Animation

Yesterday I had the pleasure of seeing Pixar’s new movie, Monsters University. In my past posts, I have made no secret my disappointment at recent Pixar films (Brave, Cars 2) but I’m happy to report that Monsters University is a step back into the spotlight for Pixar. Sure, it doesn’t have the heart that its predecessor, Monsters Inc., had but overall I would actually say that I had more fun with Monsters University. The prequel definitely had more memorable characters in it (Boo was missed but it was nice to actually get to know Mike and Sully). But anyway, I could go into more detail here but I’ll say see the movie for yourself and judge. I would like to talk about Pixar studios more as a whole today rather than focus on their most recent accomplishment.

A trip to Metacritic prompted this article. After seeing Monsters University I was interested to see the critical reaction. Monsters Inc. enjoys a 78 on the movie review website and I figured that its prequel would be around there. It’s not. I was actually really surprised to see that Monsters University currently only clocks in at a 64. What’s more surprising is that much of the criticism simply accuses the film of being a cash grab and condemns Pixar for their lack of originality. To be fair: nobody really ever asked for a Monsters Inc. prequel. However, simply because no one asked for it doesn’t mean it can’t be a good film. Also I would like to think I’m good at spotting cash grabs. Putting Jango Fett in Star Wars Episode II for instance, that was a cash grab (the father of the best selling Star Wars toy ever made). Monsters University was not made simply to make Pixar more dollars and shame on any critic who thinks that. One can dislike the movie sure but there are other legitimate weaknesses to criticize.

If Pixar really just wanted more money, don't you think we'd get a sequel to this? — If Pixar really just wanted more money, don’t you think we’d get a sequel to this?

Amongst the reviews I read, I was shocked to discover an atmosphere of distrust toward Pixar. In general it seems that critics aren’t as warm to the animation company as they once were. I decided to take a look at where other animation studios ranked according to Metacritic’s review pool. Here is what I found:

Pixar Animation Studios – Overall ranking: 79 (Highest rated film: Ratatouille at 96)

Walt Disney Animation Studios – Overall ranking: 69 (Highest rated film: Winne the Pooh at 74)

– Special Note: This does not include the old Walt Disney Studios Animation company, merely the most recent one that formed after Disney acquired Pixar.

Dreamworks Animation – Overall ranking: 63 (Highest rated film: Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit at 87)

Sony Pictures Animation – Overall ranking: 58 (Highest rated film: The Pirates! Band of Misfits at 73)

Blue Sky Studios – Overall ranking: 58 (Highest rated film: Horton Hears a Who! at 71)

Illumination Entertainment – Overall ranking: 53 (Highest rated film: Despicable Me at 72)

It’s clear who the current king of animation is. Pixar has eight films rated higher than the highest of their competitors. They are the equivalent of Renaissance painters in this day in age (making Illumination Entertainment finger-paint artists). Want to know something though, before the end of the “Pixar Golden Age” in 2010, their overall score would have been an 87. That includes Cars. Since that time, movies like John Carter (yes they did the animation in that film plus it was directed by Pixar vet. Andrew Stanton), Cars 2, Brave, and now Monsters University have lowered the score a full eight points. So recently Pixar has fallen off their pedestal. It is only their past triumphs that keep them above the clutter.

Toy Story 3 was the last Golden Age Pixar film. Released in 2010, the entry dramatically concluded the trilogy by showing that Pixar, like Andy, had grown up and was ready to tackle new things.... then we got Cars 2. — *Toy Story 3* was the last “Golden Age” Pixar film. Released in 2010, the entry dramatically concluded the trilogy by showing that Pixar, like Andy, had grown up and was ready to tackle new things…. then we got *Cars 2*.

Okay, Cars 2 sucked. I’ve implied it, the critics have stated it (57 on Metacritic) and the public has generally already forgotten its existence. It’s just not a good movie. From start to finish, there is little in Cars 2 to compliment. Beyond that: who was asking for it? Cars was the black sheep of the “Pixar Golden Age”. It was the film that was released between The Incredibles at Ratatouille, two vastly superior films. Prior to the release of Cars 2, Cars was unquestionably the worst film that Pixar ever made… and it was still okay. Cars wasn’t horrible, it just wasn’t brilliant. That was the standard people were expecting from Pixar films.

Seriously compare reviews between animation companies. Here is the most common praise for other animation studios’ films: “they’re fun and pretty”. Here is the common praise for Pixar films: “moved me to tears”. Pretty big difference in reaction there.

In some ways I think it is the association with Disney that is causing people to distrust Pixar. Remember when Disney was king of animation and turned out classic after classic? That was before the dark times… before Michael Eisner and the relentless parade of unnecessary and unwanted sequels. Everyone loved Cinderella… did you know he turned that into the first part of a trilogy? It was no longer art for art’s sake, the films became a manufactured property designed to be marketed in every way possible (sequels, toys, cartoons). The result was a decline in quality. The Disney classic disappeared. That’s where Pixar came in.

In many ways, if anyone is ever curious as to how much Pixar and Disney (under Eisner) didn’t like each other, watch Ratatouille. Replace Remy the rat with Pixar, Chef Gusteau with Walt Disney and Chef Skinner with Michael Eisner. Incidently Pixar was going to leave Disney at one point and Ratatouille was originally envisioned as their first independent film: a film about an artist battling a greedy man obsessed with destroying an image… hmmmm.

But things changed and Pixar and Disney made up. Michael Eisner left and unnecessary sequels became a thing of the past… or did they? Unfortunately the common fear is that now Pixar has become the new corporation and are viewing their properties much in the same way that Disney used to view theirs. Even Toy Story 3, as great as that was: was that really necessary? Think of how Toy Story 2 ended:

A spectacular scene to end a series... until it was outdone in 2010. — A spectacular scene to end a series… until it was outdone in 2010.

Point is we forgave Pixar because Toy Story 3 was just that good. Imagine if that film had been only okay, the reaction to it would have been very negative. But now was Cars 2 and Monsters University, two other sequels/prequels no one was asking for, audiences are starting to get worried. Is Pixar out of ideas? Are they just going to make sequels or prequels to ever movie, regardless of how few people want it. This may be overreacting, I mean it’s not like they’re making another Finding Nemo…

Ah shit. This is real by the way, coming in 2015.

I loved Finding Nemo but that was not a movie that screamed sequel… or even whispered it. Maybe there is something to worry about. Three of the last four animated Pixar films have been off of existing properties. Maybe they are running out of new ideas. It is worth noting that their next film, The Good Dinosaur, is not a sequel or a prequel. So they are still making some new content… but will it be only as good as Brave?

Pixar was, at one point, the company to replace Disney in terms of quality animated films. They are now on the verge of replacing Disney in terms of unnecessary and unwanted sequels. For the record, I don’t think things are as bad as the Eisner days. As I stated at the beginning, Monsters University does not feel like a cash grab and Cars 2 was a mad passion pursuit by director John Lasseter. I do express some nervousness for the company’s future, however. The “Golden Age” is definitely over and there comes a day where every king falls to a successor.

Cash grabs also don't tend to introduce so many new characters. Also Nathan Fillion is a voice in this movie: go see it. — Cash grabs don’t tend to introduce so many new characters. Also Nathan Fillion is a voice in this movie: go see it.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of it or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

I figured I would conclude a week’s worth of superhero posts by talking about one of my favorite “original” movies from the era: Pixar’s The Incredibles. The reason I put original in quotes is because, for all intents and purposes, The Incredibles basically adapted and made family-friendly the plot of Watchmen. Not that that’s a bad thing. For my money, The Incredibles is the best film version of Watchmen out there. Anyway, I’m not going to go in-depth on this comparison today. That’s not my reason for talking about The Incredibles. I watched this film yesterday and started really thinking about the content. The Incredibles does not have kids as its target audience. Does that mean it’s not a children’s movie: no. Does that mean that kids won’t enjoy it: no. Should you show it to your kids (if you have them): of course, it’s completely appropriate. But the fact remains that The Incredibles tells a far more adult-oriented story than most western animated films.

How many movies aimed at kids open with legal action?

Basic plot rundown for The Incredibles: a family of superheroes in hiding must dawn their masks again to do battle with a new super villain bent on world domination. Doesn’t get more basic than that. Well that may be the plot, but that does not touch the themes of the movie. At its heart, The Incredibles is a commentary on one thing: marriage. I suppose if one wanted to look approach a little closer, the film is essentially the fantastical approach to how a marriage survives a mid-life crisis. Not a theme most kids are fully going to understand.

Bob Parr (Mr. Incredible) is our protagonist and definitely struggling with his sense of self-worth.

So thematically this is not a story about friendship or growing up, this is about what happens after. As such, most of the issues in this film are elaborations on that theme. Sure there are battles as well. Superheroes punch bad guys in the face and cause giant explosions. I know how I’m typing it makes it seem tacked on but it’s not. That’s one of the reasons that I really like The Incredibles. It works on multiple levels. You can watch the movie as nothing more than a high-action superhero romp and you will not be disappointed. Personally I think there is a bit more James Bond than Superman in the film (that might just be because of Michael Giacchino’s soundtack). Again, not a bad thing.

Let’s start with one of the larger subplots and one that may or may not be appropriate for younger viewers: cheating. In the first half of the film, Helen Parr (Elastigirl) is very suspicious that her husband may not be entirely faithful. She openly accuses him of being it later on, but anyway, back to it. This means that we’re dealing with sex in a children’s movie (gasp). You may say I’m reaching here, that while Bob might lie, there is no implication of sex or other sexual behavior in the movie. Really then, let’s look at the opening prologue:

I may have a dirty mind but I don’t think that’s just playful banter. There’s one or two things implied. But it’s not just this time either. In the last third of the movie, once the villain Syndrome has captured the family (he is holding them in his anti-gravity field) he makes a very lewd gesture once he realizes that Dash and Violet are Mr. Incredible’s kids. Let me clarify: it is lewd to adults but subtle enough that children might not notice, this movie is clever like that. Really writer/director Brad Bird should be commended for his use of subtly in this movie.

Finding another woman's hair on his clothes takes on a whole other level with age. — Finding another woman’s hair on his clothes takes on a whole other level to older audience members.

So the theme of mid-life crisis vs. marriage rears its head in this suspicion of adultery. Of course Bob is not cheating on Helen, the only reason for his suspicious behavior comes from the fact he is lying to her about his superhero life and work. I guess that’s better?

He's not cheating. He's just choking her! — He’s not cheating. He’s just choking her!

What other problems become part of a mid-life crisis outside of marriage. Death for one. Mr. Incredible has reached the age where people he knows are starting to die. In this case, they are not natural deaths. Again here comes the cleverness of Brad Bird and The Incredibles. It also ties back into the comparison to Watchmen. In both movies, someone is killing a lot of heroes.

A lot of good people die in this film. It handles it in the least jarring method possible.

Bob Parr is trying to hang onto his past while it’s being removed. He has reached the point where his old life is over (he doesn’t see his old friends outside of Frozone cause well – they aren’t around anymore) and his new life is going on. In typical mid-life crisis fashion, he is unsatisfied with it. What is his new life: marriage. It all comes back around. It is only when the two are brought together that our protagonist truly understands the strengths of his married life and the weaknesses of his role as a superhero.

I find this to be the scariest and most intense images in the movie. It also nicely symbolizes the dangers of being a superhero AND a parent. — I find this to be the scariest and most intense image in the movie. It also nicely symbolizes the dangers of being a superhero AND a parent.

I know it may seem like I’m trying to make The Incredibles out as too adult for children but I’m not. This is a great family film. I don’t think it should be condemned for approaching more adult material, I think it should be emulated. Western animation could use more films like this one. Movies that can be enjoyed by everyone but ring truer to the older members of the household. I mean think about it, if this movie was live action, it would have been rated PG-13, not simply PG. Western culture has a view that animated cartoons and their subsequent movies can only be for kids. Brad Bird has stated he does not hold with this view: “the point is, animation is not a genre. It is a method of storytelling. People are constantly analyzing it and misanalysing it as if it is a genre. It isn’t a genre. It can do horror films, it can do adult comedies if it wanted to, it could do fairy tales, it could do science fiction, it could do musicals, it could mystery, it can do anything.”

It's all fun and games until you realize he is shooting at a teenage girl. — It’s all fun and games until you realize he is shooting at a teenage girl.

Yeah, I love The Incredibles and Brad Bird’s other Pixar film, Ratatouille, primarily for that reason. He is not a man who thinks animation is just for the family. Is The Incredibles appropriate for all ages: sure. Was it written only to be fun for kids: no. There is a very well done and very adult script driving this film.

Seriously watch this movie if you haven't seen it already. One of the best from the Golden Age of Pixar. — Seriously watch this movie if you haven’t seen it already. One of the best from the Golden Age of Pixar. Seriously, why is *Finding Nemo* getting a sequel before this?

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of shit or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

Pixar: Is History Repeating Itself?

"Children's Movies": The Incredibles