie' thing were pretty funny in my opinion. I'm honestly kind of surprised no one thought to do this before. mareep fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:Well, I believe the characters are still in use on Splash Mountain, which was partly inspired by Song of the South. As of two years ago those characters were definitely roaming Disney World in full costume like Mickey or Donald would — almost makes me wonder why Song of the South is completely unavailable, yet the characters have their own theme park ride and more.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
^^^ also this probablyRobindaybird posted:Because with the exception of "Tar Baby" - which is questionable - the cartoons themselves aren't bad, it's the framing story that's unacceptable. True, and I didn't know apparently some of them were released outside of the actual film — even so, I would assume these are characters not many people have actually seen, so it was weird seeing the costumed characters giving little kids signatures and stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Pick posted:I think that it's easy to conflate a queer reading and the "smooth operator" archetype, or the "schemer". There is crossover, but I think to some degree that it's more about macho culture than sexuality in particular. Mufasa is better than Scar because he offers to straight-up fight him for dominance. Scar couldn't win in a fight though, like a man. Scar's a manipulative poo poo, like a woman. Whether this means Scar has sex with other male lions (such as??) is practically a detail or a flourish. The shameful part is their refusal to evidence traditionally "masculine" traits, whether or not it's even within that person's capacity to do so ("shallow end of the gene pool"). This gets muddied because it's so strongly associated with homosexuality, but I think it stands as its own kind of bigotry as well. This was a particularly interesting post to read, thank you! My first natural reaction is to argue that I think it's probably more common/likely that homosexual reads on characters (and hell, Jafar totally wanted to hook up with Jasmine. Maybe?) are just an accidental or coincidental byproduct of their design and general personality. But then I remembered both Scar and Jafar were designed by Andreas Deja, who is a gay animator and artist. I even have a piece of his Scar concept art lying around somewhere that I remember him writing about, saying he was too similar to Jafar and adding some of that scruff on his cheeks helped differentiate the designs.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2014 15:33
|
|
)
)
|
Fatkraken posted:Divine is played by a man though. Does Ursula being emphatically female still mean she reads as "gay-coded" or whatever, specifically to the segment of the audience not that aware of Divine? Drag queens are extreme parodies of femininity but are necessarily played by men, when a character who is clearly female is given those traits, do they still evoke homosexuality, or just appear to be parodying certain "feminine" traits within a female vessel? There are actually women who perform in drag and identify as biologically female drag queens. I think basing the design on Divine was mostly about aesthetics and overall flamboyant, showy personality (Ursula being sort of a performer to pitch her side to Ariel) but it's worth noting. I'm not really sure automatically equating dragqueens and homosexuality makes sense necessarily either.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Yeahh I kind of had that reaction too. Especially when they closed the scene with him disappearing into the fog as if to make us think he might not actually be okay; I think I actually let out an audible "really?" at the time, it was really disappointing. Which isn't to say I don't think the movie couldn't have ended on a down note successfully, I just think it would have taken a lot more work to make the ending fit- like, someone a while back in the thread said it felt like they'd shoehorned in a happy ending at the last moment in production? I didn't get that feeling at all. I watched it the other night and actually pretty much hated the first half hour. It was just awkward and not very good in parts, very ham handed (like Belt, the obligatory cute sidekick character, and using the 'duh duh duhhh!' shtick over and over seemed really forced). After things got moving though it warmed up fast and I genuinely really liked the rest of it. I also felt the same about it being a little TOO Looney Toons with the slapstick, making it feel like there was no real danger at all. Ordinarily wouldn't be a huge deal but it seemed out of place in a movie ostensibly about the dangers of the world and the importance of survival. All things considered it was still very good! Not sure I'd care to own it though, whereas HTTYD was a must-buy as soon as the credits rolled.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Did you not even like the chase? I kinda feel the same way about the stuff involving the cave, and belt (although the rest of the guy meet was pretty okay, in my opinion), but them going to get their breakfast was a really amazing sequence. It was visually really interesting, but for some reason felt kind of student-film to me. I don't like saying that because it feels insanely judgmental, and I think it's more that it felt like a really fun animated stand-alone piece that didn't actually reinforce the plot in any way. Since it was all slapstick and over-the-top cartoon violence, it felt completely safe and without any real sense of danger. It was a bit jarring. Even the enthusiasm and gusto Thugg(? Cage's character) has at the hunt seemed really at odds with the whole 'CAUTION AND SAFETY' message. The scene itself was funny and enjoyable but I think tonally it made no sense and kind of left me more confused than it should have.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
Pick posted:Seriously, Jerry, just shut up about animation. You are banned. I don't think it was ever pursued or went anywhere, but watching them back to back makes it look pretty suspicious. I feel bad for the student behind the video, but I'm not surprised nothing came out of it anyway. e: it doesn't really help that in my opinion the student film isn't really very good, but the trailer isn't either. The whole situation is kind of curious because you'd think Disney could come up with something better than that anyway. mareep fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Feb 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Pick posted:Pixar was, which made me surprised to see this, because I hadn't heard of this one previously. This one has been planned for ages but as far as I know the Pixar/Disney one is still in production as well.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Just reading that first paragraph reminds me of how Pixar people have described their previous, more passion-driven films (Finding Nemo, Wall-E, etc. as opposed to Cars, or maybe Brave, which started out with a really personal story but ended up getting dragged out for years and muddled by multiple views), which makes me really excited to see it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
Corek posted:Cars was a passion-driven film, there's even a documentary on the DVD explaining how it was inspired by the Route 66 trips John Lasseter took with his family. The town in that movie has loads of stuff directly taken from the things he saw there. Yeah, I've seen it a few times, I have a DVD copy but don't return to it very often (nowhere near as much as the rest of Pixar's library). I feel like Cars and the sequel were very much driven by Lasseter's individual passion, and his own interest in the subjects the film explored, and it ended up being nailed down to two specific topics; the death of small towns and a love of, well, cars. I'm not discounting that those are actually really valid topics to explore, but I think the movie was a lot weaker because those things are by no means universal, and it doesn't really go much for the emotional resonance that's characteristic of a lot of Pixar work. Finding Nemo stemmed from the experience of realizing you're an overprotective parent, and both Marlin's and Nemo's motives and emotions give it a broad range of emotional hook. Monsters, Inc. is a great example of this too, I think, since 'monsters in the closet'/childhood nightmares are pretty universally experienced feelings, and the relationship between Sully and Boo has a lot of emotions tied up in it. Pixar seems to do its best when it's exploring the intimate relationships between people (or robots, or rats, talking dogs, haha!). I guess the difference being that a lot of Pixar's best work, in my opinion, stems from some kind of almost average human experience that someone had, and exploring that, which I would bet also plays into why Cars is considered kind of an aberration in their catalogue.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
So it's not a film, but y'all should definitely eyeball Glen Keane's new short film for Google. It is BEAUTIFUL. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9CG_PoEWCg
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
neonnoodle posted:The animation on this is totally gorgeous but I didn't find it very... I dunno... meaningful? It felt to me like a technical exercise, and kind of kitschy. Funnily I kind of agree, but I just love the way that it looks. I'm also incredibly jazzed to see what Glen Keane is up to these days. Maybe it's just me but after Disney gutted its animation department it's always really exciting to see legends like Keane still working in 2D.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:Yeah, but I think this article is a little more relevant, because it goes into detail about how Pixar and Dreamworks Animation were involved. This is so... irksome. I just got around to reading my copy of Creativity, Inc. and it is really weird to read about Catmull, Jobs, and Lasseter getting Pixar off the ground and all the business junk they went through to do it, in light of these events. To be fair, some of it sounds slightly hollow anyway since he sort of addresses and still somehow glosses over Pixar's trend of increasingly dragged out projects and quick, even last-minute replacement of directors. I guess this isn't particularly surprising, but it's strange how much I idolized Pixar and especially Pixar's leadership growing up and have grown up to be relatively disappointed with them. On a side note, Cartoon Brew highlighted two of Catmull's most highly recommended books of 2013 last year. I picked up The Storytelling Animal out of interest, and it was full of weird  and more than one insistence that girls just love to play with their dolls and are just not interested in the same things that boys are, including some really anecdotal-ish and shaky sounding 'studies', which really bothered me.
mareep fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
^^^ with Brave, you can almost see the perfect splits where they took two movies and spliced them together. This is also still purely an opinion, but I also think the writing and creative solutions to story problems aren't as good (the potion answering machine gag always springs to mind, which definitely felt like less of an original idea than what I'd have expected in a Pixar film).axleblaze posted:It's still odd to me when people speak doom and gloom about Pixar. They had one bad movie (which really isn't as bad as people say it is), one film that was really good but had some internal troubles and a perfectly good sequel that gets lumped in as being bad for no reason I can really see other than it being a sequel. They've stumbled a bit from the absurdly good streak they had going but they still aren't exactly a name that doesn't mean anything anymore. Cars is just really specifically Lasseter's vision and passion and despite being insanely lucrative for kids' merchandising, the film itself wasn't really quality material in a 'story that needs to be told' sense. I liked Monsters University a lot when it was first released, but I'd just graduated from college and was really sad to be leaving school; on rewatches, it doesn't hold up all that well. Brave was really watered down and suffered being dragged through production for much longer than Pixar's usual. Even Pixar's worst are well-polished films that obviously people were invested in. It's just more noticeable since Pixar had an untouchably high quality output for so long, and especially that they were doing so well right out of the gate with Toy Story. Every studio that goes on long enough is going to hit some kind of slump sooner or later, but I also think that once Disney really came onto the scene (and also since Lasseter became head of the entire Disney animation empire) things have dipped in quality overall. I really agree with neonnoodle's post, especially the parts about there not being any strong vision right now, necessarily. From some conversations I've had with people at Pixar, it also seems like there are more issues with politics and the like in the studio than the execs let on.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
Wittgen posted:Maybe pixar movies have gotten a bit worse, but Disney movies have gotten better, so it's not like the animation world has suffered some terrible loss. Definitely, but usually when people are critiquing Pixar's performance in recent years it's only in comparison to their previous output. Which is still a little unfair, since they had such a hot streak for so long that a string of mediocre films isn't totally unexpected. Pixar in particular has built its image around an almost reverential dedication to quality and story above all, so when their movies seem not to hold up anymore, people get more critical than they would probably be if, say, Disney had another downturn. e: On an unrelated note, does anyone know when The Wind Rises is getting a blu-ray release in the U.S.? I checked on Amazon just now but it looks like it's not available. Google isn't digging anything up except a June 18th release date which sounds like it's Japan-only. mareep fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Big K of Justice posted:Everyone in the industry has done it at one point or another.. its just the large scale concentration in the bay area was baffling. Sony Imageworks and Animation didn't want to play dice and was infamous a few years ago for cold calling people and just offering them a boat load of money to change jobs. I'm irritated by the fact that people accept this as just part of business practice, though. I really wonder at what point do you just make so much money that you, as someone that had to struggle to get Pixar truly off the ground, stop really caring about fostering employee goodwill and benefitting the artists, whose current positions were once your own. I'm still trying to make my way through Creativity, Inc. but the long paragraphs about employee trust and honesty, fostering good environments so that people stay, and how they totally had huge changes that upset employees after the sale to Disney, but it totally wasn't the sale to Disney guys it was just totally natural and unavoidable, are making it a much more obnoxious read. There's literally an entire paragraph at one point going on about how people need to stop being afraid to speak up and change broken systems just because they're afraid it will eat into their revenue. I'd also never heard before this that apparently Catmull and Lasseter have been involved in stock options back-dating scandals in the past as well. I think these have all already reached settlement agreements though. Nice to seeing it be put out in public, at least.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
I've stopped giving too much credit to animated film trailers; I can't think of a single one that actually got me interested in the (usually awesome) movies, and can think of a lot more that actively repelled me from what turned out to be pretty awesome movies. The Big Hero 6 trailers are slightly lukewarm, but based on the premise and general details of the movie, setting, and so on, I think it's going to be a pretty cool film.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
I'm actually kind of looking forward to that one. The first movie was weird as hell in a completely hilarious way to me and while I've not watched the show since, well, the first movie came out, if this is along the same lines, I'll be happy. Another thing that seems ambiguous is that apparently most of the movie is still 2D, but the climax of the film is when things go CG (although I've also read this as "midway through the film"... still would be more 2D in an American film than we'll see at the theater this year anyway so I'm content). Regarding the animation style, nothing is ever really set in stone/reliable but wikipedia has this quote:quote:Director Tibbitt was asked on Twitter concerning what animation technique the film would have, and responded, "I don't wanna spoil anything but it is mostly 2D."[43] The story actually is by the original show creator Stephen Hillenburg though, which is another thing that makes me interested. I still think a lot of the early episodes were pretty funny so if nothing else I'll give it a shot. I'm totally prepared for it to be a garbage pile, but I'm willing to give it a pass for now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:The 2D stuff does feel a little flat, especially compared to the first movie. On the other hand, it doesn't look like too much of the movie takes place under water so I imagine they just didn't want to bother putting as much effort into the hand drawn stuff. I'm kind of excited because the first movie was supposed to capstone the series and the creator bailed after that, so the show became absolutely unwatchable, but he (Stephen Hillenburg) came back for this. I'm not expecting to get blown away or anything but the first movie just did whatever the hell it wanted and it was really funny to me so if this is basically the same I'll be happy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
From a couple of pages ago, but why do people think Russell from Up has no point/character arc? Isn't the entire point of him to demonstrate how Carl has closed himself off entirely from other people and the future in the name of his dead past? His and Russell's connecting fills an emotional vacuum for both of them and by virtue of Russell being a literal child symbolically represents Carl finding 'adventure' (and new purpose) in the future. Russell is a supporting character in Carl's arc and it all fits together at the conclusion. Heck, you could even say Russell bonding with Kevin is just more reinforcement of people needing love and affection (and Kevin's whole goal being to look out for and protect her babies all points to the same basic theme). I may not be aware of what the actual concern is with Russell's arc though, I didn't see anything specific! While 'two geriatrics fighting in a blimp surrounded by talking dogs' is a bit, uh, whacky to say the least, it's a pointed way of showing Carl coming to grips with and overcoming the past. It's incredibly over the top, yes, but the movie's central themes are 'adventure' and moving on, and it fits the theme. I think it's fitting that Carl's childhood dream celebrity is 'frozen in time', hung up on an old grudge, unable to let things go, and it's their conflict that helps get Carl out of that same rut. Up is an uncomplicated movie storywise, in my opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:But maybe you're a person, if only barely, and then I have to ask why on earth you're so goddamn passive in your beliefs about media. Do you gently caress like you're a dead fish too? The animation thread comes alive! K. Waste's posts aren't insanely controversial and I don't see why posting whatever analytical opinion about Walt Disney's Frozen is triggering such naked hostility. But I appreciate the implication that they can't also enjoy Dumbo for non-analytical reasons without ascribing to its gawdamn bootstrappin' capitalist philosophy. A love of Dumbo and a personal analysis/opinion on Frozen aren't in any conceivable way related or mutually exclusive. Dinosaur was one of the first movies ever that disappointed me as a kid but I don't think I realized it until a couple years down the road and the whole thing had kind of slid out of my brain. I sort of disagree with the poster who said nothing about it was horrible just because the general aesthetic and character designs are really off putting to me now
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:I care. The Animation thread hasn't been this lively and interesting since we had the Prince of Egypt discussion. I agree, and I'm starting to get the sense that the issue here is people not being able to parse K. Waste's admittedly overly wordy sentencing. I don't even agree with their ultimate analysis, but I can understand what they're saying and see how they reached that conclusion, what exactly they're getting at. That's a heck of a lot of nastiness over someone writing words about Frozen, and maybe people really are just skimming K. Waste's posts but they're definitely not a meaningless rambling void. If anything, K. Waste, I'd say being a lot more concise would solve your problem. At any rate I found the analysis a lot more fun to flip through than endless 'which Disney movie is best' posts. Personally I've found Frozen to be surprisingly 'controversial' when it comes to wildly varying interpretations. I remember reading a very long article about how Frozen was awful and actually anti feminist, one of the prime reasons being that Anna is generally incompetent and Elsa frigid, both making terrible decisions. I don't disagree that's the case but I'd also argue any movie that hits it as big as Frozen does with mass audiences being centered basically purely around sisterly love is doing something right.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 04:57
|
|