Monsters U

[Merusk]

So we decided to skip Lone Ranger and DM2 crowds today and went to see M.U.   

The story over-all was good, though felt too "revenge of the nerds" to me.  I've seen too many "losers come from behind to win" stories over the years to really enjoy them anymore, call me jaded and cynical.   Still, the kids enjoyed it and I had a lot of laughs at some of the jokes so over-all I wasn't disappointed.

The frenemy angle and the lessons on Mike & Sully's part were a little advanced for kids, but seem about right for the little ones who first saw M. Inc at ages 5 through 8.  They'll all be experiencing or in the middle of similar problems and while it's a little light to be of use I can see why Pixar went with that angle.

If there were nits to pick, for me it was only two points

1) The monsters seemed toned-down from the first.  I recall some complaints about some of them being 'too scary' for children after M. Inc. came out (like Randall and the Crab-guy, Waternoose) so it seems like they went a little out of their way to soften some of these monsters. The Dean really wanted to be about the same level of creepy as Waternoose but they held back and softened her design a bit.  A little disappointing but I get it.

2) Pixar has invested really heavily in some Ultra-Realistic rendering machines lately.  You'll see this in the Umbrella short before the movie, there's some amazing moments where I honestly thought it was photography and not CG.  However, they then stuck some of this same rendering-level in to MU backgrounds and it made the characters feel disconnected from the world.  Specific scenes that struck me as odd are when Mike first arrives on the U, Sully in the woods and Mike on the Bus.  Yeah it's a small nit but it really stuck out for me.

[Ingmar]

I need to remember to go see this, the first one is my favorite Pixar movie.

[WayAbvPar]

Saw it last weekend. I didn't like it as much as the first one. My 4 year old got a little scared in a few parts, but he enjoyed it. 16 month old (her first movie) was bored/tired/annoyed by the volume and spent most of the movie distracting her long suffering mother and I.

Biggest laugh at our showing was in the short with the reindeer and the snowman fighting over the snowman's carrot nose. The kids all howled.

[Shannow]

Mr Waternoose with an Afro was win.

[Ironwood]

Pixar seemt to have forgotten how to actually make a good movie.  This one was also dissapointing and the characters were miles away from who they were in the first one.

Arg.

[Merusk]

The idea was they were supposed to have been since they were immature and just starting-out.  I agree it was disappointing, though less for that reason than what I'd outlined before.

Pixar had a bucket of ideas and they've expended it. So we're getting sequels that just aren't living-up to what came before. I can only guess it's because they haven't had the time to mature and be shaken-out over years like prior ones. 

Planes may be branded "Disney" but it's not going to be seen as anything other than Pixar and promises to be as disappointing as their last 3. (No, I didn't care for Brave. Sorry.)

[Ironwood]

Planes is just Cars.

They really don't seem to have their act together.  Magic has been lost.

[Velorath]

Planes was supposed to be straight to DVD originally, and was done by the Disney team that handles such things. Dane fucking Cook does the voice of the main character. I assume it was just a merchandising cash grab like Cars 2.

I don't know if I'd say that Pixar doesn't know how to make a good movie any more, but the people who made their best stuff haven't been involved in the last several movies. Lasseter is obviously busy these days. Brad Bird (Incredibles, Ratatouille) hasn't done anything for Pixar since 2007 (he did that last Mission: Impossible movie) but is writing and directing Tomorrowland which Disney has just started teasing. Pete Docter (Up, Monsters Inc) hasn't done anything since 2009 and is working on Pixar's 2015 release Inside Out. Andrew Stanton (Wall-E, Finding Nemo, A Bug's Life) unfortunately did the John Carter movie, but aside from that hasn't done anything since 2008 and is currently working on Finding Dory (also 2015). The old guard has been away and Pixar's newer crop of writers and directors clearly had some big shoes to fill and haven't been too successful in filling them.

[Viin]

Planes is just Cars.

They really don't seem to have their act together.  Magic has been lost.

Planes was obviously a 2nd string production. Not terrible, but not good. I don't believe it said Pixar anywhere in the credits/opening titles.

[Khaldun]

They do seem to be leaking and slowly deflating like an old tire.

[Merusk]

Planes is just Cars.

They really don't seem to have their act together.  Magic has been lost.

Planes was obviously a 2nd string production. Not terrible, but not good. I don't believe it said Pixar anywhere in the credits/opening titles.

Planes may be branded "Disney" but it's not going to be seen as anything other than Pixar...

[ghost]

My kids liked this movie, so whatever.  It was less scary than the original one, which is something. 

[Simond]

Planes is just Cars.

They really don't seem to have their act together.  Magic has been lost.

There was a decent Pixar film last year! It just happened to be made by Disney.
(There was also a mediocre Disney film that happened to be made by Pixar)

[SurfD]

Planes is just Cars.

They really don't seem to have their act together.  Magic has been lost.

There was a decent Pixar film last year! It just happened to be made by Disney.
(There was also a mediocre Disney film that happened to be made by Pixar)

Planes is not a pixar movie.  Planes was done by Disney's in house Direct to Video studio, and is simply borrowing the Cars World IP.

[Ironwood]

There was a decent Pixar film last year! It just happened to be made by Disney.

Hmmm ?

[Merusk]

I assume he means Wreck-it-Ralph.

Planes is not a pixar movie.  Planes was done by Disney's in house Direct to Video studio, and is simply borrowing the Cars World IP.

Yes, we know this.  Perception is reality, however. Same style, same world, same idea (because same IP).  Guess what people think first in the list of "Disney or Pixar."

Want to talk about other places where being technically correct is also irrelevant to public perception? Calling something a "Xerox" vs "Photocopy" or "Cell Phone" vs "wireless telephone" "internet poster" vs "obnoxious prick"

[Simond]

There was a decent Pixar film last year! It just happened to be made by Disney.

Hmmm ?

[Ironwood]

It was ok.  Story was a little hackneyed.

[Simond]

I said 'decent', not 'great'. And compared to Brother Bear Two, Scottish Boogaloo Brave.... 

[Margalis]

I look forward to the day people realize that all Pixar movies are mediocre at best.

[eldaec]

That would be the day on which everyone is wrong.

The problem with analysing quality of their output, is that the only thing unique to Pixar, as opposed to specific writers and directors is the animation. Which is still good.

Nobody goes about trying to assess all DreamWorks, or working title films as a block.

Pixar grew up, became a normal studio, you need to look out for the specific director before having expectations.