Yeah lol.
! > You're not talking about just a disney shift here, this is some dramatic american paradigm shift in audiences that you're asking for. The regular audience consuming a story will always go for the beats of main character having a dream -> character fighting -> accomplishing dream. Even internationally this is a very standard formula that is an almost unniversal expectation in story-telling. And I say this in the forum about a rubber pirate whose manga is ENTIRELY about fighting for your dreams and where death means your dream collapsing.
! Agreed. I love seeing that no matter how often it happens lol. It's what inspires me a lot in real life.
! > And no, I don't think the message has ever been that there are no obstacles. Obstacles is the conflict of every movie. The message simply resolves in your heart and ambition being true leading to success in the end, ie. the right actions leading to the just consequences. Simplifying the notion of all these movies as "they just had a dream and got it just because" undermines the character arc of nearly every disney character, especially from particularly good movies. You mentioned Princess and the Frog earlier and that's a classic example too of what you ask: the core arc still being about having a dream and fulfilling it, but the character arc involving obstacles before that dream can be realized.
! But I mean obstacles specifically pertaining to reality. Not something that's like "I want to do so and so, but what's getting in my way is that bad guy who wants me to meet my doom". I should have made that clearer. Because when it comes to the dreams themselves without some nasty villain being involved, it's usually pretty simple and not too difficult. I think the only film that really comments on how dreams can take a long time and be uncertain to achieve is The Princess and the Frog. But the movie doesn't focus primarily on that, but moreso "how do I transform back into a human to stop the Shadow Man before midnight".
! Basically, I'm saying that I want a movie solely about natural obstacles that come up when trying to achieve a dream rather than obstacles that just happen to pop up because there has to be some arbitrary murderer on your case. And movies like The Princess and the Frog are fine because at least they're honest and upfront from the start about what kind of story they're going to focus on and who the villain is. They have fun with the villains too eve if they don't have much depth.
! But when you go for the twist villain angle, it has to be done in a way that consistently and organically adds onto the conflicts of the story if you're trying to tell a meaningful message with it. Rather than just be a vehicle. Or else it's just, well, a vehicle. Which will make me only like everything that hinges on this twist, which is typically the whole damn third act, instead of really love it like I should for how it's cleverly saying something I didn't expect rather than go for a basic entertainment formula.
! That is what Toy Story 3 does in a good way with Lotso. That is what Zootopia does in a good way with the twist lamb villain. But Coco? Up? Not really. Their villains' characterizations are only serviceable tools for other things.
! > In short, asking for a disney movie to conclude without a dream being realized for the main character is like asking for an incomplete disney movie. The main deviations from this has just been pixar movies and some others where more than a dream it's just conflict resulting from change and the character arc concluding when the change is accepted. Which means that asking Coco to involve unaccomplished dreams means asking Coco to be a completely different movie.
! But Hector would still be able to meet Coco. That's what essentially becomes his new dream after getting homesick and murdered. So he still gets a happy ending. And Miguel still gets to pursue the dream he wants with the benefit of gaining his family's support. Having Hector fail at his dream isn't that radical at all. Hell, you brought up One Piece earlier. And as formulaic as that series is, it has no problem having lots of dead people entrust their will and obstacles onto new generations of kids seeking to make their dreams come true. So no, it wouldn't be a completely different movie. You're making that too overblown. Especially when that's only one option I'm presenting other. The other being that De la Cruz is the true ancestor, but Miguel doesn't get along with how he abandoned and possibly even forgot his family and all of that. The spirit of the movie stays consistent either way, rather than how the current version changes gears to stopping the bad guy from getting away with stealing songs.
! Because that's totally what Miguel was struggling with, right? Deciding whether or not to steal somebody else's music and having trouble accepting his friends not committing to their shared passion, right? Instead of a family forbidding him to play music and wanting to find approval from a music icon to keep following his dream even if it means leaving home, right? Sure, Miguel TECHNICALLY could end up like that if we're talking about possibilities for the sake of possibilities. But does he really show any signs that he will though? Does he even consider the benefit of something like that for even a moment? Not at all.
! > Here I don't really get your point of view, mostly because you act like the murder twist and the DLC thing turned things up to ridiculous levels and shifted the core of the movie, which is a notion I disagree with. The resolution of the movie involves solving the problem of Miguel coming back and having his family accept his dream, and for Hector to solve the issue of being forgotten. The whole DLC plot thingy never eats up from that and just falls in line with the concept of someone's memory being a valuable thing and the importance of being remembered the proper way. You cannot have a negative character usurp their dream with false pretenses and then at the end just nothing happens to then to conclude the arc of that particular approach being incorrect.
! I wouldn't say it shifted the core of the movie. But I would say it diluted it by going on an unnecessary detour while still managing to find a way back to the core by the end.
! And I dislike the idea that such a negative character always needs something bad to happen to them to make it clear to the audience their way of doing things is incorrect. That's a shallow line of thinking of needing your morality and feelings validated by poetic justice when the world doesn't magically decide that the virtuous become great and the vile fall from grace. Morality is a construct and the world can be unfair, which is a fine message in and of itself. And it doesn't prevent other people showing a better example either to get the message across even more.
! Yes, something should happen to them or somebody they interact with as a result of realizing their corruption. But it does not have to be punishment. There are all sorts of beneficial directions to take that depend on the context of the story and what it mainly focuses on.
! > I still also continue to think this a problem you have with the movie, but not a problem the movie has. This particular brand of story-telling may make it a weaker movie than other pixar ones, but it doesn't harm the digestibility or quality of the movie at all. Mostly because at the end of the story the side DLC thing is simply a vehicle for multiple other goals: getting Imelda to overcome her dislike of music and accept Hector again, establishing negative consequences for what the movie deems a negative way of being memorable (fame at all costs), and setting up the situation where Miguel aims to save Hector, fails, and then discovers an alternate way that simultaneously moves his living family to also accept music as valuable.
! The movie is actually fine as is. I agree that De la Cruz being a murderer does not essentially harm the film. Exposing him and getting Hector's picture back complements the necessary family bonding and music acceptance in the third act. Everything I'm saying has more do with me not caring for the direction the film decided to go when there was an obvious better and more unique one they were probably too scared to commit to. This doesn't make Coco a bad film at all, it's still good for what it is. But it follows a trend that I want to criticize, especially when it had so much potential that would have been rather easy to do.
! Because like you said, De la Cruz being a murderer only acts as a vehicle and nothing more. It's hollow and doesn't mean anything in regards to the real consistent message of the film in and of itself. The same way that Muntz being a crazy murderer doesn't mean anything in comparison to Carl's journey, even if both old men are obsessed about something. The murderers are only excuses for some action and main character bonding, which is disappointing because they're so unneeded when there were other clear and more interesting directs to take.
! Everything I'm saying is less "this is why Coco is a flawed movie" and moreso "this how Coco could have been a more interesting movie." So it's basically a fun what if discussion about the state of Disney and Pixar and their overall direction going forward. Sorry for the confusion.
! > You suggest elsewhere that the conflict could have just been appeasing monsters with music to prove its value, but that would have just cheapened the ultimate message to "music is bad, until it saves you from a monster. Therefore, music is good for people." It'd be like having the whole Big Mom arc happen and then expect the conclusion to involve Sanji cooking a cake for a giant sea monster that was always there but was never an issue. Not only that, but that suggestion would completely muck with the logic of what alebrijes (?) are in-world.
! I get that, but that just me throwing a random idea without thinking about it hard. You're right. That was a dumb thing to suggest. It only came to mind because the spirit creatures play so little of a role in the story aside from being living vehicles to other places. They feel a bit tacked on in an unmemorable way that doesn't add on to much, especially because we know so little about them. To the point where I feel like they only exist to sell toys. Although I'm still cool with them.
! > But Hector did value his family before dying? That was the whole point of him singing his best song to Coco before leaving every time, and the main reason why the fallout with DLC happened. There's a lot of stupid unexplored stuff with that back-story, like DLC just happening to have poison or DLC stupidly making a movie about it… I don't see how your biggest problem with it is the thing that makes the most sense given the core message of the film. The whole point of the family disliking "the dad" is that he left and didn't care for family, and you want his falling out with DLC to be completely about something else? lol no. Sure, it would make some sense realistically, but narratively within the logic of story it's just a terrible idea.
! Actually, I want to ask you that very same question. Why did Hector value his family before dying? Even taking account that scene where he sings the song to a young Coco, he still left. He still prioritized his dream over his family despite his wife's protests and his daughter's sadness. To the point that he even left the latter a song to remember him by. So am I just supposed to buy that he got homesick one day and quit in the middle of everything? That's another problem I have. How easy it was to make Hector seem redeemable despite being a deadbeat dad. And I don't mean to say that somebody in real life can't abandon their dreams midway to go back to their family. That can totally happen. But we see and hear nothing about what happens in-between Hector leaving his family and Hector deciding to come back that makes me invested in why he suddenly changes his mind. Am I just supposed to buy that as a natural human flaw and not look deeper into that? It's hard for me to. And I'm not saying he has to be completely happy about leaving his family behind either as if he has no regrets in the world, moreso that I want more focus on how those regrets got the power to overwhelm his originally powerful the temptation of his aspirations to become a professional musician were.
! I did not mean to make all of my complaining seem like De la Cruz being a bad guy makes the movie itself bad. But I will stick with this specific bit as a flaw I don't really care for. Imagine if at some random point in One Piece, Yasopp just happens to become homesick and wants to either go back to his home island or find the Straw Hats to say hi to Usopp. It's just weird and random to have that happen after nineteen years of not seeing his family. Like the author wants to make us like him and try to make us not think too hard about the questionable ethics of them abandoning kids. That's what I felt like Pixar was doing with Hector. Instead of risking the audiences being turned off by him valuing his independence to the end like the average deadbeat parent.
! So yes, the falling out between Hector and De la Cruz can be about something different from family. Something pertaining to the life of going solo as an artist that could disillusion Miguel about how alluring it might seem to be like De la Cruz and abandon his family to find greatness. So it's still relevant to the core of the story. Because that's probably what Miguel would do if De la Cruz did give him a valid blessing at the end of the second act since his family still wouldn't change their minds about music, and he would have just come back from getting approval from his idol about his potential.
! But you can still have the falling out be about family. Just, if it's going to be about that, then there needed to be more screen time dedicated to the logic of why Hector changed his mind by being homesick. Either an additional or extended flashback, or at least more dialogue from present time Hector before the ancestry reveal about how pursuing the life of a musician can come with bumps and edges, periods of longing, and reminders of the past that make you uncertain about making the right choice. That could have been inserted into that one scene with the skeleton who got forgotten by his family, making him disappear. And I could care less about the risk of making the twist become obvious because it was obvious from the first fifteen seconds he showed up on screen for me lol.
! > Already mentioned above why this is extremely misguided and misses the ENTIRE POINT of the resolution. That's not creativity, it's asking for the movie to be something completely different entirely, and criticizing what exists for not being something different. As opposed to criticizing the things it does that undermine what it is.
! Yep, that's pretty much what I'm doing. Except I'm not saying Coco is a bad movie. It's me expressing disappointment about me wishing that it could have gone for a less generic route. I feel like we're misunderstanding why we're having this conversation. You're trying to defend the film's quality as is while I'm trying to criticize a trend in Disney/Pixar that they should move away from for more interesting directions that make better use of their potential.
! > Pinocchio is a different movie. Again, the entire point about that movie did not necessitate for comeuppance of a villain. Coco did, because the villain was one of the extreme versions of one of the sides, and without resolution you deliver the message that hey, maybe that extreme is just fine since he did remain famous and lived a rich life and afterlife.
! And we didn't that extreme a version of one side. And if it wasn't that extreme, then they wouldn't need a comeuppance. Like Pinocchio. Because the focus is more on the wellbeing and moral development of the protagonist and their loved ones, not a villain needing to be taken down for satisfaction. And no, you don't deliver the message that such a lifestyle is okay just because that mildly selfish/corrupt person is still fine. Because the protagonist would open disagree with it and serve a better example by choosing a different path. An unexpected compromise between both sides. The audience, even if they're mostly kids, deserves more of a benefit of the doubt than you're giving them of being that superficial. Even for a Disney movie, it's fine to have a realistic depiction of how the world can be unfair. As I would think an interesting conflict would be proving that there is a better way than what that other person chose.
! > In Pinoccio the goal was for pinoccio to learn to be a real boy, which meant following his conscience, not telling lies, obeying his father, etc etc. The villains in that film didn't exist as evils that needed to be destroyed or proven wrong. They were simply representations of temptations that pull children from the proper path. The movie didn't need to enact justice because Pinoccio's goal was never about accomplishing justice for his local italian city. His monster was getting over himself and doing things for others, which he accomplished when he sacrificed his life during the whole monstro arc in order to get Gepetto, realizing his actions had led to him being endangered.
! And that's exactly what I'm getting at. Why not tone down on all of the murder twists and focus on De la Cruz being more of a temptation to Miguel if we really need an antagonist in this movie? Miguel's goal was never about accomplishing justice either, that only comes up in the third act as a vehicle for family bonding and music acceptance. Miguel's monster could be his naivety and willingness to forsake his family for his dream because they won't approve of what he wants to do. And he can defeat that monster by finding out that he needs his family support (and probably also that his family needs his), and finding a way make the family realize the importance of music. Or the family undergoes their own development to realize that instead of only relying on Miguel's wisdom. Or a mixture of both.
! > It doesn't, but being a murderer is not inconsistent with his character either. He says a million times success no matter what. No matter what means NO. MATTER. WHAT. I agree the whole execution of the murder was sudden, contrived and brought up trivially sudden. But it is not inconsistent with who the character is, nor does it take over the story. The ultimate crime that the movie hinges on is the fact he stole Hector's chance to be remembered.
! Oh come oooooooooooooooon. You and I both know that the context the whole movie focuses on with De la Cruz's quotes is about staying with your family and in your hometown. Not being desperate to do any and everything to get glory. Hence that whole quote about "I couldn't wait for somebody to just hand my dream to me. I had to grab it with my own things." No, it's not inconsistent with De la Cruz's character. But it's such a generic and exaggerated development of what we know about him and why he's a role model to Miguel though. I mean, what is Miguel supposed to get out of that? To not murder for success to steal their work? lol No shit! Miguel relates to De la Cruz because he thinks that he went through the same dilemma of having to pick between family and music. Not wanting to become cowardly scum because he's insecure about his talent.
! Again, this goes back to the whole Muntz thing. Does Muntz being a murderer make his characterization inconsistent? No. He's obsessed with getting a bird whose elusion ruined his career and it's showing how far he's going to go to get that bird after decades of no success. But do you think that his obvious parallel, Carl, who is also chasing an obsession would ever kill somebody to put his dead wife's on top of a waterfall? Of course not.
! There's no compelling conflict that promotes development for Carl or Miguel internal conflicts other than disillusioned trust and an obligation to stop them like any other average decent human being would. We don't even know that much about what Muntz or De la Cruz went through to make them be open to methods as drastic as killing. They're just that crazy for the sake of being crazy. Which is why it doesn't add anything besides being a vehicle for other plot developments and action.
! > This is all counter-intuitive too, given that as Miguel understood it DLC WAS family. So his logic was that he WAS respecting family tradition by following in the steps of one of them. If DLC had just remained as family that Miguel became disillusioned with, then you have a stray strand to the whole family tradition thing involving "what about family that's not too great?" which would get in the way of the simple "family or dream" core of the movie.
! Except Miguel was using the family tradition thing as an excuse to still fulfill his dream. It isn't solely what makes him want to play music, it's his justification when being confronted by his family. And it ties in with wanting to meet De la Cruz not just to get back to the living world while still being able to play music, but get his approval on if he has what it takes. So I don't see the issue here when it's clear that Miguel was mainly focused on his dream and using his bloodline as validation for what he happens to want to do, not him really caring about following in his family's footsteps in and of itself (otherwise he would have no problem making shoes).
! > DLC not being family and avoiding his thing with Hector would just lead to a situation where nothing moves the plot towards his approach being negative, nothing moves the plot towards Hector being redeemed, which in turn would dampen the whole impact of the resolution with Coco remembering her dad through music. So again, you are asking for changes that ultimately weaken, not strengthen, the core of the movie due to the pursuit of something nuance and complicated that the movie isn't.
! So we should be satisfied with vehicles in the plot that only act as crutches for progression, rather than meaningful character reveals that actually add onto the protagonist's internal conflict that is the core of the movie. Is that what you're saying? If Disney/Pixar can't figure out how to do both at the same time, that's their problem, not mine.
! > idk what you are saying here. Typo somewhere?
! What I'm saying is that the scene of Miguel and Coco singing Remember Me, which makes the grandmother accept music, isn't what needs to be changed in my eyes. It can still work if the movie could find a way of making the movie's third act revolve at least around partly saving Hector's life without needing Murder la Cruz for drama. How to make that work? I don't really an idea as to how, sadly. But that doesn't make me look at the murder plot in any more good a light as it is only a lackluster means to an end for character development.
! > I'm sure there could be. Alternatively, we could look at what the movie has and realize it is already elegant in the simplicity of the message. I do think that I would prefer it if the murder bit had been more slowly or intricately implied before the reveal, since as it is it comes up too suddenly to the point is seems cartoonish. But the fact that the movie focuses on the issue of remembrance over anything makes that issue I have not as severe to the core message of the movie.
! I'm game for appreciating the movie for what it is too! I only started this to talk about what I wish it could have been when I was invested in its potential as I was watching the movie. Especially because I could actually relate a lot to Miguel's internal conflict ash aspiring artist. If we have to talk solely about making the murder thing work though, yes, it could have at least been foreshadowed earlier. The focus on remembrance makes the movie still work above all else, I agree.
! > This is where I again feel like you're watching a different film than I when seeing this. If you think that last sequence was about exposing murder, then no, that's not what it was. The main goal, even explicitly stated in the movie, was to get Hector's picture. Nowhere did Miguel go "I have to expose someone's crimes before I go", unless I missed it. It was strictly to get Hector's picture.
! Getting Hector's picture by exposing a murder. It's still diverting the film's focus towards a tacked on twist that is only a vehicle for the family to get together and bond over one-upping a villain. Rather than confronting their issues upfront and not simply bonding because they're forced to team-up and it's fun. Because that's why the great great grandmother hooks back up with Hector and doesn't stipulate that Miguel has to give up music with her blessing.
! > The sequence as a whole demonstrated the family working together to counter a being whose entire modus operandi was success on his own no matter what. Literally family vs. dreams as the final conflict. They bait you into thinking the bad guy won (he tosses Miguel and the picture), the bad guy gets comeuppance, and the hero finds a way to solve everything using lessons learned. I don't get why you saw all this and just focused soooo much on the murder thing.
! I focus on the murder thing so much because it's so predictable and it's so meaningless, that's why. I get that it helped make the family bond. That's good. What I don't care for is how it hinges on a murder plot specifically. Because I want to care about both the villain and the heroes. Not only expecting one to mediocrely support the other's greatness.
! > As for Imelda and Hector, they were ultimately Coco's family. Imelda coming to terms with music had to involve coming to terms with Hector. It's what the movie set up in the first minutes, and that's exactly how you resolve it. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy. Wanting something else is, again, asking the movie to be about something it isn't, whether it's a social message of "she don't need no man" or some other agenda about realism or life sucking or w.e. else. I also do not recall that much PDA…
! That does not mean she had to love him again. I don't have issues with them making peace or even acting friendly, it's them going all lovey-dovey again I dislike. And this isn't even part of me wishing the movie was something different, you didn't need this in the movie to still have the family theme stick when we could have easily been satisfied with the both of them being there for Coco while tolerating/enjoying each other's presence without treating into rekindled romance.
! > The entire bit of Muntz's character was that he thought Carl wanted the bird for his own purposes when the falling out occurred. It's the same sort of competition as indy vs. the nazis to see who gets the grail first. Sure, you can question why sometimes they're out to kill each other and other times they forget to do that to get to the grail. But ultimately I still found Up enjoyable regardless so I don't give that much stock to Muntz himself given I'm far more invested in Carl letting go of what held him stuck on Ellie's memory.
! I still found the movie entertaining too. But wouldn't it be great if we could be invested in both characters instead of only one? That's all I'm saying.
! > Criticizing disney makes sense to me, what I don't get is criticizing creators for not making movies you want them to make, without taking into account the goals and ambitions of what THEY wanted to make. Like I said, I think there ARE issues in the storytelling of these movies. I just don't agree with the problems you talk about or the changes you want because ultimately they just seem to miss entirely what the messages of the movies are.
To me critique of a movie should be on what message it wants to tell and how well it does it. Not based on the movie not being or telling exactly what YOU want it to be about. Because ultimately, then it's not their movie but yours. At that point it's more efficient to just write your own thing than to spend so much time asking someone to write something for you.
! And this is part of our misunderstanding. Because most of everything I'm saying is not me giving reasons as to why the movie is bad for what it tried to do. It knows what it wants to do and it executes it decently. I'm only pointing out how the movie's premise, themes, and characters could have been used in a more interesting direction. All for the sake of fun discussion and taking issue with how this is only the latest in a long line of a Disney formula I haven't been too pleased with to get my thoughts out on what I wish they would at least attempt doing. If you don't think there's any merit in that type of discussion, then we're going to have to agree to disagree. All I want to make sure of is that I hope you don't think I would make Coco lose points in an official review because it's not the type of movie I wish it is. I would look at it solely for what it is trying to be.
! > As for the point about tropes and story beats, the reality is that they are what they are, and companies and story-tellers will always do what works BECAUSE it works. If you want revolutionary and divergent and all that stuff, then that's great. Progress comes from divergence. But beating down on successful story beats that have worked for hundreds of years of storytelling, particularly when it's aimed at general, younger audiences, seems unfair to what these companies strive to do. You cannot blame an ice cream store for having multiple chocolate flavors if chocolate is what sells.
! But I can blame them for ONLY having multiple chocolate flavors and never trying anything different when I know there other flavors that people like. Especially when I know they made more tasty ice cream in the past that sold well and can still sell well, and I know they're at least trying out different types of cones or popsicles aside from only ice cream.
! > And yea, a lot of what you say hinges on them following tropes lazily and not caring, which I could not disagree with more. I found Coco spectacular on a production level and in terms of story and writing, while weak in some parts, was extremely sound and led to very beautiful and human moments. There's a lot of people out there truly moved by the beauty of the resolution with Coco and Miguel singing together for a reason, and that reason is not disney being lazy with tropes. It's Pixar doing their trade and doing it well, and even if they use conventional tropes they clearly still work stupendously and they really do result in great stuff, not the least of which is young children having a phenomenal time with a story that bring positivity and valuable messages to their life.
! I agree with your assessment of Coco being a good film despite some flaws. I don't know if I could call it SPECTACULAR (and I'm only talking about the film as it is and as a whole, not just all of the De la Cruz nonsense), as I wasn't particularly wowed by the world of the dead. And I would have preferred Miguel's dead family being more in the forefront if only because I liked all of their personalities. But I still liked most of the characters, could get into the conflicts for what they were outside of Cruz, liked the family drama, and definitely liked the singing. The singing was very charming. The kid who voices Miguel has better pipes on him than I thought I would lol.
! And I actually don't mind conventional tropes in stories, moreso execution. I don't need every story to try be the most unique thing ever. One Piece is built on top of tropes, and yet it's my favorite manga ever because of how much fun and unique it is on how all of those tropes are executed and the occasional moments of unique elements. There are tropes that I always love seeing new takes (the mentor killed by villain trope being one of my guilty favorites lol).
! But De la Cruz… him being a murderer didn't add anything meaningful for me. From both a basic entertainment and figurative standpoint. No matter how much it helped the family bond. That was THE most disappointing generic route they could have gone with him in my eyes. I don't care for him as a villain because he's hardly an interesting or memorable one. I don't care for him as a character that exists beyond the twist since he's only a famous movie star that lacks talent, nothing about his personality or actions grab me like other Disney villains. He does not jive with me at all. I am completely ambivalent to him. I don't even hate him, I feel indifferent. Which is something that actually turns me off more than a villain I legitimately don't like because at least I can have fun in picking apart why they are terribly conceptualized and inconsistent.
! Like Robby said earlier. If you want a sleazy villain, go full on sleazy villain! Have fun with it, don't hold back even if it lacks much depth. If you want a twist villain, have a good reason for it that makes that character more interesting and not just a vehicle for the benefit of other characters. Otherwise, try not having a villain at all or go for something gray.
