New Animated Features and Shorts

[mfunk9786]

All's I know is that there is a Kung Fu Panda spinoff TV show and my daughter won't watch it.

But how does an adult Criterion Forum member feel about it? That's all that matters.

[domino harvey]

What adults? BRB juice box break

[knives]

I find the fact that you actually know who directed the Pixar film offhand to sort of weaken the effect of your claim that you found the Dreamworks film more interesting.

That's because Kung-fu Panda was made under the classical definition of an animation director rather than done the Looney Tunes way which Pixar functions. with the exception of How to Train Your Dragon Dreamworks functions similarly to how Disney, Fleischer, and a whole mass of other animation studios have functioned as. The lead animator typically is closer to the traditional director role, but it would still be wrong in the case of Dreamworks to label that individual the auteur let alone the lone auteur. Also the directors of Kung-Fu Panda are Mark Osborn of More fame and some guy named Steven Johnson or something similar.

[zedz]

The reason these films appeal to adults as well as children is not because they're crammed with a subtext targetted specifically at them, but because they do these basic things very well, at a time when any one of those qualities is rare to find in mainstream Hollywood entertainment targetted at adults.

That's an interesting claim, zedz, but one I must admit I can't concede. I have no doubt that defenders of Pixar's work find them to be highly entertaining and satisfying films, but I think you're selling the adult angle short. In fact, in Toy Story, the adult appeal is so strong and so specific to adult fears and neuorsis that it's almost hard to see the appeal for a kid in a kid's movie. I don't know that I have the faith in mass audiences to connect to a childrens' film on an aesthetic or narrative level without there being some underlying adult appeal (but that may just be the English teacher in me).

Oh, I agree with you to a large extent. My distinction was that the adult appeal in Pixar films tends to be on the same track as the appeal to children, and, for instance, the 'adult' emotional heart of the Toy Story films, which is to a large extent about the evanescence of childhood and the sadness of losing a connection with your younger self, is just another side of the films' emotional appeal to children, where those themes manifest themselves more as a fear of separation and a dawning awareness of loss, or the potential for loss. I was contrasting this to the kind of children's film where a totally separate sub-text of smart-alecky in-jokes and cultural references are laid on for the grown-ups, without any logical or necessary connection to the part of the film directed specifically at children. In those cases, adults and kids are responding to different aspects of the film; whereas in the more integrated approach they're responding to the same things in different ways.

[knives]

That's good and all to the extent I'd agree with you (though I think they often handle those themes incompletely or side line them for something more comfortable the worst case being Up), but are they presently in the minority on that? Even the only noticeable performer of the sort of wink cinema you're rightly criticizing, Dreamworks, has largely abandoned that approach to focus more on crafting good quality comedy.

[matrixschmatrix]

I'm not a huge Pixar fan, but of the titles I've seen- Wall-E, Up, the first two Toy Story movies, Ratatouille, and Cars 2, I think I'm largely with the general consensus that they do an excellent job of combining fairly entertaining stories with sincere emotionality. Knives, I think the fact that Dreamworks has moved in that direction of late is a testament to the quality of Pixar- which is good enough to drag others into their style, and improve them by doing so- than it is something that detracts from them. In general, I didn't think they were great art- though there's a really charming sort of Chaplin-esque naked melodrama done well aspect to the first scene of Up, and a genuinely visionary quality to the first half of Wall-E, and I'd happily take Secret of the Kells over the best of them- but as with something like Lord of the Rings, they're reliably competent, entertaining productions, and it's not often that any studio can say that.

Which is why Cars 2's crappiness is such a big deal, really. It feels like a throwback to the toss a bunch of shit together strategy of the worst of the Shrek style Dreamworks movies, and it was painful to sit through. I'm not certain I understand mfunk's argument here- people shouldn't complain about a serious misstep from an otherwise reliable company because it was obvious that it was going to be bad in the first place?

[dustybooks]

The reason these films appeal to adults as well as children is not because they're crammed with a subtext targetted specifically at them, but because they do these basic things very well, at a time when any one of those qualities is rare to find in mainstream Hollywood entertainment targetted at adults.

That's an interesting claim, zedz, but one I must admit I can't concede. I have no doubt that defenders of Pixar's work find them to be highly entertaining and satisfying films, but I think you're selling the adult angle short. In fact, in Toy Story, the adult appeal is so strong and so specific to adult fears and neuorsis that it's almost hard to see the appeal for a kid in a kid's movie. I don't know that I have the faith in mass audiences to connect to a childrens' film on an aesthetic or narrative level without there being some underlying adult appeal (but that may just be the English teacher in me).

I agree with both of you here. I was a Pixar diehard for years but I always felt that Toy Story was very strictly and specifically a film for adults -- and that, significantly, is how it was conceived (some of the early discarded dialogue in the DVD extras bears this out). The humor in it is of an entirely different breed as well. With the best of the later films I agree with zedz more or less exactly, the "universal" feeling I got out of a bug's life and Nemo was what struck me about them.

Brad Bird's offerings stretch that definition a bit -- it seems that long stretches of his films might be boring to small children -- but perversely I think his is the best material the studio's put out to date; actually, even after my Pixar cultism has sort of subsided I still believe Ratatouille is a masterpiece. But I vaguely recall John Lasseter alluding years ago to the fact that The Incredibles was a Brad Bird film much more than it was a Pixar film; that seems apt.

[mfunk9786]

Which is why Cars 2's crappiness is such a big deal, really. It feels like a throwback to the toss a bunch of shit together strategy of the worst of the Shrek style Dreamworks movies, and it was painful to sit through. I'm not certain I understand mfunk's argument here- people shouldn't complain about a serious misstep from an otherwise reliable company because it was obvious that it was going to be bad in the first place?

I'm just not a fan of the "worst. episode. ever." mentality in the first place. It's great for Pixar that expectations for their films are so high that even a sequel to their least impressive film by far was expected to be so fantastic, but it's a bit disingenuous as far as I'm concerned to expect a sequel to Cars to continue on the roll of profoundly excellent films that the studio was on. It was obvious from jump street that the idea of making a sequel to the film in the first place was to appease the film's fanbase, which is largely not comprised of the same folks who enjoy Ratatouille so much, for example; the whole thing just reeks of attacking an easy target. If a film that was conceptualized as an original work (such as Ratatouille, to use that example again) to entertain a wide range of audiences, which is what Pixar has succeeded at for a while now, turned out to be a huge dud - then I understand an outcry. But just like no one suggested that people stop going to Disney World after the release of a particularly dull direct-to-video Tinkerbell movie, or stopped considering Spielberg a capable director after Hook (why am I thinking about Tinkerbell so much?), I don't think it's very sincere and therefore necessary to fashion your large-scale backlash against Pixar after disappointment with Cars 2.

And for what it's worth w/r/t the other discussion, I loved Toy Story as a child (a similar comparison would be my adoration of animated series that have another layer as an adult like The Simpsons and The Critic), and I don't think it was because I was a particularly bright child - it's just not a myth that something can be satisfying for a viewer of any age. It's difficult to achieve, but when it is, there's a reason why so much praise is heaped upon said achievement.

[Roger Ryan]

...It was obvious from jump street that the idea of making a sequel to [CARS] in the first place was to appease the film's fanbase...

I seriously believe the motivation to make CARS 2 was to keep the "franchise" alive in the public's mind for the opening of "Cars Land" at Disney's California Adventure park (scheduled for this Friday, June 15th). Being in bed with Disney means that sort of thing, but I'm okay with that. I didn't particularly care for the first CARS film, but am looking forward to trying out the Radiator Springs Racers ride!

I'm a little concerned about Pixar spending more time on sequels to earlier hits than on new concepts, but it seems that John Lasseter being put in charge of Disney animation proper was a good move; the non-Pixar WRECK-IT RALPH looks like great fun.

[matrixschmatrix]

But just like no one suggested that people stop going to Disney World after the release of a particularly dull direct-to-video Tinkerbell movie, or stopped considering Spielberg a capable director after Hook (why am I thinking about Tinkerbell so much?), I don't think it's very sincere and therefore necessary to fashion your large-scale backlash against Pixar after disappointment with Cars 2.

Well, my guess would be that if Brave is up to Pixar's normal standards, Cars 2 will be seen as an aberration and not a sign of things to come- but at the moment, it's both the worst Pixar movie and the most recent one. And you may be forgetting, there are quite a few people who see this kind of movie whether they particularly want to or not, as they're dragged there by kids; Pixar is generally an oasis in a sea of crap, and it's pretty upsetting when it really does turn out to be as bad as it looks. I haven't seen the first Cars, but from what I've read, it at least tried to feel like a Pixar film, with strong emotional undercurrents and plots about worrying about the fear of obsolescence and so forth. Cars 2 has absolutely nothing going for it.

[zedz]

And for what it's worth w/r/t the other discussion, I loved Toy Story as a child (a similar comparison would be my adoration of animated series that have another layer as an adult like The Simpsons and The Critic), and I don't think it was because I was a particularly bright child - it's just not a myth that something can be satisfying for a viewer of any age. It's difficult to achieve, but when it is, there's a reason why so much praise is heaped upon said achievement.

Yeah, Toy Story was an out and out phenomenon with kids everywhere, so this retrospective "oh, they didn't really get it / enjoy it and actually it only appealed to parents" argument isn't really tenable. No Pixar brand loyalty to cruise on back then.

The shorts prior to that were primarily aimed at adults, mainly because in the late 80s / early 90s there weren't the venues for screening them to children (i.e. before a kid-oriented feature), so they tended to show up in film festivals and specialist animation programmes.

[knives]

I actually had the shorts on VHS long before Toy Story came into existence and love them to death. I couldn't have been more then four at the time. Though my favorite was Andre and Wally Bee.

[cdnchris]

And for what it's worth w/r/t the other discussion, I loved Toy Story as a child (a similar comparison would be my adoration of animated series that have another layer as an adult like The Simpsons and The Critic), and I don't think it was because I was a particularly bright child - it's just not a myth that something can be satisfying for a viewer of any age. It's difficult to achieve, but when it is, there's a reason why so much praise is heaped upon said achievement.

Yeah, Toy Story was an out and out phenomenon with kids everywhere, so this retrospective "oh, they didn't really get it / enjoy it and actually it only appealed to parents" argument isn't really tenable. No Pixar brand loyalty to cruise on back then.

To further detract from that non-sensical idea kids can't get them: I have a lot of animated features in my collection (and have added more since my daughter came into the picture) and she's been going through them. She has her favourites that I have to keep putting in and most of the ones she watches repeatedly are Pixar titles. She's only 3 and I doubt she has any brand loyalty whatsoever because I doubt she would understand that. She also has the non-Pixar fare she likes, like Bambi, Cinderella, Dumbo, Fantastic Mr. Fox (much to the horror of my wife I'm sure,) and the first Ice Age (she doesn't seem to like the other ones) but there's a 70% chance I'll be throwing in a Pixar title when she wants to watch something so that tells me she gets something out of them.

[colinr0380]

Moving away from Pixar for the moment (A Bug's Life is my favourite!), where would you all place the Wallace & Gromit films in this debate? I still think those three early shorts A Grand Day Out, The Wrong Trousers and A Close Shave are some of the best animated films ever made (and I think they validate zedz's earlier point that simple, well made storytelling transcends anything to do with targeting at a particular audience).

I have a few more issues with The Curse of the Were-Rabbit - while I like the film overall (and my mum is totally charmed by the rabbits, which have just beaten out the goofy, giggiling mogwai from Gremlins 2 in her 'cute and funny animal' hierarchy!) I think it has issues of pacing with being stretched out to feature length, which is a problem I also felt from Chicken Run. And I was a little disappointed with A Matter of Loaf and Death, which although it is charming does not feel as if it has the repeatability or stunning moments of the earlier shorts.

[domino harvey]

Dudes, gimme a breaksville on exaggerating my exaggeration. I didn't say kids couldn't understand or enjoy Toy Story (it's a story about toys, come on), just that it resonated higher with adults than it did with kids. And obviously adults enjoying it on a deep level does not preclude children from still connecting with the film.

[mfunk9786]

By definition, because adults are able to plug into more facets of any given piece of art than a child (unless said adult is closed off from their ability to connect with their inner child in some way), isn't that the case with everything from Sesame Street to The Unbearable Lightness of Being? Everything is always going to resonate higher with adults who are willing to plug into it.

And I think it's a bit dismissive (though I realize it was intentionally flip) to say "It's a story about toys, come on" as if beyond the flashiness of that, there's nothing else kids can latch onto in that film. Obviously, higher level questions about ego and bravery and personal connections (as well as pop culture references here and there) will go over kids' heads, but that doesn't mean that there aren't themes there that they can connect with, whether the characters are toys or not.

[Mr Sausage]

From my experience Toy Story resonates with kids on an emotional level, one deeper than some might suspect. Kids understand loss, they understand being alone, being overlooked, being outshined, being left aside, and on some level they are capable of understanding that they do this themselves, too. Kids remember how they treated their toys, as toys are among the first things kids form emotional attachments to and look for comfort in. Kids obviously aren't articulating those feelings a whole lot, but they feel them; and seeing those emotions communicated onscreen in a clear and understandable way, indeed a way that invites a shared reaction, is going to cause them to like the movie all the more and identify strongly with its narrative, even coming to a more explicit understanding of their own feelings (I vaguely recall it did this for me when I saw it at 10 and I wasn't by any means precocious emotionally).

Toy Story does resonate higher for adults for the obvious reason mfunk points out that everything resonates higher for adults. But I think Toy Story resonates just as deeply, and very likely more immediately, for kids because a lot of the emotions it deals with are present more strongly in childhood (since there are fewer other emotions crowding them out) and present more recently and at less of a remove.

[knives]

Have to agree with Sausage there. I remember the first time I watched the film that moment when Buzz finds out he is a toy was particularly haunting to me for reasons I'm not sure of. Kids may not know why they feel these things or the words to describe them, but they can certainly relate to them. Now the questions of feeling old and praised for your weakest accomplishments of The Incredibles probably doesn't resonate much with the little ones.

[mfunk9786]

Wait, knives - you don't know that you're a toy? Awkward...

[domino harvey]

You'd have thought he'd have noticed that kid that was always around:

[knives]

I thought I was a utensil?

[matrixschmatrix]

Probably still coming to grips with your plurality

[Brian C]

I haven't seen the first Cars, but from what I've read, it at least tried to feel like a Pixar film, with strong emotional undercurrents and plots about worrying about the fear of obsolescence and so forth.

That's perfectly true as far as I'm concerned. I never hated the first one, even though I get the feeling that I'm supposed to on cultural grounds just because it has Larry the Cable Guy in it, and always thought of it as the one that just didn't quite work out. It's not without some nice moments, though.

The biggest problem for me is that the internal logic of the premise doesn't ever come together. Toy Story obviously isn't "believable" in any real-world sense, but the concerns of the toy characters seemed to be taken seriously by the filmmakers, in the sense that if toys could think for themselves, they might have thoughts and fears and motives not unlike those presented in the film.

(It's a strange dynamic, though, when you think about it too much. Essentially, the toys accept their lot as slaves to their human owners and the whole story is about getting Buzz to accept his lot in life and wring his delusions of independence out of him. To Pixar's credit, this dynamic is actually explored quite frankly in the sequel, where the toys have to come to grips with how strange their existence really is for self-aware beings, even if ultimately they go back to unquestioning devotion in the end.)

The same can be said to various degrees of the ants in A Bug's Life, the monsters in Monsters, Inc., and the fish in Finding Nemo - or at the very least, care is taken to flesh out the dynamics of those worlds. But Cars never makes much sense - an alternate universe where cars are the dominant life forms? - and it really dulls any potential emotional impact. It feels like the filmmakers never quite have a handle on the world they've created. Maybe anthropomorphism can only take you so far, I don't know. Of course, the sequel would do away with any attempts at internal logic whatsoever, so you get things like jokes about how spicy wasabi is ... the first film doesn't have anything like that. It's easily identified as a Pixar work in their usual mode, just not as good.

Also, speaking of things I wouldn't think kids would understand - a big theme is weird nostalgia for the old days, before the Interstates were built and roadtrips were wholesome All-American adventures. Hell, I'm not sure how many kids' parents could relate to that by 2006.

[Tom Hagen]

Concept art for next four Pixar features.