Sigh. The music. All the subtlty with Remy and the rats. The silent romantic interaction between the human leads. All while that epic speech goes on. (And following that 5 seconds of childhood moment followed by eating hungrily) Damn I love that movie.
Dangit Satsuki, how many things are you randomly going to get me in the mood to watch again just by tossing up a single clip?!
@RobbyBevard:
The food critic wasn't exactly a villain.
And a story doesn't have to have a villain to move along, forcing one in to it a typical structure isn't always the way go. Finding Nemo didn't have any villains, for instance.
Well, the barracuda from the start of the film technically, but that's it and we never saw it again. Had Finding Nemo adhered to the same pattern as UP, the barracuda would have shown up at the end of the film only to make a horrific fate. Let's say, eaten by the trio of sharks.
Yeah, Anton Ego isn't a "villain", he's more a "challenge." A hill to for Remy to overcome in his quest to become a respected chef.
That, and he gets the best speech in the movie:
The irony is that despite having the appearance of a serial killer, he is a mommy's boy. He was just looking for someone who cooks with the same passion and love as his mother.
But thats entirely whats so sweet and touching and amazing about that moment. And how they condensed the entire idea of being hurt in a bicycle accident, (so, pain) and Mom making it all better (so relief) and the taste of food (joy) and just an entire childhood… in 5 seconds. Followed by him in the present getting that great big smile on his face and then just shoveling it down. Such a great moment.
I'm never quite sure if I should laugh or cry, and it kind of hits on a lot of levels.
All right, I finally was able to see Cars 2 today after, disappointingly, being unable to see it last Friday since they were sold out (and I already had plans to see X-men First Class with my family later in the day so I couldn't catch a later showing). Just as pretty much everyone else has said, it's doesn't have the same depth or heart as Pixar's better works, but it's still a darn fun movie. I truly enjoyed. And yeah, I know a lot of people complain about Mater/Larry the Cable Guy, and I guess it's a matter of either you like him or you hate him, but Mater never got on my nerves. I think Larry did just fine.
Well, now that I've seen another Pixar movie, I guess I'll post my list. Keep in mind, I haven't seen some of these movies in quite a while (I haven't sat down and watched Cars since I first saw it theaters).
1. Finding Nemo
2. Ratatouille
3. Toy Story 2
4. Up
5. A Bug's Life
6. Toy Story 3
7. The Incredibles
8. Toy Story
9. Monster's Inc.
10. Wall-E
11. Cars 2
12. Cars
@RobbyBevard:
Which is a shame, because I felt they could have dealt with his ending differently in some way. But if you watch the deleted scenes, they had like 8 different ways they wanted to kill him. They NEVER had anything in mind but him dying in the end,,, which is a shame. Something like finding the photo album and being re-inspired, or moving into the house or… something... might have sat better than him just turning blatant villain.
He didn't need to be EEEVIL, misunderstood or disgruntled would have been a little more subtle and might have worked better or been more gradual.
I still don't understand why they didn't just give him the bird. That whole problem would of been avoided if they actually explained the situation to him. He might of even helped. He just wanted to show the world that the bird wasn't extinct if I remember correctly.
if you want to check out my game progress: http://soggybreadgm.tumblr.com/
I still don't understand why they didn't just give him the bird. That whole problem would of been avoided if they actually explained the situation to him. He might of even helped. He just wanted to show the world that the bird wasn't extinct if I remember correctly.
Because then they wouldn't have a straightforward obvious villain with an easy obvious climax and an easy obvious gratuitous death scene.
As perfect as the first half of UP is, it really flounders a little in the second half.
said I wasn't gonna post here for awhile but I just got done with my Pixar Masterclass and found these two interviews when looking up the lecturers. Thought it was an interesting read
http://karenjlloyd.com/blog/2010/09/19/pixar-matthew-luhn-1/
http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=4500
I still don't understand why they didn't just give him the bird. That whole problem would of been avoided if they actually explained the situation to him. He might of even helped. He just wanted to show the world that the bird wasn't extinct if I remember correctly.
Thank you! Thank You! THANK YOU!
I felt that was SO DUMB. Why didnt they just gave him the damn bird? He EXPLICITLY said he wouldnt hurt it!
My brother came up with the solution that if he took the bird away its baby's would starve to death, but I think that's FanWanking: Doing the producers job and justifying/explaining stuff that the producers should have thought of in the first place!
I still don't understand why they didn't just give him the bird.
Well, they wanted to, but the censors wouldn't allow it.
Sorry, I had to.
[And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon]
All right, I finally was able to see Cars 2 today after, disappointingly, being unable to see it last Friday since they were sold out (and I already had plans to see X-men First Class with my family later in the day so I couldn't catch a later showing). Just as pretty much everyone else has said, it's doesn't have the same depth or heart as Pixar's better works, but it's still a darn fun movie. I truly enjoyed. And yeah, I know a lot of people complain about Mater/Larry the Cable Guy, and I guess it's a matter of either you like him or you hate him, but Mater never got on my nerves. I think Larry did just fine.
Well, now that I've seen another Pixar movie, I guess I'll post my list. Keep in mind, I haven't seen some of these movies in quite a while (I haven't sat down and watched Cars since I first saw it theaters).
1. Finding Nemo
2. Ratatouille
3. Toy Story 2
4. Up
5. A Bug's Life
6. Toy Story 3
7. The Incredibles
8. Toy Story
9. Monster's Inc.
10. Wall-E
11. Cars 2
12. Cars
I don't think iv'e ever seen someone put Toy story 2 above 1 and 3, I actually found toy story 2 to be the weak link of the trilogy, well maybe weak links not the word since i still love the movie i just didn't enjoy it quite as much as 1 and 2, then again i might change my mind if i watched it again as i always found cars to be pixars weak link but with subsequent viewings have grown to like the movie, although its still near the bottom for me.
i like brook he gives me a bone-er haha skull joke
I don't think iv'e ever seen someone put Toy story 2 above 1 and 3, I actually found toy story 2 to be the weak link of the trilogy, well maybe weak links not the word since i still love the movie i just didn't enjoy it quite as much as 1 and 2, then again i might change my mind if i watched it again as i always found cars to be pixars weak link but with subsequent viewings have grown to like the movie, although its still near the bottom for me.
Really? I love Toy Story 2, and I've pretty much always thought it was better than the first. The first one was great, but I felt it was a bit slow-paced and not as witty or humorous as the second one. Also, I think Toy Story 2 was much better with its supporting cast (Mr. Potato Head, Hamm, Rex, etc.). In the first one, the side characters spent a good deal of the time just being jerks to Woody. As for Toy Story 3, I think it's great, but I think it may have taken itself a little too seriously.
Personally I think the first was the strongest of the Toy Story movies, mostly because it felt like it had the most heart. Of all of them it felt the best most about the toys being a family instead of being "a bunch of celebrity-voiced characters and everyone else", with said family being disrupted with the arrival of Buzz and everyone coming to trying ot reform themselves after a huge quarrel, as well as a great concept of the relationship betwteen the humans and the toys. The second was great for Woody discovering his past and figuring out his place but felt more like it was about showing off the "notable characters" than the family dynamic and going away from a lot of the human interaction showing the bridging between "human" and "toy". The third was still strong and had some great wrinkles involving discovering your place and about the concept of the relationships of toys and humans, but I think it suffered with a lot of it being about the toys world instead of their interaction with the humans, with some of the strongest stuff being more or less Andy coming to grips with growing up and Woody discovering his best place with the new girl instead of trying to wait for the future or suffering in a hell that Lotso set up. (though as I said: a lot of when it was just the toys felt weaker than the parts with the humans even with a lot of funny bits)
I'm not saying any of them are weak, but I think my head has it more 1 > 2 > 3
Toy Story is now just a great big 4 and a half hour movie in my head. And I'm cool with that.
Cars… not so much.
@RobbyBevard:
Because then they wouldn't have a straightforward obvious villain with an easy obvious climax and an easy obvious gratuitous death scene.
As perfect as the first half of UP is, it really flounders a little in the second half.
Thank you! Thank You! THANK YOU!
I felt that was SO DUMB. Why didnt they just gave him the damn bird? He EXPLICITLY said he wouldnt hurt it!
My brother came up with the solution that if he took the bird away its baby's would starve to death, but I think that's FanWanking: Doing the producers job and justifying/explaining stuff that the producers should have thought of in the first place!
Well, they wanted to, but the censors wouldn't allow it.
Sorry, I had to.
These posts are why I love this forum. I know I'm not alone in this world. :ninja:
Quickie interview with Billy Crystal about Monsters University:
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/08/13/monsters-inc-prequel-billy-crystal-gets-schooled-by-pixar/?_r=true
He's really excited about it, which is always a good sign. And they gave Mike a retainer. A RETAINER.
Oh nice, that site also has a link to a Brad Bird interview where he talks about Incredibles.
And one with Andrew Stanton talking about John Carter of Mars….
And a Chris Sanders interview about HTTYD and another one about nailing the perfect ending and…
Dangit, I'm about to lose an hour.
One of the great accomplishments of the Incredibles is that it was a grade-A satire on the superhero genre while bringing these heroes into reality in a film for kids.
Its like a funnier, more brighter version of Watchmen in a way, while still retaining its sense of humanity.
One of the best Pixar films, no one of the best films ever made.
I normally don't give a shit about Mission Impossible, but Brad Bird is directing next one so I'll probably see it since I love his work.
Looked a bit over at the Bird article and he has a point: Hollywood is so obsessed with profit that they always go with the "safe option" and try to find something that will immediately bring people into the theaters than telling actual interesting stories. Probably why I have more interest in older movies these days: they were more daring and interesting than people think. (even with limitations of their period, whether it be the studio system or just trying something different or interesting during New Hollywood)
Y'know, Negima WAS awesome…
For the first 18 volumes.
@Tokoro:
Looked a bit over at the Bird article and he has a point: Hollywood is so obsessed with profit that they always go with the "safe option" and try to find something that will immediately bring people into the theaters than telling actual interesting stories. Probably why I have more interest in older movies these days: they were more daring and interesting than people think. (even with limitations of their period, whether it be the studio system or just trying something different or interesting during New Hollywood)
Plinkett brought up a very interesting point in one of his reviews. I believe he said 96% of all films released in recent years are either sequels, remakes or adaptations, i.e. they are based on some material that already exists. Think about it. Think about all the summer blockbusters that were released this year and see if you can find even one that's an entirely original story.
[And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon]
Plinkett brought up a very interesting point in one of his reviews. I believe he said 96% of all films released in recent years are either sequels, remakes or adaptations, i.e. they are based on some material that already exists. Think about it. Think about all the summer blockbusters that were released this year and see if you can find even one that's an entirely original story.
Only one in my head was "Super 8" and that was more an homage to classic Speilberg. (may need to see it someday)
Admittedly, the only time when you could sort of say blockbusters "tried", even if they involved known properties, was the '75-'85 period, when it just started as an extension of New Hollywood. (that's how I see it in my head: the movie scene was so experimental and open to anything that Speilberg, Donner and Lucas ended up making the movies they did…and both improved and ruined everything in the process) Some still do, but there's just so much fear of failure that they want something with a built-in audience.
With budgets as huge as they are these days I'm not surprised.
Plinkett brought up a very interesting point in one of his reviews. I believe he said 96% of all films released in recent years are either sequels, remakes or adaptations, i.e. they are based on some material that already exists. Think about it. Think about all the summer blockbusters that were released this year and see if you can find even one that's an entirely original story.
I believe Rango is an original story 
I don't suffer from Johnny-Depp-itis….. I enjoy every minute of it 
"A skelleton walks into a bar, and orders a beer... and a mop."- Johnny Depp... Yohohohohoho SKULL JOKE!
I believe Rango is an original story
Yeah, but that was released in March. I said "summer" blockbuster.
Let's see…
Super 8
Horrible Bosses
30 Minutes Or Less
Friends With Benefits
Bad Teacher
Bridesmaids
All of them are original, although, besides Super 8, I wouldn't call any of them blockbusters.
@Tokoro:
Looked a bit over at the Bird article and he has a point: Hollywood is so obsessed with profit that they always go with the "safe option" and try to find something that will immediately bring people into the theaters than telling actual interesting stories. Probably why I have more interest in older movies these days: they were more daring and interesting than people think. (even with limitations of their period, whether it be the studio system or just trying something different or interesting during New Hollywood)
There's a period between like 1935~1955, or so, where one'll find the sweet spot between directors' worldwide being comfortable behind the camera as it's been around for a bit, but movies still being new enough that so much of what they were trying out hadn't been done before, or were ideas they just "came up with". It was like experimental without drifting too far from what would become modern convention, but still being clever and edgy just by going "I wanna try out this cool idea I have".
Seeing where a lot of the convention in the first place comes from is pretty cool too.
Let's see…
Super 8
Horrible Bosses
30 Minutes Or Less
Friends With Benefits
Bad Teacher
BridesmaidsAll of them are original, although, besides Super 8, I wouldn't call any of them blockbusters.
Heck, let's go one step further and take a look at the most recent Academy Awards nominees.
Toy Story 3 - Sequel
True Grit - Remake
Winter's Bone, 127 Hours, The Social Network - Based on books
Heck, even The Fighter and King's Speech were based on true events.
So I'd say the only truly original ones were Inception, Kids Are All Right, and Black Swan. That's 3 out of 10 nominees.
[And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon]
Heck, let's go one step further and take a look at the most recent Academy Awards nominees.
Toy Story 3 - Sequel
True Grit - Remake
Winter's Bone, 127 Hours, The Social Network - Based on books
Heck, even The Fighter and King's Speech were based on true events.
So I'd say the only truly original ones were Inception, Kids Are All Right, and Black Swan. That's 3 out of 10 nominees.
[hide]
[/hide]
So I'd say the only truly original ones were Inception, Kids Are All Right, and Black Swan. That's 3 out of 10 nominees.
coughpaprikadiditfirstcough
Heck, let's go one step further and take a look at the most recent Academy Awards nominees.
Toy Story 3 - Sequel
True Grit - Remake
Winter's Bone, 127 Hours, The Social Network - Based on books
Heck, even The Fighter and King's Speech were based on true events.
So I'd say the only truly original ones were Inception, Kids Are All Right, and Black Swan. That's 3 out of 10 nominees.
What's your point? Movies based on other materials such as novels has been the trend since day one.
Did we already have this conversation about whether ideas are original or not, involving Cars and Doc Hollywood etc..
I wouldn't be surprised if Christopher Nolan never even heard of Paprika, the plot wasn't that similar and the idea of building machines to get into people's dreams isn't that new. That Scrooge McDuck comic was more like Inception than Paprika, lol.http://www.cracked.com/article_19021_5-amazing-things-invented-by-donald-duck-seriously.html
At the D23 Expo, Pixar has finally started teasing its next projects for after Brave and Monsters U.
PIXAR brought out Bob Peterson (co-director & writer of UP) and Peter Sohn (directed that crazy cute PARTLY CLOUDY short) and the producer of the INCREDIBLES, John Walker to announce that the November 27th, 2013 Pixar release would essentially take place in a modern day world in which the Gulf of Mexico never had a giant asteroid collide into it, thus taking out the dinos. No. Instead, they're amongst us - and this particularly story looks to be about a boy and his pet brontosaur.
Then, the Pete Docter "May 30, 2014" project - will be a film set entirely inside the Human Mind. It is being described as being "Wildly Ambitious even for Pixar"
Well, I'm still incredibly pumped for Brave.. wary of the prequel that is Mosnters 2… don't know what to make of these new things yet. Too little info. Pixar with Dinosaurs can't be a bad thing though. Certainly can't be worse than the Dinosaur movie from Disney proper in 2000. (To this day, annoyed that the trailer showed so, so much promise, then the actual movie had them talking and a super generic plot.)
Apparently some of the concept art for the dinosaur thing can be seen in this photo from a couple years ago.
[hide]
[/hide]
Oh and hey, some info on Mosters 2. Nothing terribly spoilery, but I think there's a couple things we didn't already know in there.
! Monsters University! John Lasseter was on stage and said, “At Pixar, when we do a sequel we do it because we have a story as good or better than the original” and proceeded to segue into the Monsters Inc prequel. First he introduced a video of John Goodman and Billy Crystal in the sound booth giving well wishes to the fans. Goodman says that they really need the fans to be with them on this movie and probably should have been there. Crystal responds saying, “Well, I should be there, so I will be!” and appears on stage with a fully costumed Mike and Sully joining him and Lasseter.
! Most of these cast appearances were just waves and good-byes, but we did learn a bit about Monsters University. We know the film will take place before Mike and Sully are working as scarers and Lasseter called the film a college movie set in the Monsters world.
! But the story starts before that, in grade school as Mike and Sully don’t start off as the best of friends. They are very competitive and saying you want to be a scarer is like saying you want to be an astronaut. Everybody wants to do it, but very few can.
! We saw a production painting of preteen Mike and Sully that wasn’t very descriptive, but show them in a messy bedroom (with bunk beds if my tired brain remembers correctly).
! College Sully is skinnier and shaggier and college Mike looks about the same, but is wearing a retainer on his teeth (presumably to separate them more and make them less straight, scarier).
! We also got a look at new characters, including the different cliques, including geek monsters, cool kid monsters (usually werewolf looking dudes in letter jackets) and even goth monsters, which mostly looked like Roz except dressed in black. There are monster professors, including stuffing literary professors (one was a dude wearing a “Latin is not Dead” t-shirt under a dinner jacket), eccentric drama department monsters and coaches, etc.
! Concept art of the campus was shown. If you want to be a scarer you go to this particular college, which has the oldest scare-training building as the centerpiece of the campus. It is a stone structure, circular with odd window ports jutting out. The dorm rooms look a little haunted housey, with an old brick exterior.
! Monsters University director Dan Scanlon said the heart of the story lies in the concept of college, a place where one goes to discover who they are and develop as personalities. The Pixar team spent a lot of time visiting campuses (Scanlon said “Most of us went to art school and have no idea what real college looks like!”) to find a reality to set their fantasy world in.
! Voicing new characters are Joel Murray, Dave Foley, Julia Sweeney and…
! Steve Buscemi!!! Yep, Randall will return. The assumption is he’ll be at school with Mike and Scully.
I'm liking that Monsters U info!
All this new projects are very interesting.
The modern day dinosaur movie sounds like it could be the next HTTYD and the Pete Docter movie sounds almost a bit trippy. It kinda gives off an Inception vibe.
Anyway, I'm anxious to hear more about those two.
So they're using the exact same characters but delving into an entirely different moral message thingy. Hmm, interesting tactic.
One thing I have to say about this dinosaur movie: they better not call it "Dinosaur". Disney already made that. (and I heard it wasn't that good) The brain one sounds really neat, and Monsters U really is shaping up real well…though probably the best part is that since it isn't as toy-etic as the Cars movies, it probably could actually have a good story. (and yeah, Randall returning makes sense considering...)
! He essentially has been reduced to a swamp creature after being kicked out of Monsters Inc at the end of the original. (though if it is a prequel and Ratzenburger a guarantee, I sort of hope we get a bit more info on Abominable and what lead to him being sent to Tibet.)
Y'know, Negima WAS awesome…
For the first 18 volumes.
Holy fuck Randall. I loves me some villains, and despite Pixar giving me Hopper as well, this slimy fella always had my undying love. I know a lot of their films aren't villain-suited, but damn they can still make some nice ones. Definetly seeing that one. Boy and his Brontosaur? Ehhh…sounds very bare bones for a plot with not much potential for excitement, and dinos as pets is nothing new...then again, I had similar thoughts about Wall-E, and that blew me away. Am stoked for the Human Mind one.
Brontosaurus isn't actually a real dino and has been out of name use for a while. (Not that it stops any of us that grew up on it as a name, or the fact that its been around for a hundred years). Apparently the early skeleton was found without a head, and they attached the skull of a different critter, creating a frankenstein dino.
Its just the Apatosaurus now.
No more "Thunder lizard".
I was already eager for the Monsters 2/U movie, but all that sounds great! We're going to get a "Shaggy"-looking, shaggy Mike! XDD
Both the Boy and his Dino and the Pete Doctor films sound intriguing too. I think the only thing we can be guaranteed is that John Ratzenburg will be playing a role in them. ;D
EDIT: I never did get used to 'Apatosaurus'. I still usually call it a Brontosaurus (like how Pluto will always be a planet to me).
@Tokoro:
One thing I have to say about this dinosaur movie: they better not call it "Dinosaur". Disney already made that. (and I heard it wasn't that good)
The first three minutes were amazing.
And not coincidentally, thats all they had for the early teasers.
And then the actual movie came along and they talked and it was utterly forgettable. Cool artbook though.
@RobbyBevard:
Its just the Apatosaurus now.
No more "Thunder lizard".
Apatosaurus means "Deceptive Lizard" because it sorta, kinda looked like another dinosaur.
Brontosaurus means "Thunder Lizard" because its footsteps sound like thunder.
And scientists wonder why people tend to ignore the whole apatosaurus thing?
If everyone calls them brontosaurus, and only scientist say they aren't… and its an acceptable synonym...
Does that mean they're still brontosaurus?
Is Pluto still a planet after all?
Well, Pluto is technically a Dwarf Planet. And it still has the word 'Planet' in it…
I remember that after the confusion over Pluto's status, the scientists of the world had to create on universal definition for the term 'planet'. I think it was something like... 'the object must posses enough gravity to form itself into a spherical shape and must clear out it's orbital cycle of any impurities during it's revolution around the sun' or something. According to that definition, Pluto isn't a planet because it doesn't clear out it's orbital cycle.
.. though I can't really remember; I watched the documentary featuring that like two years ago.
/offtopic
Slytherin all the way, baby~
[[deviantART]](http://sry005.deviantart.com/)[[art tumblr]](http://artsycrapfromsai.tumblr.com/)[[Sai's Art Thread 2.0!]](http://apforums.net/showthread.php?t=40075&p=3045242#post3045242)
Yeah, all things considered, that would make sense. But nope. It's almost like the engine vs. motor argument I've seen on History channel.
Slytherin all the way, baby~
[[deviantART]](http://sry005.deviantart.com/)[[art tumblr]](http://artsycrapfromsai.tumblr.com/)[[Sai's Art Thread 2.0!]](http://apforums.net/showthread.php?t=40075&p=3045242#post3045242)
Huh, I always figured it was due to the size, hence Dwarf Planet.
Apatosaurus? God dammit, suddenly dozens of childhood drawings are complete lies. Next they'll tell me they mixed up the tails of Stegosaurus and Anchylosaurus.
@Robbybevard:
The first three minutes were amazing.
And not coincidentally, thats all they had for the early teasers.
And then the actual movie came along and they talked and it was utterly forgettable. Cool artbook though.
The only things I remember from that movie I remember because The Land Before Time already did them.
Hmmm, upon reflection, I might have to see Monsters U in my native language. Danish Randall is also danish Voldemort.
@The:
Huh, I always figured it was due to the size, hence Dwarf Planet
I think that's part of the reason, but I think the main reason it was kicked off was that definition.
You know there's actually a Dwarf Planet in the Asteroid Belt too?
Slytherin all the way, baby~
[[deviantART]](http://sry005.deviantart.com/)[[art tumblr]](http://artsycrapfromsai.tumblr.com/)[[Sai's Art Thread 2.0!]](http://apforums.net/showthread.php?t=40075&p=3045242#post3045242)
@The:
Huh, I always figured it was due to the size, hence Dwarf Planet.
Apatosaurus? God dammit, suddenly dozens of childhood drawings are complete lies. Next they'll tell me they mixed up the tails of Stegosaurus and Anchylosaurus.
The only things I remember from that movie I remember because The Land Before Time already did them.
Hmmm, upon reflection, I might have to see Monsters U in my native language. Danish Randall is also danish Voldemort.
Oh you poor soul. The misconceptions you had haven't even started to pile up.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18627_6-things-from-history-everyone-pictures-incorrectly.html
Complicating things since 2009.
Ceres was commonly considered a planet for the first fifty years after it was discovered. It wasn't until they figured out that there were a whole bunch of objects in the region that it was downgraded.
Haha, so that's what it's called. I always forget. xD
Cool, I didn't know it was considered a planet for a while. You learn something new everyday.
Slytherin all the way, baby~
[[deviantART]](http://sry005.deviantart.com/)[[art tumblr]](http://artsycrapfromsai.tumblr.com/)[[Sai's Art Thread 2.0!]](http://apforums.net/showthread.php?t=40075&p=3045242#post3045242)
 
