The Anti-Pixar League vs. The Anti-Anti-Pixar League

Anime, cartoons and 3D. Animated shorts and features. And don't forget the animation genius in Bulgaria.

Whose side are you on?

The Anti-Pixar League
13
25%
The Anti-Anti-Pixar League
33
63%
(in a whiny, girly voice) I like Dreamworks!
0
No votes
Why isn't [fill in the blank] on the poll?
6
12%
 
Total votes : 52

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:29 am

I didn't notice "hype machine (Atomic)". Ever wonder why I like them and appreciate them so much?

Click my sig, fool.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Seppuku on Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:40 am

Because you make a few (very, very good) doodles???

Hell I run under the delusion I can sing, that doesn't mean I'm the world's biggest c-note fan.



I am, but that's beside the point...


Anyway I didn't expect that comment Shane quoted to be the inspiration for this thread. I take my little sister to see Pixar's films, and I do genuinely enjoy them, but I don't really take it much further than the cinema.
Dale Tremont Presents...

Image
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:32 am

I don't just doodle (those are doodles), I work in animation as a story artist, fool! Pixar are the best - bar none - visual story tellers there are. It's not besides the point at all - I have a professional interest in what they do, and they are incredible at story development.

I'll admit they can hit and miss, but as family entertainment go, the craft is utterly undeniable and I'd argue that, historically, Pixar are incredibly important. Their films don't succeed on being CG alone, but by placing faith in some incredibly important areas. They don't follow trends, they create them. In this respect they are one of the most important filmmakers around today.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby austenandrews on Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:00 am

Roybertito wrote:Nemo was awesome. What's up with all the Nemo hate around here? I really liked Nemo.

No kidding. This is the first Nemo hate I've read. They packed more story and characterization into that film than any two other cartoons. Even if the movie's not your cup of tea, you have to give it that.

I'm a big Pixar fan, but only because they consistently nail their movies. Ever since Monsters Inc. was first advertised, I've expected the next Pixar movie to fail. It hasn't yet.

Then again Pixar's storytelling angle is more to my taste than some others. I never got into the whole Disney musical renaissance, for example, or much anime. Aardman is also spot on in terms of pushing my buttons.
User avatar
austenandrews
SUSAN CAGLE
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:45 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Postby Chairman Kaga on Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:14 pm

I think their story telling is strong because they approach it the same way the classic Golden Age of Disney or how the WB unit did.
Last edited by Chairman Kaga on Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby Kilgore on Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:55 am

Having seen 'Cars' last weekend, I am totally pro-Pixar from here on out.

Unless they employ Bruce Willis. Neither one of them needs that.
Kilgore
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1051
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:33 pm

Postby RogueScribner on Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:10 am

Neither one of who?
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Postby MonkeyM666 on Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:38 am

So Godzillasushi... explain to me your hate for all things Pixar since Toy Story 2....
Image
User avatar
MonkeyM666
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5406
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Australia

Postby DinoDeLaurentiis on Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:41 am

Holy crappa... you ever notice how when a one of a these dead threads, she gets a bumped, it's always a like onna the one-year anniversary or a thereabouts, no? Anna so's iffa you're not careful, you see a the date onna the old thread anna donna pay attention to a the year, anna you get alla confused anna such.

Goddamn... where's a my bran muffin, eh?
User avatar
DinoDeLaurentiis
SHE'S A THE SARAH SILVERMAN
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Private Villa inna Santorini

Postby MonkeyM666 on Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:44 am

I think that you may need something stronger then a bran muffin if you consider the paradoxes of the Zone Dino. There are a few, and most are not pretty...

It is very, very odd though.... Ka maybe? hummmm
Image
User avatar
MonkeyM666
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5406
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Australia

Postby Nordling on Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:55 am

Being Anti-Pixar is like being anti-breathing. It makes no sense, and I'll laugh at you as I walk past while you grimace and turn blue, angry at the world.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby godzillasushi on Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:58 am

MonkeyM666 wrote:So Godzillasushi... explain to me your hate for all things Pixar since Toy Story 2....


Alright, well the movies got way to mild and sappy for me.

The humor just evaporated in them. Toy Story and A Bugs Life were vivid and grand. I just got so much enjoyment out of them and the characters. They weren't just for kids. Then I saw Finding Nemo and nearly fell asleep. The movies all look fine, but I don't enjoy them as much.

Then there was Monsters Inc. Not fun, not entertaining, just way sub-par. Compared to their other movies I put this one at the bottom of the stack.

The Incredibles was the least Pixar-ish of the movies ive seen. There were no redeeming qualities for me. I felt like I was watching just you're average cartoon CGI movie that keeps getting pumped out.

I still have Cars but no desire to watch it. I just grouped that one in for some reason. I skipped it.

I just think the movies I didn't like were boring. I've had repeat viewings and tried to enjoy them, alas I can't emerge myself the same way I can with Toy Story.

And I HATE most other CGI movies. But to be fair, Pixar's worst is still better then those other ones.

Anyway, I guess I don't hate Pixar but they have had this stretch where the movies don't feel right. I want to see more movies like Ratatoulli and Wall E. These seem so fresh!

I even liked Final Fantasy Spirits Within....

I don't have a lot of good reasons to dislike Pixar's stuff, I just don't care for it.

:|

EDIT: Im not necessarily Anti-Pixar guys, I just don't like the more recent movies.
ImageImage
Image
User avatar
godzillasushi
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Destroying Sony Headquarters in Japan

Postby havocSchultz on Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:00 am

godzillasushi wrote:
The Incredibles was the least Pixar-ish of the movies ive seen. There were no redeeming qualities for me. I felt like I was watching just you're average cartoon CGI movie that keeps getting pumped out.




b4nn3d...?
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby godzillasushi on Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:05 am

havocSchultz wrote:
godzillasushi wrote:

The Incredibles was the least Pixar-ish of the movies ive seen. There were no redeeming qualities for me. I felt like I was watching just you're average cartoon CGI movie that keeps getting pumped out.




b4nn3d...?


Ugh....Im thinking today I should have kept my mouth shut instead of opening the floodgates.

I am not feeling like debating right now. I can't even wake up!
ImageImage
Image
User avatar
godzillasushi
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Destroying Sony Headquarters in Japan

Postby Chilli on Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:07 am

Nordling wrote:Being Anti-Pixar is like being anti-breathing. It makes no sense, and I'll laugh at you as I walk past while you grimace and turn blue, angry at the world.


... course it makes sense. You either like the films or hate them, there's very little in the middle.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby MonkeyM666 on Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:19 am

godzillasushi wrote:
MonkeyM666 wrote:So Godzillasushi... explain to me your hate for all things Pixar since Toy Story 2....


Alright, well the movies got way to mild and sappy for me.

The humor just evaporated in them. Toy Story and A Bugs Life were vivid and grand. I just got so much enjoyment out of them and the characters. They weren't just for kids. Then I saw Finding Nemo and nearly fell asleep. The movies all look fine, but I don't enjoy them as much.

Then there was Monsters Inc. Not fun, not entertaining, just way sub-par. Compared to their other movies I put this one at the bottom of the stack.

The Incredibles was the least Pixar-ish of the movies ive seen. There were no redeeming qualities for me. I felt like I was watching just you're average cartoon CGI movie that keeps getting pumped out.

I still have Cars but no desire to watch it. I just grouped that one in for some reason. I skipped it.

I just think the movies I didn't like were boring. I've had repeat viewings and tried to enjoy them, alas I can't emerge myself the same way I can with Toy Story.

And I HATE most other CGI movies. But to be fair, Pixar's worst is still better then those other ones.

Anyway, I guess I don't hate Pixar but they have had this stretch where the movies don't feel right. I want to see more movies like Ratatoulli and Wall E. These seem so fresh!

I even liked Final Fantasy Spirits Within....

I don't have a lot of good reasons to dislike Pixar's stuff, I just don't care for it.

:|

EDIT: Im not necessarily Anti-Pixar guys, I just don't like the more recent movies.


Well that’s all fair enough. I completely understand about Monsters Inc and Cars. Even though MINC was a decent movie the world was very small and the gravity of what Boo was in the monster world wasn’t really heavy enough. Too light and fluffy all round for my complete enjoyment.

Cars just felt like a marketing exercise for boy’s toys, I know that it wasn’t supposed to be but the whole thing was just flat and fairly uninteresting. I didn’t like the animation very much either….

Now the Incredibles, I have to argue with you there. I just happened to re-watch it last night and even though I wouldn’t have put it in my top pics for Pixar it sure is there right now. The animation is just so well done. They could have made people photo real but they made it a cartoon, not an exercise in whose SG machine is bigger. The lighting and mood of every shot is spot on. The dip into stock footage and the weaving of the story from greatness to failure to greatness is very well plotted. The lows and low and the highs are high. It’s just such an enjoyable film to watch. As soon as it finished I thought to my self, ‘when are they making a sequel?’ So when are they???

Most of the newer CGI films are rubbish, but there are a few which warrant a look. Most of these are kids films, and not Pixar kids films… something that a lot of people seem to forget. Pixar are just too good at crafting an all round, multi demographic film.

A lot of people seem to forget that CGI is the new animated feature. We don’t have a crappy Lord of the Rings cartoon, or the Jetsons movie now… we have Barnyard and Flushed Away. It’s a fad for the studios as it still has the WOW factor, that’ll pitter off and hopefully we’ll only have a couple released each year instead of 10/12!

Some CGI films to have a look at if your curious about finding some quality are the below…

For anyone…
Final Fantasy: Advent Children
Happy Feet

And solely for the kiddies…

Happily N'Ever After
Chicken Little
Arthur and the Invisibles
Image
User avatar
MonkeyM666
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5406
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Australia

Postby Keepcoolbutcare on Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:00 pm

continuing discussion from another thread, so Burl doesn't get his nuts all twisted...

Cha-Ka Khan wrote:Please... give me one scene from a Stanton film (and Bug's Life doesn't count cuz Lasseter directed most of that) that can match anything Bird has pulled off. That pretty much leaves you with Finding Nemo which was a 3D animated movie in 3-dimensional ocean space that came across flatter than a pancake prepared by Remy the Rat.


first off, I misunderstood your meaning of "cinematically", which to me is more along the lines of "pure" cinema, i.e. using sound and image (as opposed to dialog) to tell a story, as opposed to your actual meaning which is...well, I still don't know.

I was only going to discuss NEMO anyway, 'cuz I'm not really keen on BUG'S LIFE anyway, so here goes...

look, if the rear ending, or rendering (or whatever the term used, this 'taint my area of expertise) of the oceans and water sequences didn't do it for you, there's nothing I can say to change your mind. I remember being blown away by them when I first caught it in the theater, and while I've noticed several flaws (minor flaws, but you know your graphic shit, so you 'prolly noticed more and they 'prolly irked you more) since on subsequent DVD viewings, I still think it looks spectacular, especially when one considers just how difficult it is to convincingly animate water. But to each is own on that front.

What really drew my ire was the "cinematically" comment, and while, yes, Stanton is no Brad Bird (yet...but no one is. I got him on a notch below Miyazaki on my favorite animation director list) I think he's got a keen eye and a fabulous notion of how to stage shots. Kaga and Minstrel mentioned some, but I'll offer up some more from NEMO and what we've seen of WALL-E...

1) Nemo's "Great Escape" from the dentist office, when things get all deliriously slapstick-y. The building of suspense, the cuts (particularly the cue to the PSYCHO strings when the wee 'lil fish-killer girl shows up) and the physical madcap antics all brought to my mind some of the zanier screwball comedy antics of yore. Dialog wasn't necessary to follow along, and, to me, that scene screamed "CINEMA" in all it's glory.

2) Those 5-10seconds of WALL-E (albeit aided and abetted by the fabu BRAZIL theme) looked amazing, and if the shot of Wallz looking up into the clearing sky didn't do anything for you, or wasn't "cinematical" enough for you, then I weep for your soul.

I mean, if you want to bash NEMO as being a bite off BAMBI (this time with a father who really, really cares) and the story as being sentimental drivel-poop (works for me, but then again I have father issues :oops: ) fine, but I'd really like a clarification on what you meant by "cinematically"...
Personally, I'm an atheist in the voting booth and a theist in the movie theatre. I separate the morality of religion with the spirituality and solace of it. There is something boring about atheism.
User avatar
Keepcoolbutcare
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 9407
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:14 am
Location: Blacktionville

Postby Cha-Ka Khan on Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:32 pm

Basically I meant "cinematically minded" as in having a vast knowledge of all things cinema and the ability to frame a shot and stage a set piece that's on-par with any of the great cinema moments that have come before, rivaling those of Wells, Kubrik, Hitchcock, Spielberg, etc.

It has nothing to do with how pretty the water looks when it's rendered. Sheesh.
User avatar
Cha-Ka Khan
UNGRATEFUL BASTARD
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:55 am

Postby Keepcoolbutcare on Sun Jul 01, 2007 11:49 pm

Cha-Ka Khan wrote:Basically I meant "cinematically minded" as in having a vast knowledge of all things cinema and the ability to frame a shot and stage a set piece that's on-par with any of the great cinema moments that have come before, rivaling those of Wells, Kubrik, Hitchcock, Spielberg, etc.

It has nothing to do with how pretty the water looks when it's rendered. Sheesh.


oic.

in that case, you're wrong, and WALL-E will prove it!

:wink:
Personally, I'm an atheist in the voting booth and a theist in the movie theatre. I separate the morality of religion with the spirituality and solace of it. There is something boring about atheism.
User avatar
Keepcoolbutcare
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 9407
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:14 am
Location: Blacktionville

Postby Leckomaniac on Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:01 am

Keepcoolbutcare wrote:2) Those 5-10seconds of WALL-E (albeit aided and abetted by the fabu BRAZIL theme) looked amazing, and if the shot of Wallz looking up into the clearing sky didn't do anything for you, or wasn't "cinematical" enough for you, then I weep for your soul.


Agreed. Those 10 seconds were awesome. I couldn't believe how much that footage hit me. I have watched that trailer like 20 times since then. Bring on Wall*E!
Image
User avatar
Leckomaniac
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby Theta on Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:07 am

Well, having read this thread, I think I'm safe in saying anti-Pixar folks are in need of one or all of the following:

1) Some taste. I noticed several copped to enjoying some movies that couldn't be described as good with electrodes strapped to your genitals.

2) A willingness to look at the films as stories, not just cartoons. The entire reason Pixar works is that they're not dependent on the technology; sure, it's amazing, but it means jack without a good script.

3) A willingness to let go and emotionally invest. This ties into the last one, but these are not films that really deserve being watched from a strict distance, especially not when Pixar busts ass to bridge the gap between viewer and filmmaker.
This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.
User avatar
Theta
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby Theta on Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:12 am

Cha-Ka Khan wrote:Basically I meant "cinematically minded" as in having a vast knowledge of all things cinema and the ability to frame a shot and stage a set piece that's on-par with any of the great cinema moments that have come before, rivaling those of Wells, Kubrik, Hitchcock, Spielberg, etc.


Sorry, can't give you this one. MOST directors don't show this in the first place, and animation directors have entirely different concerns. For an animation director, a tracking shot is a lot easier than for a live-action director; you just draw/render it. But it's much easier to lose the story, and much more difficult to sell the emotional stakes because people don't connect instantly, on an emotional level, to non-"real" figures.
This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.
User avatar
Theta
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby Seppuku on Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:33 am

Theta wrote:Well, having read this thread, I think I'm safe in saying anti-Pixar folks are in need of one or all of the following:

1) Some taste. I noticed several copped to enjoying some movies that couldn't be described as good with electrodes strapped to your genitals.


I'm not in an argumentative kind of mood right now, but you seem to lay that same comment on people who disagree with you over and over again, as if you are the human barometre of good taste. I wouldn't even bring it up if I hadn't seen the same situation over and over again.

People have different sensibilities. Just because I personally don't get much of a charge out of watching a Pixar movie (yet...), doesn't mean I'm purposefully trying to over-analyse them to death or am being elitist. Being elitist would be treating other people differently because of their taste.

It's probably because of the fact that I don't watch them as animated movies, but as straight-up movies, that I don't enjoy them so much. I just accept whatever medium the movie's filtered through, and consequently I find it hard to be wowed at the fact that the ripples of the water are so blue and shiny, or Mr Incredible's red suit is so...red, and just concentrate on the story, the characters and the dialogue. It's generally the story that kills it for me. It's almost as if Pixar will pick out some far-reaching allegory before writing the plot: parenthood, being shunned by your peers, a child's rites of passage. If I wanted a moral lesson, I'd read Aesop's Fables.

Now this I can accept, because it's pretty much standard amongst family movies, but everything else just seems so wet and by-rote that I find it impossible to love these movies. I don't hate them, like I said; they're all relatively watchable.

Of course, I know that most people would probably really like them, it's just there's something about me that doesn't feel sated when I watch a Pixar movie. Call it my bad taste, if you will.
Dale Tremont Presents...

Image
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Postby Nordling on Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:40 am

I don't put Brad Bird on par with Andrew Stanton, because Bird's directed three films to Stanton's one. But FINDING NEMO, to me, is just as effective as THE IRON GIANT. Part of it is being a parent, and all that entails. The moment towards the end when Marlin tells Nemo, "It's alright, I've got you. Daddy's got you," is just as resonant and relevant to me as "Superman!"

FINDING NEMO remains one of the best films of this decade.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby tapehead on Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:44 am

Sure, but you're not necessarily going to win over anyone new by reiterating that it's a family movie.


I love it, and I don't have any children, and it's been a mighty long time since I've been one myself.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Nordling on Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:46 am

So what? If people are going to hold genre against it, then they have no reason to talk about it in the first place. They're already judgmental, so their opinion carries no weight. Not with me.

Film is film is film. To people who would hold "family film" against it, well, I would suggest a little growing up may be in order. THE WIZARD OF OZ is a family film too. So's E.T. So's WONKA. NEMO ranks with all of those.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby tapehead on Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:48 am

Yeah, sure, but I think it's only fair that the film stands up, regardless of genre (re, your previous comment).
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Seppuku on Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:50 am

I don't dislike 'em because they're family movies. I mean, I even don't absolutely fucking loathe High School Musical, which my li'l sister forced me to watch recently. I dislike 'em because I dislike 'em.
Dale Tremont Presents...

Image
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Postby papalazeru on Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:57 am

Put Disney on your poll!!!!!

I want to vote Anti-Disney. Pixar started out so well until Disney got it's money grabbing claws into it.

Some of pixars shorts are amazing (the old man playin g chess and of course Luxo Jr)
Papa: The musical!

Padders: "Not very classy! Not very classy at all!"
So Sorry "I'll give you a word to describe it: classless."
Cptn Kirks 2pay: ".....utterly unclassy....."
DennisMM: "...Decidedly unclassy..."
User avatar
papalazeru
Not very classy! Not very classy at all!!
 
Posts: 11475
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:26 am

Postby MonkeyM666 on Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:26 am

One man band is good too....
Image
User avatar
MonkeyM666
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5406
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Australia

Postby Chairman Kaga on Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:20 pm

papalazeru wrote:I want to vote Anti-Disney. Pixar started out so well until Disney got it's money grabbing claws into it.

Uh? What? Disney has only been merged with them for less than 18 months. So by your srationale you think Ratatouille sucks because Disney bought PIXAR part way through production?

Theta wrote:For an animation director, a tracking shot is a lot easier than for a live-action director; you just draw/render it.

I'm sorry but I disagree entirely. While in some instances the actual physical shooting of a tracking shot like Touch of Evil or Children of Men is extremely complicated it only takes real time to shoot once orchestrated (though planning it out would requre hours of setup, storyboarding etc). While an animated tracking shot of equal complexity would take months of work with hundreds of artists involved to accomplish.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby TonyWilson on Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:58 am

I don't know how anyone can watch The Incredibles and be anti-pixar, if you don't like kids movies or simple morals or stories about anthropomorphised shit it really doesn't matter. The Incredibles is just a superbly rich and deep story told with moral complexity and in an incredibly sophisticated visual language while all the tim being a film you can watch with your 5 yr old nephew or 95 yr old grandparent.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby tapehead on Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:07 am

TonyWilson wrote:I don't know how anyone can watch The Incredibles and be anti-pixar, if you don't like kids movies or simple morals or stories about anthropomorphised shit it really doesn't matter. The Incredibles is just a superbly rich and deep story told with moral complexity and in an incredibly sophisticated visual language while all the tim being a film you can watch with your 5 yr old nephew or 95 yr old grandparent.


In as much as you are talking about the way well-told stories transcend all boundaries (of genre, of demographic, of culture) - seconded.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby TonyWilson on Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:11 am

tapehead wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:I don't know how anyone can watch The Incredibles and be anti-pixar, if you don't like kids movies or simple morals or stories about anthropomorphised shit it really doesn't matter. The Incredibles is just a superbly rich and deep story told with moral complexity and in an incredibly sophisticated visual language while all the tim being a film you can watch with your 5 yr old nephew or 95 yr old grandparent.


In as much as you are talking about the way well-told stories transcend all boundaries (of genre, of demographic, of culture) - seconded.



Yeh, glad you agree, tape. But I think well told stories can also sometimes maybe even quite often transcend personal taste too. In that I'm not excited about a film about a rat wanting to become a chef but I am excited that someone with such a good story telling instinct is making it.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby tapehead on Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:23 am

Brad Bird? brad Bird makes all our arguments seem pretentious and puerile... and artist like that would be a master in any medium...
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Ribbons on Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:25 am

TonyWilson wrote:I think well told stories can also sometimes maybe even quite often transcend personal taste too. In that I'm not excited about a film about a rat wanting to become a chef but I am excited that someone with such a good story telling instinct is making it.


To an extent, but that is a personal thing. I sort of feel the same way about the Incredibles as you do about Ratatouille, I think. I'm a little iffy on the message, but it's a firecracker of a movie, especially the first time you see it.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13948
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Postby TonyWilson on Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:26 am

tapehead wrote:Brad Bird? brad Bird makes all our arguments seem pretentious and puerile... and artist like that would be a master in any medium...


Um, are you being sarcatic, tape?

He'd definitely be brilliant at live action. And that's what I'm saying, if a story is well told, no matter what the story is you are going to enjoy it.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby TonyWilson on Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:27 am

Ribbons wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:I think well told stories can also sometimes maybe even quite often transcend personal taste too. In that I'm not excited about a film about a rat wanting to become a chef but I am excited that someone with such a good story telling instinct is making it.


To an extent, but that is a personal thing. I sort of feel the same way about the Incredibles as you do about Ratatouille, I think. I'm a little iffy on the message, but it's a firecracker of a movie, especially the first time you see it.



Ok, not to derail the thread, but what made you iffy about the message, Ribbons?
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby tapehead on Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:28 am

I'm being sincere - The Iron Giant gets me every single time. I enjoy the Incredibles more with each viewing.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Ribbons on Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:33 am

TonyWilson wrote:
Ribbons wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:I think well told stories can also sometimes maybe even quite often transcend personal taste too. In that I'm not excited about a film about a rat wanting to become a chef but I am excited that someone with such a good story telling instinct is making it.

To an extent, but that is a personal thing. I sort of feel the same way about the Incredibles as you do about Ratatouille, I think. I'm a little iffy on the message, but it's a firecracker of a movie, especially the first time you see it.

Ok, not to derail the thread, but what made you iffy about the message, Ribbons?


Err... eh... hurm... hah... [fidgets with collar]... I don't know if I want to go down this road. :oops: The subplot about being "special" vs. being mediocre just made me kind of uncomfortable, I guess. I like parts of it, but that's the stuff that always sticks out at me when I watch the film. Love The Iron Giant tho.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13948
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Postby tapehead on Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:50 am

VIVA LA RIBBONS!!!
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby havocSchultz on Tue Jul 03, 2007 11:03 am

VIVA LA BALLS!!!
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby Ribbons on Tue Jul 03, 2007 1:42 pm

Que loco!!!
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13948
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Postby Theta on Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:12 pm

seppukudkurosawa wrote:
Theta wrote:Well, having read this thread, I think I'm safe in saying anti-Pixar folks are in need of one or all of the following:

1) Some taste. I noticed several copped to enjoying some movies that couldn't be described as good with electrodes strapped to your genitals.


I'm not in an argumentative kind of mood right now, but you seem to lay that same comment on people who disagree with you over and over again, as if you are the human barometre of good taste. I wouldn't even bring it up if I hadn't seen the same situation over and over again.
.


Well, I AM the human barometer of taste. After all, I just recently wrote a bad review of "Bicycle Thieves."

In all seriousness, it's a fair point, actually, and thank you for calling me on it. 75% of the time, I really do mean it as a joke, albeit often I'm a little too deadpan for the joke to come across.


The other 25%, though...

There's no nice way to say this, so I might as well say it; it's nice and all that everyone has different tastes and likes different things. Hey, it's their life. I'm not going to go around burning copies of films I personally feel are lesser.

But there are objective criteria at play here, which may not necessarily be obvious to your average film viewer, but you really need to be aware of. And, frankly, most of what I've read is slamming Pixar in favor of stuff that they enjoy more, which is fine as far as it goes.

But that doesn't make the Pixar films LESSER, which is undeniably the attitude I'm running across. To be totally blunt, if a film doesn't connect with somebody, that's fine with me; I understand why other people might not connect with "Finding Nemo" the same way I do because they're not me. If the distance between film and viewer isn't bridged, you're not going to like the film as much.

But saying "I don't get it so it sucks", which is by far the prevalent attitude I've seen here, indicates the problem isn't with the film, it's with the viewer. And when somebody advocates a film that really is, objectively, pretty lousy in a lot of respects...yes, I feel I have better taste than they do.

Is it nice? No. But I've gotten so tired of seeing films shit on for what they're not, or what people think they should have been, or for any number of reasons that aren't fair to the film or the filmmaker. What's sad is that it's often professional critics who are the worst offenders on this score.

Again, I'm not saying love and hate should be dictated by objective criteria. But you need to be able to sort the actual film from your reactions to it, and not treat both as equally valid.
This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.
User avatar
Theta
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby TonyWilson on Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:18 pm

Hmm, I smell....controversy!!!!

I happen to agree with Theta to a certain extent but I think he may have unleashed some wrath upon himself.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby Theta on Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:25 pm

Chairman Kaga wrote:
Theta wrote:For an animation director, a tracking shot is a lot easier than for a live-action director; you just draw/render it.

I'm sorry but I disagree entirely. While in some instances the actual physical shooting of a tracking shot like Touch of Evil or Children of Men is extremely complicated it only takes real time to shoot once orchestrated (though planning it out would requre hours of setup, storyboarding etc). While an animated tracking shot of equal complexity would take months of work with hundreds of artists involved to accomplish.


True, animation takes more time. But animation also has absolute control, which a live-action film doesn't. It may only take real time to get one take of a tracking shot, but usually it's going to take quite a few takes to get the shot approximating what you want, and even then it's going to be a compromise. It's not unusual for tracking shots to eat up an entire day of filming, especially if there are a lot of moving elements in the scene. I seem to remember "Saving Private Ryan" has a pretty hilarious bit in its extras about precisely this topic.

You left off some of my post, though. I said "it's easier to lose the story" in an animated film, which it is. Total control means that it's entirely up to the animators what the characters do and when they do it. So the difficulty isn't in moving the camera around; it's in having enough going on in the frame and in the story to justify moving the camera around in the first place.
This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.
User avatar
Theta
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby Theta on Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:31 pm

TonyWilson wrote:Hmm, I smell....controversy!!!!

I happen to agree with Theta to a certain extent but I think he may have unleashed some wrath upon himself.


Yeah, probably, and a good chunk of it will be justified. Certainly it's fair to accuse me of arrogance.

I will, however, note that my being arrogant doesn't make me wrong, just irritating.
This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.
User avatar
Theta
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby Chairman Kaga on Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:40 pm

Theta wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
Theta wrote:For an animation director, a tracking shot is a lot easier than for a live-action director; you just draw/render it.

I'm sorry but I disagree entirely. While in some instances the actual physical shooting of a tracking shot like Touch of Evil or Children of Men is extremely complicated it only takes real time to shoot once orchestrated (though planning it out would requre hours of setup, storyboarding etc). While an animated tracking shot of equal complexity would take months of work with hundreds of artists involved to accomplish.


True, animation takes more time. But animation also has absolute control, which a live-action film doesn't. It may only take real time to get one take of a tracking shot, but usually it's going to take quite a few takes to get the shot approximating what you want, and even then it's going to be a compromise. It's not unusual for tracking shots to eat up an entire day of filming, especially if there are a lot of moving elements in the scene. I seem to remember "Saving Private Ryan" has a pretty hilarious bit in its extras about precisely this topic.

You left off some of my post, though. I said "it's easier to lose the story" in an animated film, which it is. Total control means that it's entirely up to the animators what the characters do and when they do it. So the difficulty isn't in moving the camera around; it's in having enough going on in the frame and in the story to justify moving the camera around in the first place.

I agree.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby minstrel on Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:04 pm

Theta wrote:You left off some of my post, though. I said "it's easier to lose the story" in an animated film, which it is. Total control means that it's entirely up to the animators what the characters do and when they do it. So the difficulty isn't in moving the camera around; it's in having enough going on in the frame and in the story to justify moving the camera around in the first place.


I'd like to point out something else regarding the difference between animation and live action. In live action, actors can improvise. And there is always the chance of a "happy accident", in which someone might trip, or turn their head in reaction to some unplanned sound off screen, or something of the kind, and it makes the take better. Directors who shoot many takes, like Coppola and Kubrick, would then have the opportunity to use more-or-less unplanned material in the film that might have been better than what was originally planned for the shot. Directors who rely on improvisation, like Christopher Guest, build whole movies this way.

But in animation, there are NO "happy accidents". There is no unplanned material. The absolute control an animation director has means that he has to plan every last pixel in every last frame, and therefore there is no possibility that he might get "lucky" with a take.

In my view, this makes directing animation more difficult. While directing live action can be frustrating (when the weather doesn't cooperate, when extras blow the take, etc.), at times it can be rather easy: if you need ten seconds of an actor walking down a street, you set up your camera, call "Action", and you have your shot in ten seconds. Shoot, print, inna da can, old school, baby. An animation director, on the other hand, has to work as hard on that ten seconds as he does on ten seconds of his most spectacular action sequence.
"Everybody is equally shitty and wrong." - Ribbons
User avatar
minstrel
Leader of the Insquirrelgency
 
Posts: 12634
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Area 52

Postby DinoDeLaurentiis on Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:17 pm

This a reminds a the Dino, did any of a you putzes stick around for a the ending credits inna the rat movie, eh? Towards a the end you gotta the Pixar Guarantee:

Pixar wrote:Our Quality Assurance Guarantee:
100% Genuine Animation!
No motion capture or any other
performance shortcuts were used in
the production of this film.
User avatar
DinoDeLaurentiis
SHE'S A THE SARAH SILVERMAN
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Private Villa inna Santorini

PreviousNext

Return to Animation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest