Also. Inside Out is totally the same exact plot as Wreck it Ralph.
Oh my god and with this realisation the film drops down three spots on my Pixar rankings.
Then again originally it was in the top 3 so
Also. Inside Out is totally the same exact plot as Wreck it Ralph.
Oh my god and with this realisation the film drops down three spots on my Pixar rankings.
Then again originally it was in the top 3 so
@Daz:
Ralph did deserve better treatment by the others- and got it in the end- but a key part of the movie to me was that he didn't need to better himself. He was always a good guy, just never seen as such, not even really by himself. In the end, both Ralph and his coworkers realize that the person is not defined by the job.
That's a fair point. I guess that I've always seen it as Ralph wanting to be a hero and, in the end, still being stuck with the title of villain.
Ralph just gets more pure emotional beats out of me. The sequence where he forces himself to be a villain and destroys her car, and how heartbroken and in tears she's in? It's just gutwrenching. Him begging Felix for help? And the apology later is particularly sweet. And the happy giddiness when they're being successful gets the right emotions too.
I can agree with this. Having Ralph have to do a bad thing for a good reason was a great idea.
the romance was a lot of fun! No more odd than most Disney love at first sight//married in three days romances. Its a hell of a lot better than the one in Little Mermaid, and it was the entire focus of that film. Felix's immediate crush was a bit much, but the two had time to bond and prove each themselves to each other.
I didn't much care for it. Their interaction and Calhoun's annoyance with Felix was fine but I found it very odd and unnecessary. And that scene where Calhoun is forced to physically assault Felix was just awful.
But she kept her glitch-ness. Gamers came to love her, glitch physics and all.
And the framed secret princess stuff was fair and legitimately set up, it was just really subtle so as to be a surprise later.
Set up or not, the fact that she was a princess the whole time was a really poor choice. Wouldn't it have been more interesting if she had not fallen into a position of power and simply won the trust of the denizens of Sugar Rush in a similar way that Ralph did with his own game? Why make it so she immediately has authority over all of the people who once shunned her? Just to show that she wasn't ruthless or vengeful? To give her some kind of reward? Seems like a fallacy to me.
it just turned into a pale imitation of Emporer's New Groove near the end
How so? Because there is a character in both that is turned into an animal and is in a hurry to change back into a human?
@Daz:
I thought Inside Out was quite good, but I had three major gripes with it that have just nagged ever since I saw it.
Structurally,
! The movie plays the "We need to use X to get back! Oh no, X collapsed/is not useable! Then we need to use Y to get back! Oh no etc" card one too many times. When the train stopped and they went to wake her up to get it rolling again, I could only think "wait for the goddamn train! As long as she's sleeping her life isn't being ruined! You're literally losing NO TIME!"
Uh she was getting more and more despondent which as we saw ended with things snowballing to shit in her life where she almost ran away from home, so uh yeah there were time oriented stakes.
@Monkey:
Uh she was getting more and more despondent which as we saw ended with things snowballing to shit in her life where she almost ran away from home, so uh yeah there were time oriented stakes.
So, we're not doing spoilers? Ok then.
I know her life was getting worse, but it couldn't get any worse as long as she was sleeping, is what I'm getting at. They established that Joy and Sadness could literally pick up where they left off as soon as Riley woke up, and take the train back first thing in her morning - no net time loss, plus their decision to wake her prematurely is what ultimately made her decide to run away. I know that they don't know that, but I as a viewer can see them making stuff worse for no real reason, because of a forced (at night) sense of urgency.
I also scratched my head when they missed the train, and were like "we'll catch it at some other station, instead of waiting here for the next!" Idunno, but at least with the Danish rail system, thats pretty much logically impossible.
Oh my god and with this realisation the film drops down three spots on my Pixar rankings.
Then again originally it was in the top 3 so
Don't let something like that ruin your enjoyment of a film lol
If you look hard enough, you can find similarities between anything. Case in point, Brave and Wreck-it Ralph are totally the same movie. Both have characters who are dissatisfied with their lives and how people are treating them, both have a seemingly inconsequential flashback story that is used to reveal the major villain, and both have a "race against the clock" element that is used for tension and puts a major character's, but not the main character's, well-being in jeopardy.
@Daz:
So, we're not doing spoilers? Ok then.
I know her life was getting worse, but it couldn't get any worse as long as she was sleeping, is what I'm getting at. They established that Joy and Sadness could literally pick up where they left off as soon as Riley woke up, and take the train back first thing in her morning - no net time loss, plus their decision to wake her prematurely is what ultimately made her decide to run away. I know that they don't know that, but I as a viewer can see them making stuff worse for no real reason, because of a forced (at night) sense of urgency.I also scratched my head when they missed the train, and were like "we'll catch it at some other station, instead of waiting here for the next!" Idunno, but at least with the Danish rail system, thats pretty much logically impossible.
She had nightmares as I recall, making things worse as she slept. Plus just because she's sleeping doesn't mean time toward bad things has stopped. They had less time to make progress before bad things, that's the point.
I think you're misremembering the time frame Zeph.
Riley goes to sleep; the train stops.
–>Joy and the others decide to wake her up; in order to do so they deliberately create a nightmare with the freaky clown
–>The other emotions trigger the running-away-scheme because of the nightmare; "this place is so shit we can't even get a good nights sleep, lets bail" etc
–>Riley steals some money, destroying the "Honesty" aspect of her personality as well as the Train of Thought, because that is somehow something that can be destroyed I guess.
There were nothing "in motion" in the real world getting worse as Riley was sleeping, because all the bad things came from her interacting with her new unfamiliar surroundings while awake. If Riley had just woken up normally the train would've started up, and taken the emotions home instantly, to sort things out before she was done with her breakfast. The only new "bad things" that'd have time to happen, would have to happen in the time it took for the train to take them home.
Here's a thought:
It might have been fair for Joy to assume that, if Riley were awake during the night, her life probably couldn't get any worse and she probably wouldn't do anything since, well, it's night. She'd probably fall back asleep in a few minutes, giving them enough time to make it back to the main room (but, as it turns out, she used that time to steal from her mother)
I recently re-watched both Ralph and Brave, so I'll give my two cents.
Both movies had beautiful scenery, and both had some interesting relationships. I do thing Ralph is the more memorable of the two because it juggled a lot of different relationships better than Brave handled it's main one, that of Merida and her mother.
Meanwhile, both films have some serious problems for me. Brave, in a word, is lackluster. With all the grand vistas and everything, it doesn't feel like it does much that's new besides the mother and daughter aspect, and that wasn't so deep for me. Everyone else is pretty one note. There were also two things that bugged me:
! The four clans were implied to have allied only within the last generation, with Merida's father uniting them. When did it become their tradition for the king's daughter to marry someone from one of those clans? And why didn't the brothers become more bear-ish like their mom did? They were transformed for nearly the same amount of time.
Ralph, meanwhile, squandered the potential of a world of video games by having more than half the movie turn into, basically, a candy advertisement. I'll admit, the Oreo bit gave me a laugh, but that's it. The characters all suffer from some groan-inducing puns and body-process humor. I didn't really like Vanellope as a character, even though her relationship with Ralph was pretty good. She was way too crass for my taste, especially for what's supposed to be a child character, and her every utterance of "Hero's Duty" was aggravating. Ralph was great, King Candy was great, liked Felix and Calhoun well enough, and the actual video game stuff, especially Clyde leading Bad-Anon, was worth at least the price of admission.
@Daz:
So, we're not doing spoilers? Ok then.
I know her life was getting worse, but it couldn't get any worse as long as she was sleeping, is what I'm getting at. They established that Joy and Sadness could literally pick up where they left off as soon as Riley woke up, and take the train back first thing in her morning - no net time loss, plus their decision to wake her prematurely is what ultimately made her decide to run away. I know that they don't know that, but I as a viewer can see them making stuff worse for no real reason, because of a forced (at night) sense of urgency.I also scratched my head when they missed the train, and were like "we'll catch it at some other station, instead of waiting here for the next!" Idunno, but at least with the Danish rail system, thats pretty much logically impossible.
I think you're making the mistake of thinking of Joy as a perfect character instead of the change character she is.
Joy is a very flawed character, that's the point of the entire movie.
In the beginning, it's clear Joy thinks of herself as the most important emotion. To her, She's number one, Anger, Fear, and Disgust are all number 2, and Sadness is a distant 3. In Early movie Joy's perfect world, Sadness should just disappear and never come back.
This is the reason she thinks she has to wake Riley up to get back up there ASAP and it can't wait until the morning. As far as she's concerned, she's the MOST important thing in Riley's head and she MUST get up there. Because, in Joy's mind, Riley can't or won't do anything personality-destroying late at night since her parents are most likely asleep and she can't go to school, but if they wait until the morning, she has no idea exactly how long the train will take to get back to the control room, so for all she knows, by the time they get there, Riley could have already gone downstairs for breakfast, interacted with her parents, gone to school, and made a fool out of herself in front of everyone in the time it took the train to get back.
That's what was going through her head. "I'm the most important thing, and I need to get back up there ASAP at all costs. It's safest for me to do that late at night when there's no chance Riley will have to brave another day of school without me!". It may not have been entirely logical, but again, Joy is the flawed character. Joy is the one who is supposed to change by the end of the movie.
I can accept that reasoning; it makes sense from Joys flawed perspective. Thanks
I didn't intend to venture too far towards nitpicky-plothole discussion territory because then we'd be here all day with this movie. At any rate my chief issue was more structure, and less internal logic even though I'm kinda in Nobodymans "seems to much like a physical non-metaphorical world" camp- shouldn't Riley have some reaction to losing a shitload of memory balls all at once? Blah, nothing game-breaking, but would've been nice to see.
I guess my main gripe with the Road Trip as a feeling that the plot was in service of jokes and puns, rather than the other way around; "dangit, we can't use X to go back-we have to try Y, and to do that we need to go through the Abstract Thought Pun zone!". The most blatant one was probably when the Dream Factory detour led to the Subconsciousness detour, where Bing bong teleported a bizarre distance ahead of the emotions when the police captured him, and then appearantly got captured by the clown in a matter of seconds through the power of editing. Again, nothing game-breaking, and it all served to make Joy appreciate Sadness reasoning more, but it stuck out to me as a bit too much too fast, and not entirely organic.
If there had been one defined way of returning from the start that they then spent the road trip getting to, instead of yanking the return ticket away on a string again and again, I think I'd have liked the film more. Who knows, a rewatch might me appreciate the finer details of the storytelling; Demon Rin already changed my perception on at least one thing. I'll just need remember fast-forwarding through that…unfortunate Cloud City scene.
So I see the topic of Brave VS Wreck-It Ralph was brought up here… Now for me, Wreck-It Ralph was easily the better movie of the two. In fact I'd say it's the best movie Disney has done in quite a while. However, when it comes to Brave, I'm quite firmly in the camp that, if it had been made by any studio other than Pixar, it would have been much better received. My reasoning for this mainly being that, honestly, taken as a movie on its own merit, I think it's roughly on par with Frozen. Perhaps slightly better, even.
Oh sure, the plot and characters are really clichéd and the tone is kind of inconsistent, but… Frozen had some pretty glaring issues with its storytelling as well. Most notably the whole "Hans being evil"-part, which still doesn't make a lick of sense to me after having seen the movie several times. The movie never does anything to hint that his Super-Awesome Nice Guy persona is an act until he just suddenly goes "lol I'm gonna leave you for dead now and then rule the kingdom muhuhahaha!" And it wasn't even necessary for the story in the first place, you could still have that dramatic moment where he tries to kill Elsa without turning him into a cackling maniac; Just have him conclude, after learning that Elsa doesn't know how to undo the spell, that the only way to save the kingdom is to kill her. Then have him actually be torn up about it but ultimately decide that it has to be done. There, climax retained, complete character 180 avoided.
And then there are the trolls. I don't even think those guys warrant a rant about how much they suck because their suckiness is self-apparent.
…As far as I'm concerned, either of those two issues are far worse than ANYTHING Brave did wrong. I mean it's a good movie aside from Evil Overlord Hans and the trolls being utter morons, but those are some pretty major issues as far as I'm concerned.
@Vegard:
Frozen had some pretty glaring issues with its storytelling as well. Most notably the whole "Hans being evil"-part, which still doesn't make a lick of sense to me after having seen the movie several times. The movie never does anything to hint that his Super-Awesome Nice Guy persona is an act until he just suddenly goes "lol I'm gonna leave you for dead now and then rule the kingdom muhuhahaha!"
He mentions that he has like 8 brothers and so is no where in line for the throne, and the guy goes into a kingdom and proposes marriage after like 20 minutes, and then proceeds to ain various ways say "yeah, I'll keep the kingdom safe, you just go off and do things." The setup is there, its just subtle so that the twist will surprise you later.
Listen to the song "love is an open door" again, with the fact that he's evil in mind. It takes on some pretty sinister connotations in the lyrics once you know about the twist. Like every single one of his lines applies to getting a kingdom, rather than true love. It's just catchy and all double entendre. While Anna is constantly talking about him and his face, he's just talking about the PLACE he's found. Anna is talking about love, while he's just talking about access to a kingdom.
He mentions that he has like 8 brothers and so is no where in line for the throne, and the guy goes into a kingdom and proposes marriage after like 20 minutes, and then proceeds to ain various ways say "yeah, I'll keep the kingdom safe, you just go off and do things." The setup is there, its just subtle so that the twist will surprise you later.
Regardless of what little setup there was, it was still a jarring twist that didn't amount to much more than "I am evil now" Hans had no distinguishing personality traits to latch on to despite his playful giddiness and that didn't carry over when he revealed his motive. It might as well have been another character but Disney wanted that twist so the audience would gasp. If we really needed a major villain, the Duke of Weselton could have worked. He seemed interested in Arendelle and had set up with his distrust of Elsa and fear of her powers. Hans could have remained a "good guy" but maybe faltered and, being around the Duke's constant nay-saying, starts to believe that Elsa can't be trusted. He could still instill conflict and oppose Anna and Elsa but find that he was wrong in the end. But that might make him an interesting character.
Listen to the song "love is an open door" again, with the fact that he's evil in mind. It takes on some pretty sinister connotations in the lyrics once you know about the twist. Like every single one of his lines applies to getting a kingdom, rather than true love. It's just catchy and all double entendre. While Anna is constantly talking about him and his face, he's just talking about the PLACE he's found. Anna is talking about love, while he's just talking about access to a kingdom.
That's only for his first few lines in that song, though. The rest are him and Anna's back and forth of saying how perfectly their minds sync up and what have you.
@Below:
Regardless of what little setup there was, it was still a jarring twist that didn't amount to much more than "I am evil now" Hans had no distinguishing personality traits to latch on to despite his playful giddiness and that didn't carry over when he revealed his motive. It might as well have been another character but Disney wanted that twist so the audience would gasp.
The traits didn't carry over because they were all an act; And Hans becoming evil was a huuuuuge thematic point of the movie. The audience was supposed to buy him as this stereotypical Disney Prince Charming, all instantly lovey-dovey, and the movie deliberately subverts that entirely because this was 2013, and at this point we can actually admit that "True eternal Disney love after 5 seconds!" is a load of bollocks. Elsa and Kristoff both mock this directly in the movie. There was a lot more to it than just being a twist for its own sake; sure , you could make the Duke a villain or whatever, but then you'd have to jettison that entire theme, and to me its a lot more interesting to have Disney pull the rug under one of their oldest tropes, to show that a guy with a veneer of sheer perfectness may not be entirely perfect, and it made Hans a much more effective villain for me; because we see the love Anna had for his Charming mode, and our own preconceptions, Evil Hans feels so much more cruel.
@Below:
That's only for his first few lines in that song, though. The rest are him and Anna's back and forth of saying how perfectly their minds sync up and what have you.
Thats because Hans is deliberately mimicking Annas very simple and shallow lyrics. The whole thing is about a very superficial "love" which has nothing to do with intimate personal knowledge, and everything to do with "Hey I just met you, but I can already see that you're the most perfect person in the universe!"
Contrast this with the message of the Fixer upper song later. And the fact that Anna and Kristoff don't even kiss for the first time until some unspecified time after everything is settled, and are NOT made out to be engaged. A major point of the movie is that love isn't instant and perfect, love takes time and work, and thats where you get the true love, as seen with Anna and Elsa. Hans being evil is deeply ingrained in the entire story, and the story arc of Anna.
@Below:
That's only for his first few lines in that song, though. The rest are him and Anna's back and forth of saying how perfectly their minds sync up and what have you.
They don't really sync up though; that's the point of the sandwich line.
"Thats what I was gonna say!" and his earlier reference to chocolate fondue in the song- something he just learned Anna loves- also support the notion that he's just saying whatever Anna wants to hear.
Also: "Say goodbye, to the pain of the past, we don't have to feel it anymore"; what "painful" past Hans? That your brothers teased you? Or that you're frustratingly low in the inheritance hierarchy - a problem you can now say goodbye to?
The problem with the Hans twist is that he wasn't a character you were particularly invested in. Aside from the song, he was basically a non-factor in the film so when it turns out he was a villain, it really does feel like out of nowhere even if it was something the writers were legitimately working towards. Good concept but imo sloppy execution.
Eh, I thought they did well enough to integrate him; after the song they show him taking care of the kingdom and getting support, then heading off on a rescue mission when Annas horse returns alone, then he fights the Snow Monster, confronts Elsa, allowing her to be captured alive (since he thought she was needed to undo the winter), and then he betrays Anna when the returns in the last third, and seizes power. He got a good chunk of screentime and presented himself well as an Amiable Dude, and Anna spent the first two acts of movie first gushing about him, and then pegging him as her only hope for survival because "true love".
That was like what, ten minutes of screentime he had before the big twist (none with the main cast)?
And honestly, the more I think about it, his betrayal opposed to feeling like a subversion felt like one of the more cliche aspects of the film. The concept of a crush actually being a bad guy isn't new and as I was watching it, I really felt like did we need this, this is just Disney shoehorning a villain into a movie that didn't need it again (I think that's one of the things I love about Inside Out, the only villain was reality). I'd prefer if he was just a jerk than a homicidal maniac, maybe he could have traveled with Anna and Kristoff and Anna could have learned about him along the way through subtle character interaction opposed to an in your face heel turn.
@TLC:
The concept of a crush actually being a bad guy isn't new and as I was watching it, I really felt like did we need this, this is just Disney shoehorning a villain into a movie that didn't need it again (I think that's one of the things I love about Inside Out, the only villain was reality).
I know, right? Actually, seeing Frozen made me think, how many Disney-movies are there even which don't have a straight-up bad guy for the heroes to defeat? Off the top of my head, I can only think of Bolt and (arguably) Brother Bear. And coming back to Inside Out, I feel like it would have been so easy for them to just throw in a villainous character. Heck, I heard that in some earlier draft of the movie, there actually was a "Gloom"-character actively messing stuff up. And if that's true, then I must say, cutting that out was one of the best things they could have possibly done.
Then people would complain how pathetic a villain the Duke of Wesealtown was. I think Hans was a great surprise villain because we are surprised as much as Anna when its revealed. Also if Hans came along with her and he showed what a jerk he was then that would have been even more cliched. I mean we have seen many times before that shows the fiance being a jerk from the beginning and that the other guy is the better choice. The difference here is that for most of the movie Hans is putting up an act that makes him look like a caring and considerate person. I mean look at the way he handled things back in Arendale; he made sure that everyone got the resources they needed to survive in contrast with the Duke who complained that they were wasting valuable resources. I believe the Duke of Wesealtown was an example of a traditional obviously evil bad guy while Hans is a more genre savvy one who hides his nature like a chameleon. Hans is probably one of the most realistic portrayals of a sociopath put in an animated film.
@TLC:
That was like what, ten minutes of screentime he had before the big twist (none with the main cast)?
And honestly, the more I think about it, his betrayal opposed to feeling like a subversion felt like one of the more cliche aspects of the film. The concept of a crush actually being a bad guy isn't new and as I was watching it, I really felt like did we need this, this is just Disney shoehorning a villain into a movie that didn't need it again (I think that's one of the things I love about Inside Out, the only villain was reality). I'd prefer if he was just a jerk than a homicidal maniac, maybe he could have traveled with Anna and Kristoff and Anna could have learned about him along the way through subtle character interaction opposed to an in your face heel turn.
I think you're overplaying the type of villain Hans was; he was quite a few levels below Jafar or Ratigan style BWAHAHAness. At any rate, though the twist is hardly original (just like Inside Out), that doesn't mean it still can't be effective (which it was, judging by the amount of people legitimately caught off guard - my entire audience pretty much gasped at the reveal), and can't be integrated in the movie well. Hans being evil is not pointless or superfluous, its a core part of Annas character development, and the movies message about what constitutes True Love. I guess you might've wanted Hans to be less overtly evil, making part of the same point by having him be maybe just a shallow snob, and thats fair. But you could probably say that about most Disney/Pixar movies, and personally I think him being a schemer makes the point hit harder, also because its Disney using one of its animation tentpoles to lampshade one of Disneys greatest animation tentpole cliches.Theres nothing wrong with having an Evil Villain if he serves a point and is integrated well, and in my book, Hans qualifies.
At least, better someone like Hans than someone like Mordu, who feels vestigial at best, or the total bore villain from big hero 6.
At the end of the day its all a bunch of personal preferrence, and personally, I dig a good Disney Villain if the story calls for it. Having said villain be Disney Prince Charming who gets to stomp all over the main heroines pink and fluffy romantic delusions and leave her for dead works for me.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Vegard:
I know, right? Actually, seeing Frozen made me think, how many Disney-movies are there even which don't have a straight-up bad guy for the heroes to defeat? Off the top of my head, I can only think of Bolt and (arguably) Brother Bear.
Well, for the disney movies with actual narratives, Bambi, Dumbo, Alice In Wonderland, obviously the Winnie the Pooh movies, Fox and the Hound and arguably Lilo and Stich should qualify. And in Pinnochio and Ichabod and Mr Toad, the villains are never defeated. And if you count brave, then something like Sword in the Stone should probably go too.
On the Pixar front, Finding Nemo, Cars, Monsters U are all devoid of real "bad guys".
9) Toy Story 3 (time has made it more manipulative)
Few days late on this one, but what do you and Ubiq mean by manipulative? I can understand feeling that way about the incinerator scene, but I feel it shouldn't bog down the movie as a whole, since it's not even 10 minutes in a 140 minute movie. I watched the movie last night and it still has a lot of charm, with Spanish Buzz, Mr. Tortilla Head, and Ken. I just feel there's a lot more going on to it than the last 20 or so minutes where it tries to make you feel sad.
And I don't consider Toy Story 3 any more manipulative than the first 10 minutes of Up.
Few days late on this one, but what do you and Ubiq mean by manipulative? I can understand feeling that way about the incinerator scene, but I feel it shouldn't bog down the movie as a whole, since it's not even 10 minutes in a 140 minute movie. I watched the movie last night and it still has a lot of charm, with Spanish Buzz, Mr. Tortilla Head, and Ken. I just feel there's a lot more going on to it than the last 20 or so minutes where it tries to make you feel sad.
And I don't consider Toy Story 3 any more manipulative than the first 10 minutes of Up.
Aside from the heavy handedness of the incinerator and farewell scenes (which totally got me the first time around) the emotion of the entire movie hinges on a) the audience having grown up with the cast in real time and b)the audience knowing the toys are alive.
All the drama and sacrifice and regrets of the film, from the very start of them being in a box for 10 years or losing one of the less toy-ish characters, are built around the toys being living emotional beings, which Andy just doesn't know. Things like him debating bringing Woody to college or not may have some legit sentimentality to it, but in-movie its treated like picking one friend only to go with you while abandoning the rest.
It was a central conceit of the first two movies as well, sure, but there the emotion was entirely from the toys… who ANdy loved, but were just toys.
No one college age looks at toys that have been in a box for a decade and goes "Hrm, I should bring this with me." At most, they go "Ihaven't touched these in forever, I should give them to someone that would enjoy them." Which is what Andy ends up doing... and his farewell playing with the toys is fine, since he is introducing them to another kid. But if Woody really had that much long term sentimental value to him, he would have been kept out on a shelf the whole time. People can have sentimental value for a toy or plush or two, and haul them around for years or their entire lifetime (especially if its a gift from a loved one thats no longer around, or a memento of a special trip or something) , but it's completely unfair in the narrative for Andy (and the toys) to be giving value he no longer felt and hadn't felt in years.
That aside, pretty much everything with the villain and his child abandoning him was misguided and dealt with in ways it probably shouldn't have been. After all, it was the girls parents that bought the new doll, the little girl never replaced him. And had someone said that to him, well, it could have all had a kinder ending.
Basically, the whole thing relied on the conceit of the toys being alive and emotional and played with their abandonment issues far more excessively than they did int he first two movies. There it was "the adventure your toys have when you aren't around." 3 it was "the psychosis and emotional baggage toys have when you aren't around, and their slow and horrible death all things eventually must suffer... even though they already settled this issue in the second film 10 years prior." It played a lot more heavily, throughout the film, with the breaking and losing of a toy, and treating them like a real person dying... not just in the final bits.
Yes, there was a lot of fun to be had It was enjoyable. Ken was hilarious and spanish Buzz was fun. But the main arc and push of it all was overly done... to the point of really broad manipulation once you start to notice it on later viewings.
Alright, I see where you're coming from now. Doesn't bother me terribly since there's still plenty of fun in the movie, but it definitely comes at you with a lot less subtlety than the first two. Thanks for the explanation!
About Hans being the villain, here's something I wrote about Hans in the Disney thread, or specifically the song that didn't make the final cut.
! During re listens of Love is an Open Door I hear the selfishness and manipulation, but I was still pretty much thrown off given how the song is still pretty much a duet and how well Anna/Hans worked off each other, even if it was a ruse by Hans. I guess Enchanted should've prepared me/shown to me that just because people sing duets doesn't mean they're meant to be with each other. I mean, I knew from the trailers that Anna wouldn't end up with Hans, I just wasn't expecting him to be carrying the villain card.
! That said, and this is a segue to what I really wanted to bring up, but the original song they had for Hans seemed more obvious, to me, that he was a villain, or really highlight his jerkiness so the villainy doesn't seem so far out of left fiel. The song essentially reminds me of what Todd in the Shadows would dub "white guy singing to an acoustic guitar". His review of Little Things especially came to mind with this song. It's definitely more overt than what was shown in the end.
! >!
@Daz:
Well, for the disney movies with actual narratives, Bambi, Dumbo, Alice In Wonderland, obviously the Winnie the Pooh movies, Fox and the Hound and arguably Lilo and Stich should qualify.
Lilo and Stitch had Gantu. Sure, he only comes in at the end after Jumba and Pleakley get fired and is completely unrelated to anything that goes wrong prior to that, but the climax of the film is about saving Lilo from him. So he's just as much the villain of that film as Hans is the villain of Frozen.
New teaser for The Good Dinosaur, Pixar trailers suck etc
Somehow, this looks like "the Pixar movie" to me
Hmmm, so far I'm really not feeling this one at all… Despite how much I loved Inside Out, I just can't seem to muster up much interest for The Good Dinosaur at the moment, though chances are I'll probably go see it anyway...
inb4 it's the Citizen Kane of animated movies. I mean, being way better than they have any right to be is pretty much the standard for Pixar movies.
SUper cartoony dinos against photorealistic backgrounds still seems weird.
Oh well, its bound to be more entertaining than Dinosaur was.
Maybe not better than the Croods (which I liked okay but my expectations were high given Chris Sander's track record.)
Walking with Dinosaurs was destroyed by going with poop humor voice overs rather than a discovery channel style narrator.
Land Before Time? Rewatched recently and actually very little happens in the film aside from the traumatizing stuff. Its actually super short, only like 1 hour long.
So I dunno. There's not a whole lot of dinosaur films to really be competing with, honestly.
But yeah, it looks very Pixar, whatever that means.
Well, there's always the Rite of Spring segment from Fantasia
But yeah, it looks very Pixar, whatever that means.
I've been trying to pinpoint that feeling, and I guess quite a few Pixar movies do the "Odd Couple forced together" thing, and a few involves said odd couple going on a road trip. Mostly it kinda gives me Finding Nemo vibes - family seperated by great distance, Duo travels to find family, has episodic adventures.
I didn't feel Inside Out at all either based on the trailers…it was the good reviews that got my attention. So I'll see how the response is as usual.
Inside Out is coming to the cinemas in German speaking countries today. Let's see how well it'll be received.
Knowing Germany, probably not too well sigh I`ll definitely go and see it though.
…Cinemas? Today?!
Wow, and I complained about having to wait till August…
The Good Dinosaur- November 25, 2015[
Finding Dory- June 17, 2016
Cars 3-June 15, 2017
Coco- November 22, 2017 ( Día de Muertos film)
Toy Story 4- June 16, 2018
The Incredibles 2- June 21st, 2019
Untitled Pixar film- March 30, 2020
Other untitled Pixar film-June 19, 2020
No one cares about Cars 3, thats a pure merchandising push, whatever. Still baaaad mojo coming off Toy Story 4, they're going to be impossibly pressed to match theproper ending they already had. Incredibles is the one everyone wants, and in Brad Bird I trust, especially after he's had 15 years to stew on the story.
No one knows anything about Coco yet, (other than Book of Life beat them to it) but its the only non-sequal in a huge swath of them again… I don't like that. I thought it was supposed to be 1 new movie a year and a sequel every two years for "one and a half movies a year"... not the other way around?
What, is Coco supposed to be about the Day of the Dead?
What, is Coco supposed to be about the Day of the Dead?
Yep. The title confused me too at first, but yes, that's the title of the Day of the Dead movie they've been talking about.
What, is Coco supposed to be about the Day of the Dead?
Apparently Disney tried to actually copyright "Día de Muertos" and that…. didn't go well.
So they changed it to the name of the main character instead.
No one knows anything about Coco yet, (other than Book of Life beat them to it) but its the only non-sequal in a huge swath of them again… I don't like that. I thought it was supposed to be 1 new movie a year and a sequel every two years for "one and a half movies a year"... not the other way around?
Wonder if everybody will be in love with the Coco:ninja:
Too bad Pixar didn't wait a couple of years to start production; it could have been a Grim Fandango film.
Apparently Disney tried to actually copyright "Día de Muertos" and that…. didn't go well.
So they changed it to the name of the main character instead.
That's stupid.
The Book of Life was really good, so here's to Pixar to make a good one of their own.
I kept confusing Book of Life with Tree of Life in the last few posts, and I was so confused.
Apparently they re-played the Toy Story Halloween Special today before Agents of Shield. I only managed to catch the last 15 minutes of it, and only because I heard the sound of it coming from my mother's room.
Still great stuff. "Combat Carl/Jessie never gives up! Combat Carl/Jessie finds a way!"
IIRC they aired a new special a few weeks ago - Bonnie visits a friend with her toys, said friend is hooked on his new video game console, ignoring the set of dinosaur warrior toys he got. Woody and the gang meet these new toys, they of course think they're actual warriors and be hostile, Rex and mainly Trixie get to shine, it's pretty cool.
Sounds like the Christmas special they aired last year
It was old too, eh? Hmm.
I missed it again? T_T I missed it last year too, dammit.
Pixar needs to put out a new shorts DVD and include these on it.