My favorites are The Incredibles and Ratatouille, but really, just about every Pixar movie is great. My least-favorites are probably Cars and A Bug's Life, but they're both very, very good movies. And Toy Story is probably the most consistent trilogy, ever (paraphrasing an above post). Now that Indiana Jones, Star Wars, and Spider-Man were ruined by their most recent films, the only other film trilogy that comes close is Back to the Future.
Pixar movies
-
-
Re-watching Toy Story. It's still amazing but looks kinda out-dated graphically compared to the new one, which is even more noticeable on the Blu-Ray. Still so many scenes I love and can appreciate a lot more on here th
lol yeah, the old models are like read only files compared to the new ones
-
lol yeah, the old models are like read only files compared to the new ones
Yeah. But some of the animated scenes are just more impressive than say in Toy Story 2. I love the bits like the Toys in Sids Room, The last 10 mins and the Woody vs Buzz Fight cus they just look amazing with the movements. Rewatching Toy Story 2 atm (3 just plopped through the door so that's next.) and while it is graphically better the scenes just don't feel as imprrssive and zany
-
I think I'm late to this thread, but my list anyway:
1. Toy Story 3
2. Ratatouille - such a beautiful movie.
3. Toy Story 1 & Finding Nemo (tie)
4. Monsters Inc.
5. Toy Story 2
6. Bug's Life
7. Up - some parts of the plot really threw me off.
8. Cars
9. The IncrediblesI never got to watch Wall-E. The Incredibles never really sank in for me, for some reason.
-
The Reg on the number plate on Andy Mom's car is A113. Which is the same code as the one for Auto in Wall-E XD
That actually makes it into all the Pixar films, and ton of Disney ones too. Its the classroom number used by character animation students at the California Institute.
The Pizza Planet truck also makes it into every film.
-
@RobbyBevard:
That actually makes it into all the Pixar films, and ton of Disney ones too. Its the classroom number used by character animation students at the California Institute.
The Pizza Planet truck also makes it into every film.
Doesn't the star ball make it into some of them too? I remember it in a couple.
-
Doesn't the star ball make it into some of them too? I remember it in a couple.
Isn't that always in the opening for the Pixar logo?
-
I think I'm late to this thread, but my list anyway:
1. Toy Story 3
2. Ratatouille - such a beautiful movie.
3. Toy Story 1 & Finding Nemo (tie)
4. Monsters Inc.
5. Toy Story 2
6. Bug's Life
7. Up - some parts of the plot really threw me off.
8. Cars
9. The Incredibles.Does anyone else understand why bugs life would be rated above 'up' & 'the incredibles'.
-
i deduce that a mental illness is to blame
-
A lot of people here had Incredibles at the bottom of their lists. I don't know, personally it's my overall favorite, so maybe I'm a little blind to the flaws.
-
@RobbyBevard:
That's not a coincidence at all! YOU brought up the baseball analogy! And you still didn't explain it!
Sure.
San Francisco used to have a really great baseball player named Barry Bonds; he's the guy who currently holds the home run record. But during his stay here, he developed a very vehement anti-fanbase across the US because he was arrogant and condescending to other players, even those on his home team. It's a bit taboo to say it, but a big reason the Giants were mediocre except for Bonds for many years was because Bonds' attitude and presence drove away a lot of players.
Then, Bonds got caught for juicing up on roids, and his ego dropped faster than Buzz Lightyear's after Buzz learned he was a toy. There was absolutely no sympathy for Bonds anywhere…except San Francisco. Here people didn't really care about the steroids because Bonds was a hero to them.
And that's the philosophical difference. The truth is both Bonds and Bird accomplished great things, with caveats. I'm not the kind of person who accepts those caveats as an excuse.
Now Bird never tried to present TIG as unique and original, that was my impression as an 11/12 year old seeing the movie for the first time. So hearing that he himself was inspired by stuff from the 1950's demystifies the movie to me. It doesn't change that TIG is well written and animated, tied together with impacting themes - just that it wasn't well written, animated, tied together with impacting themes and original.
Originality and uniqueness means a lot to me, so it shouldn't come as a surprise I lend more weight to the "offbeat" Pixar titles.
Man, you're expecting logic out of somebody who just said that Oda is less inventive than Akira Toriyama because he… hell, I don't know. Hasn't created a completely new genre to replace the one Toriyama didn't create either? Didn't base his most successful series on Journey Into the West?
1. The Journey to the West parody stopped after Pilaf, very early into the story.
2. Toriyama has inspired a whole generation of writers, Oda inspired Nick Simmons.
3. Oda hasn't INVENTED style defining conventions, he's merely taken them to new heights and blended them with a solid narrative, something Toriyama failed to do.Oda is more creative and is a better writer than Toriyama, this view is pretty much undisputed, especially here. But give Toriyama credit, whether it be by accident or design, the ideas he came up with in DB changed shounen manga forever. Oda acknowledges he owes a lot to him.
-
Originality and uniqueness means a lot to me, so it shouldn't come as a surprise I lend more weight to the "offbeat" Pixar titles.
It's not like everything Pixar has done is wholly original. Do you really think they were the first to write a story about toys coming to life? Everyone gets inspiration from something.
2. Toriyama has inspired a whole generation of writers, Oda inspired Nick Simmons.
Why don't you just jump off a cliff right now.
-
Tezuka beat Toriyama to the punch with Dororo ten years before Dragon Ball.
Tori's no more original than Oda.
-
It's a bit taboo to say it, but a big reason the Giants were mediocre except for Bonds for many years was because Bonds' attitude and presence drove away a lot of players.
Two possible responses:
- This is taboo in much the same way as it is to say that that big yellow bright thing in the sky in The Sun.
2)What's that you say? Barry Bonds was a tremendous prick? Film at eleven!
And that's the philosophical difference. The truth is both Bonds and Bird accomplished great things, with caveats. I'm not the kind of person who accepts those caveats as an excuse.
Yes, because cheating to take away a record from a beloved sports hero like Hank Aaron is basically the same as paying homage to a favorite genre.
Do you ever go back and read what you just wrote to see if it makes sense?
1. The Journey to the West parody stopped after Pilaf, very early into the story.
And then he switched over to Bruce Lee references for a while along with a whole slew of other things.
2. Toriyama has inspired a whole generation of writers, Oda inspired Nick Simmons.
Wait a few years until after One Piece is finished and then we'll see how many people he has inspired.
3. Oda hasn't INVENTED style defining conventions, he's merely taken them to new heights and blended them with a solid narrative, something Toriyama failed to do.
So, which style defining conventions did Toriyama invent exactly?
I'm not disputing Dragon Ball's quality as a work, but it owes a lot to things that come before it such as the aforementioned Journey into the West as well as any number of '70s era kung-fu films. A hefty chunk of the Red Ribbon Saga was heavily influenced by The Game of Death for instance.
Toriyama may have refined some of the concepts down and perfected some of them, but a lot of Dragon Ball was inspired by what came before.
Oda is more creative and is a better writer than Toriyama, this view is pretty much undisputed, especially here. But give Toriyama credit, whether it be by accident or design, the ideas he came up with in DB changed shounen manga forever. Oda acknowledges he owes a lot to him.
It's pretty easy to look back and see how a series that ended fifteen years ago changed things, but it's pretty asinine to make a judgement about a series that is currently ongoing. It's hard, no, impossible to believe that One Piece isn't going to have a major impact on manga and incredibly hard to believe that it hasn't already.
-
Yes, because cheating to take away a record from a beloved sports hero like Hank Aaron is basically the same as paying homage to a favorite genre.
Bonds beat Aaron's record. How he did it doesn't matter in sports - it's all about the accomplishment. Bonds cheating for who knows how long - heck, it could have been anywhere from day one to the day before - cannot erase that fact. At worst it'll give him an asterisk, but he'll still get into the Hall of Fame and be seated alongside Gaylord Perry. Baseball fans know this, but even if Bonds hadn't cheated, everyone outside of SF would still be bitter. What happens to him next will determine if they're less bitter, or more.
I don't mind comparing such things. We're having an exaggerated discussion about a tangent in a topic dedicated to a company that makes cartoons…it's already pretty abstract.
Wait a few years until after One Piece is finished and then we'll see how many people he has inspired.
Why does OP have to end before inspiration can begin?
Toriyama may have refined some of the concepts down and perfected some of them, but a lot of Dragon Ball was inspired by what came before.
Those refinements are the style I'm referring to. DB can trace its lineage to a number of sources, but Toriyama shaped it into DB with his own touch. Even if the ideas and assembly of ideas in later titles aren't the same, the touch can still be felt.
Supposedly, a friend of mine has said this is obvious in Brad Bird's two films, but if I didn't already know they were directed by the same person I wouldn't have been able to tell.
It's hard, no, impossible to believe that One Piece isn't going to have a major impact on manga and incredibly hard to believe that it hasn't already.
Oda is special, and the fact that he keeps company with people noticeably less special than he is in Jump should be evidence enough of how rare he is and how unlikely his quality will be replicated. Remember that OP is better than DB, even if it wasn't as popular in the current era as DB was in its.
Unless you count Fairy Tail, OP's influence hasn't been felt yet, and OP has already lasted longer than DB in Jump. Shueisha is terrified of another Jump dark age, especially with circulation being as low as it is now - had someone new of Oda's caliber applied to the magazine, they would have been established by now.
-
Oda is special, and the fact that he keeps company with people noticeably less special than he is in Jump should be evidence enough of how rare he is and how unlikely his quality will be replicated. Remember that OP is better than DB, even if it wasn't as popular in the current era as DB was in its.
What are you talking about? Do you even read sales numbers?
-
I'm already missing the Pixar discussion… ='(
But anyways. Perhaps my favorite Pixar film is The Incredibles, mostly because I really like super hero stories, as long as they're done well (I'm looking at you, Fantastic Four films…).
And a little something I stumbled upon:
www.slashfilm.com/2009/04/02/lol-pixar-vs-dreamworks/ -
Doesn't the star ball make it into some of them too? I remember it in a couple.
I dont think Luxo's Ball is in all of them but the pattern atleast is in most of them ie the circus floor in Red's Dream
-
A lot of people here had Incredibles at the bottom of their lists. I don't know, personally it's my overall favorite, so maybe I'm a little blind to the flaws.
It is a favourite of mine as well. I really had a great time.
It was way better than UP for sure.
It is hard to compare Pixar movies because they tend to be in total different environment and stories.
-
Its depressing not being able to mention despicable me in this thread (or make a proper comparison so to speak) as its so damn similar to pixars work…..if not a fraction ahead in some aspects.
I got it yesterday in the post with toystory 3 and two other films.
(bafta)It doesn't raise the bar, break the boundaries or have a large amount of TRULY original ideas...
...BUT its quality remains constant throughout.
-
re-watched Monsters inc on blu-ray last night. It was good but I think that's about it. I dunno why but I just didn't really feel much from the characters compared to the likes of Wall-E, Toy Story or UP.
Still pretty damn awesome tho.
-
Truest thing said in the thread so far. The Dog is one of the greatest animated characters to come along in the last few decades.
3U_hqEkk674
Oh my God…..
Where's Mary Ann?
Fucking loved that cartoon!
-
Been thinkling about this in light of Pixar's upcoming release schedule. It just feels like they're low on ideas and lacking that ambitious spark they one had. I mean, until recently the only sequel they had done was Toy Story 2, a rare exception. And now we have had Toy Story 3 come out, and soon to be released….
Cars 2
Brave
Monsters Inc. 2Come on Pixar, you're better than this!
So that means in the next two or three years only one film, Brave, is going to be original, no wait, it's a frickin Disney princess mould story. Now I would have thought Pixar could be a little more creative with the first film to feature a femal lead but they went with princess. :getlost:
Newt is shelved for Monsters Inc. 2. What the hell Pixar? You shelved an original product for another rehash? What has become of you?
Okay so I'm ranting a bit, but I'm a real big fan of Pixar, who have until recently shied away from the sequel with rare exception. For the first time in recent memory I'm not anticipating this years Pixar film. At all. It's Cars 2, by the way. I wonder who thought that making a sequel to one of the more mediocre films in their back catalogue was a good idea.
Okay, so yeah, I think they've lost their mojo. Big time. Thoughts?
-
Toy Story 2 and 3 were very good films. If these other two are of similar quality then I have no beef.
-
What the hell is this.
-
I'm sure you can decide on lost mojo once you see these movies you're talking about.
-
So you basically think that all sequels inherently suck? lol
-
I don't think you can say they have lost their mojo until they actually start making bad films. Toy Story 3 was a rousing success. As was Up. As was Wall*E. I agree that I would like to see more original products from them and that the thought of Pixar reverting into a more Dreamworks-esque company (who bank on their sequels and marketability constantly) is a sad one indeed. But so long as they maintain the otherworldly quality control that they have always had (even Ghibli can't stand up to them here) I really don't see how we avid Pixar enthusiasts can complain to heavily. Cars was probably their second weakest effort (A Bug's Life being the weakest) but the trailer for the sequel looks fun. Perhaps not inspired but fun (much like the original). As far as Monsters Inc goes - well in my eyes the original is probably the most overlooked film in their catalogue (oddly enough it lived in the shadow of Shrek as they debuted on the same year) so I am rather happy that we will get another M.Inc.
All in all I would say that we can't damn them before they stumble. They are coming off of three master class animation products - they deserve to make a fun pointless flick like Cars 2. However I do agree that I am nowhere near as excited to see C2 as I have been in recent years for their upcoming films.
-
First.
Newt was shelved because it was having story problems. Its great that they're willing to kill a project that far into development rather than release something sub-par.Second.
Pixar is 11 for 11, and both Toy Story 2 and 3 are among the rare sequels better than the film that came before. Toy Story 3 is one of the first great 3's in movie history, period.There is absolutely no reason to doubt them. They're allowed 3 or 4 total flops in a row before you can even begin to start speculating on it, but their mantra is story first, and the same people that have done the other movies that are great, are doing these movies.
And hey, bring on the sequals. They'll make them gillions of dollars, which then lets them make riskier movies like Ratatoulle, Wall-E, or Up. They never would have gotten away with a movie about cooking, an all silent movie, or a movie about an old man if they hadn't built the clout and the trust. (Monsters Inc is rumored to be a prequel, if that matters any.)
Third.
Cars is the hardest to take of their works because of the world it inhabits is kind of freaky, but its still an incredibly solid movie with great characterization, (and character growth) voice talent, music, visuals, and moments of true beauty and heart, I get choked up at the ending every time. I have no idea what the hell Cars 2 is doing with the spy thing, but I'm going to see it in theaters anyway. Pixar has earned that. (Also, Cars made like a billion dollars in merchandising, so there's your answer to that question.)Fourth.
How the hell can you judge Brave when the ONLY thing we know about it at this point is that its Pixar taking on the fairy tale genre? We have a one sentance summary, there isn't even any promo art yet. Tangled was a Princess movie, and it was fantastic. Fox did Anastasia, and it was a Princess movie, but nothing like a Disney movie. Enchantd was a Princess movie, and it was a total love letter to the genre and it was a lot of fun. Miyazaki does the Princess genre all the time, and those are nothing like Disney princess movies. (Unless you want to tell me Nausicaa and Princess Mononoke are films that match the tone of Cinderella.) -
Taboo (ala the Onion) posted this in the Disney thread. For posterity it should probably be shared here too.
I've Got You Dumb Motherfuckers Eating Right Out Of My Hand
By John Lasseter
Chief Creative Officer, PixarWhen we released the first Toy Story movie back in 1995, my colleagues and I were nervous about the response from critics and audiences. Sure, we knew we had crafted a brilliant, earnest film that intelligently explored the human condition—a story that resonated with both children and adults alike—but we didn't know for sure if moviegoers would come out in big numbers or not. Well, fast-forward 15 years, 11 movies, and $6 billion later, and I can tell you with full confidence that I've got you stupid fucking sons of bitches exactly where I want you.
I mean, Jesus Christ, we've got you dummies eating up this works-of-cinematic-beauty shit like your miserable little lives depended on it.
Yes, after the success of our first few movies we had a hunch you'd continue to enjoy the wonderfully designed animation and our smart, lyrical writing, but I didn't think we'd create a horde of drooling morons ready to drop everything just to watch a fucking rat cook dinner. Time and time again, though, there you chumps are, lined up around the block with your stupid little kids, eager to have your stupid little hearts filled with whimsy.
Admit it: You numb-nuts are addicted to our genuine, three-dimensional characters. And you just can't get enough of our ability to make an idiot robot that can barely even talk feel relatable. It's okay to say you love it.
It's truly pathetic, but it's okay.
Let me share a little anecdote with you. Three years ago, I was watching an early edit of the movie Up, and I swear to God I only had to watch five minutes of the thing before I turned to Andrew Stanton and said, "Boy, the sheep are gonna flock to this." And I said this while that old fart's house was still on the ground. Up had everything you nimrods have come to expect from Pixar: an endearing main character, that follow-your-dreams bullshit, and that razor-sharp humor garbage we can basically barf out anytime we need a hefty payday.
Admittedly, not everything in that movie was perfect. Were the talking dogs a cheap gag? Absolutely. Did it matter? No way. We're fucking Pixar! We've built enough credibility that we don't have to worry about talking dogs ruining a movie, because we own the audience, we own the critics, and when we say "Jump," the jack-offs who give out Academy Awards say, "How high? Best Picture high enough?"
Come to think of it, you're like a bunch of talking dogs that rush to their water bowls every time we refill it with timeless narratives and indelible characters, aren't you? Here, boy! Sit. Stay. Roll over. Feel more of an emotional connection with a cartoon fish than anything else in your own empty life. Good boy. Good.
Pixar is bulletproof, assholes. We can put out any old piece of shit that perfectly examines universal themes of love and friendship and just walk away with record box-office numbers. In fact, I think I'll have my award-winning design team get cracking on an anthropomorphic piece of shit right now. Yes. Shit. I'm talking actual human feces here, folks. We'll give it eyes and limbs, and—I don't know—call it Danny Caca. Brad Bird can make a story about how it got lost on its way to the sewage treatment facility. Its best friends are a used sewage-logged tampon and a hypodermic needle. Then we'll just sit back and watch the receipts come in.
Yeah, it'll have heart and depth, but still, it's going to be a talking piece of shit. Kids won't flush for years because of it.
So here's what we got coming out soon: Cars 2, Brave (I actually have no clue what that is, but I'm sure our little toady at The New York Times A.O. Scott will say it fits perfectly into Pixar's grand tradition of excellence), and Monsters, Inc. 2. I see we have a couple sequels in there, but I'm willing to bet you dunderheads are excited as hell for them because Pixar has that rare, we-don't-do-sequels-unless-we-genuinely-have-a-good-story-to-tell integrity thing that you just absolutely love and respect and that can't be found anywhere else in Hollywood. Hell, it's like it's 100 degrees out and we're the only ones selling snow cones.
So, enjoy the movies, dipshits. And remember, you've got a friend in us.
-
I've Got You Dumb Motherfuckers Eating Right Out Of My Hand
By John Lasseter
Chief Creative Officer, PixarWhen we released the first Toy Story movie back in 1995, my colleagues and I were nervous about the response from critics and audiences. Sure, we knew we had crafted a brilliant, earnest film that intelligently explored the human condition—a story that resonated with both children and adults alike—but we didn't know for sure if moviegoers would come out in big numbers or not. Well, fast-forward 15 years, 11 movies, and $6 billion later, and I can tell you with full confidence that I've got you stupid fucking sons of bitches exactly where I want you.
I mean, Jesus Christ, we've got you dummies eating up this works-of-cinematic-beauty shit like your miserable little lives depended on it.
Yes, after the success of our first few movies we had a hunch you'd continue to enjoy the wonderfully designed animation and our smart, lyrical writing, but I didn't think we'd create a horde of drooling morons ready to drop everything just to watch a fucking rat cook dinner. Time and time again, though, there you chumps are, lined up around the block with your stupid little kids, eager to have your stupid little hearts filled with whimsy.
Admit it: You numb-nuts are addicted to our genuine, three-dimensional characters. And you just can't get enough of our ability to make an idiot robot that can barely even talk feel relatable. It's okay to say you love it.
It's truly pathetic, but it's okay.
Let me share a little anecdote with you. Three years ago, I was watching an early edit of the movie Up, and I swear to God I only had to watch five minutes of the thing before I turned to Andrew Stanton and said, "Boy, the sheep are gonna flock to this." And I said this while that old fart's house was still on the ground. Up had everything you nimrods have come to expect from Pixar: an endearing main character, that follow-your-dreams bullshit, and that razor-sharp humor garbage we can basically barf out anytime we need a hefty payday.
Admittedly, not everything in that movie was perfect. Were the talking dogs a cheap gag? Absolutely. Did it matter? No way. We're fucking Pixar! We've built enough credibility that we don't have to worry about talking dogs ruining a movie, because we own the audience, we own the critics, and when we say "Jump," the jack-offs who give out Academy Awards say, "How high? Best Picture high enough?"
Come to think of it, you're like a bunch of talking dogs that rush to their water bowls every time we refill it with timeless narratives and indelible characters, aren't you? Here, boy! Sit. Stay. Roll over. Feel more of an emotional connection with a cartoon fish than anything else in your own empty life. Good boy. Good.
Pixar is bulletproof, assholes. We can put out any old piece of shit that perfectly examines universal themes of love and friendship and just walk away with record box-office numbers. In fact, I think I'll have my award-winning design team get cracking on an anthropomorphic piece of shit right now. Yes. Shit. I'm talking actual human feces here, folks. We'll give it eyes and limbs, and—I don't know—call it Danny Caca. Brad Bird can make a story about how it got lost on its way to the sewage treatment facility. Its best friends are a used sewage-logged tampon and a hypodermic needle. Then we'll just sit back and watch the receipts come in.
Yeah, it'll have heart and depth, but still, it's going to be a talking piece of shit. Kids won't flush for years because of it.
So here's what we got coming out soon: Cars 2, Brave (I actually have no clue what that is, but I'm sure our little toady at The New York Times A.O. Scott will say it fits perfectly into Pixar's grand tradition of excellence), and Monsters, Inc. 2. I see we have a couple sequels in there, but I'm willing to bet you dunderheads are excited as hell for them because Pixar has that rare, we-don't-do-sequels-unless-we-genuinely-have-a-good-story-to-tell integrity thing that you just absolutely love and respect and that can't be found anywhere else in Hollywood. Hell, it's like it's 100 degrees out and we're the only ones selling snow cones.
So, enjoy the movies, dipshits. And remember, you've got a friend in us.
Beautiful :,)
@RobbyBevard:
First.
Newt was shelved because it was having story problems. Its great that they're willing to kill a project that far into development rather than release something sub-par.Second.
Pixar is 11 for 11, and both Toy Story 2 and 3 are among the rare sequels better than the film that came before. Toy Story 3 is one of the first great 3's in movie history, period.There is absolutely no reason to doubt them. They're allowed 3 or 4 total flops in a row before you can even begin to start speculating on it, but their mantra is story first, and the same people that have done the other movies that are great, are doing these movies.
And hey, bring on the sequals. They'll make them gillions of dollars, which then lets them make riskier movies like Ratatoulle, Wall-E, or Up. They never would have gotten away with a movie about cooking, an all silent movie, or a movie about an old man if they hadn't built the clout and the trust. (Monsters Inc is rumored to be a prequel, if that matters any.)
Third.
Cars is the hardest to take of their works because of the world it inhabits is kind of freaky, but its still an incredibly solid movie with great characterization, (and character growth) voice talent, music, visuals, and moments of true beauty and heart, I get choked up at the ending every time. I have no idea what the hell Cars 2 is doing with the spy thing, but I'm going to see it in theaters anyway. Pixar has earned that. (Also, Cars made like a billion dollars in merchandising, so there's your answer to that question.)Fourth.
How the hell can you judge Brave when the ONLY thing we know about it at this point is that its Pixar taking on the fairy tale genre? We have a one sentance summary, there isn't even any promo art yet. Tangled was a Princess movie, and it was fantastic. Fox did Anastasia, and it was a Princess movie, but nothing like a Disney movie. Enchantd was a Princess movie, and it was a total love letter to the genre and it was a lot of fun. Miyazaki does the Princess genre all the time, and those are nothing like Disney princess movies. (Unless you want to tell me Nausicaa and Princess Mononoke are films that match the tone of Cinderella.)Also pretty awesome.
-
I always knew Lasseter was a cold mofo. I would like to hear what he has to say about Miyazaki in a similar context, you know off the record.
-
Has Pixar ever made a bad film?
-
Come on Pixar, you're better than this!
So that means in the next two or three years only one film, Brave, is going to be original, no wait, it's a frickin Disney princess mould story. Now I would have thought Pixar could be a little more creative with the first film to feature a femal lead but they went with princess.
a princess who is supposedly responsible for her patents death and learns how to be a badass to make up for it (so Ive heard). A PIXAR take on a story with a princess
Newt is shelved for Monsters Inc. 2. What the hell Pixar? You shelved an original product for another rehash? What has become of you?
newt was shelved for story problems, but most likely because of similarities between itself and bluesky's Rio
-
@RobbyBevard:
Second.
Pixar is 11 for 11, and both Toy Story 2 and 3 are among the rare sequels better than the film that came before. Toy Story 3 is one of the first great 3's in movie history, period.That's a matter of opinion.
I think they're 10 for 11.
@RobbyBevard:
Third.
Cars is the hardest to take of their works because of the world it inhabits is kind of freaky…And, you know, the whole plot is lifted point-by-point from another film without deviating at all from the original film's plot.
There's that too…But Cars 2 looks completely original this time, which is Ironic since it's a sequel. I actually like all the upcoming movies look good, ESPECIALLY Monsters Inc. 2... The last one REALLY left me wanting more.
-
I was rewatching my plethora of behind the scenes junk on my Incredibles and Wall-e DVDs, and I just want to say two things
brad bird is incredible
violet's voice actress is ridicuawesome
4FRb3bH3iB0
-
violet's voice actress is ridicuawesome
I disagree. From her segment she came across as someone with very little imagination/ suspension of disbeleif. It frequently annoys me when actors can't wrap their heads around the movie genre they're in. She was all bent out of shape by having to say "the remote controlls the robot". The whole feature left me with a sour taste in my mouth.
-
lol she's not an actor
she's a historian, someone who doesn't have to have 'suspension of disbeleif'
-
I know. It was just her attitude about the movie that grated on me. I dont see why pixar would want to showcase some boring lady who is all " superheroes?! Whats up with that, sure whstever, ill be in your weird nerd movie" (not an actual quote ^__-}
-
And, you know, the whole plot is lifted point-by-point from another film without deviating at all from the original film's plot.
There's that too…Beyond the JOKE about it, its NOT a scene for scene remake of Doc Hollywood anymore than Avatar is a remake of Dances with Wolves.
Its about a race car that needs to learn to slow down.
That had memorable characters, great visuals, music, character growth and development. There was nothing wrong with the movie, beyond the disconnect people have with the car world, and that it was Nascar oriented. Its a totally different genre for some folks, but its not bad on the creative or production level in any way.
I know. It was just her attitude about the movie that grated on me. I dont see why pixar would want to showcase some boring lady who is all " superheroes?! Whats up with that, sure whstever, ill be in your weird nerd movie" (not an actual quote ^__-}
Same reason any competent voice director picks someone to do something. Because Sarah Vowell has an awesome DISTINCT voice well suited for the character.
Also, she's not boring. She tells great stories.
-
brad bird is incredible
You know, I don't know exactly what an "executive consultant" does.
But I do know that it was pretty much the time Bird stopped doing it for The Simpsons that the show started dropping in quality.
-
I know. It was just her attitude about the movie that grated on me. I dont see why pixar would want to showcase some boring lady who is all " superheroes?! Whats up with that, sure whstever, ill be in your weird nerd movie" (not an actual quote ^__-}
obviously you have yet to experience sarcasm in real life to not know she is being sarcastic throughout the clip
I can't belive you dont like her but maybe it's because I'm into animation that I find her facinating. She's an absolute character! Her voice is very distinctive, sort of nasally and slurred, but it's full if character as well! From the stand point of a person who makes characters, it's probably the characters who are interested in the mundane that are the most facinating. she has a lot of wit and is very self aware of how 'uninteresting' her interests and life might be, and yet she was hired on as a voice actor for a major motion picture because of her voice on the radio
we can't all be charismatic superheroes, you know? Anyway, I think she's just facinating
-
You know, I don't know exactly what an "executive consultant" does.
But I do know that it was pretty much the time Bird stopped doing it for The Simpsons that the show started dropping in quality.
I'm pretty sure in Bird's case, its him constantly saying "Make them act like a person with feelings and emotion, make them all distinct in their own way, not a cartoon parody of a person."
Its often been said that originally a writer for the Simpsons was writing a straightforward comedy show, where the script could be taken to another live action show and you wouldn't know the difference. Nowadays, a writer is writing for the Simpsons.
(King of the Hill was incredibly grounded most of the time, though some of the characters got waaaay more absurd by the end.)
I can't belive you dont like her but maybe it's because I'm into animation that I find her facinating.
She's on This American Life all the time. (The only NPR I actually listen to.) She's really good at making stories about the most boring stuff, interesting.
-
That sounds about right. It's one of the things I love most about his films.
-
@RobbyBevard:
Same reason any competent voice director picks someone to do something. Because Sarah Vowell has an awesome DISTINCT voice well suited for the character.
I dont dispute that at all. Her voice was perfect for a mousey unsure teenage girl. It was special feature I'm condemning.
@RobbyBevard:
Also, she's not boring. She tells great stories.
sure, if you're a history nerd, which I am definitely not ^__^. But if that was it, i'd have no further problem with the video. It was her attitude toward the movie that rubbed me the wrong way and why pixar felt it prudent to include it with the movie itself. I dont watch special features on movies to see the people responcible for making the movie talk shit about it. Its very counter productive.
-
The most telling thing about NAILING character? During Incredibles, when Dash is running across water for the first time, he looks down, realizes what he's doing, then he get s a great big grin and giggles.
That's incredibly telling right there. And its in the middle of an action scene with no pause to emphasize it, its just a little 8 year old kid realizing "WOW, I can freakin' run on water! This is awesome!" In a look and a laugh.
sure, if you're a history nerd, which I am definitely not ^__^.
I'm not a history nerd. At all. She still tells great stories.
Or do you have to be a mafia nerd to enjoy Goodfellas?
-
Conekiller just has no taste end of discussion
-
O_O I sure hope that was sarcasm. Didnt think the discussion was that heated.
-
^w^*~
I you knew what sarcasm was, you wouldn't have to ask
unless I am being sarcastic right now
Or am I
-
@_@;;;;? ;