Dinsey's Wreck-It Ralph: A love-letter to videogames

[Green Gibbon!]

I do not think this movie looks very good and I guess I'm too old to get giddy about cameos, but one thing keeps bothering me: seriously, has Zangief ever been a villain? He must have been at some point? I have only vague, mostly repressed memories of that old Street Fighter live action movie and I believe he was lumped in with the villains in that. I guess there must have been a source for this other than the mistaken (though completely understandable) assumption that a mohawked Russian in red underwear must obviously be a villain?

[Sniffnoy]

Pretty much none of the characters in that movie were like in the games. Dee Jay was a villain in the movie, too. I guess they also assumed any black characters had to be villains?

[G.Silver]

Villain nothing, wasn't DeeJay also a computer hacker? I think they just picked Zangief so they could have a guy say funny things in a Russian accent.

[Green Gibbon!]

Artistic license, then? That occured to me while I was thinking, "Why didn't they use Sagat?" and then realized it wouldn't have been nearly as funny.

It's still not particularly funny.

[Popcorn]

I know Valve were kind of ripping off Pixar in the first place, but Zangief and Ralph both look and move exactly like the Heavy from TF2.

[Rob-Bert]

^ PIXAR isn't making this. Disney is. The same department that made Chicken Little, Bolt, and Meet the Robinsons.

[Esrever]

I think it's more an issue of the TF2 Heavy, Ralph, and various Pixar characters all tapping into the same base "lummox character" design and movement that animators have been using for 70 years or so. I love (LOVE) TF2's character design, but there's very little about it that is original... by intent they are all hyper-distilled archtypes.

[Crowbar]

As far as comparing the Heavy to Mr Incredible goes, I think that's more that they drew from the same sources (60s advertising).

[Crowbar]

Actually it seems to be more "early 20th century commercial illustration with 1960s industrial design elements".

[Popcorn]

^ PIXAR isn't making this. Disney is. .

I wasn't implying they were, you fish-fondling fruitcake!!!

I think it's more an issue of the TF2 Heavy, Ralph, and various Pixar characters all tapping into the same base "lummox character" design and movement that animators have been using for 70 years or so. I love (LOVE) TF2's character design, but there's very little about it that is original... by intent they are all hyper-distilled archtypes.

It's not just that. It's specifically the rounded, flattened (is that an oxymoron?) modelling of the huge hands, and the jawlines. It's a specifically 3D animation thing, but it doesn't apply to every lummox, or even any 3D lummox - Mr Incredible doesn't have the same thing at all, for example. Nor does Donkey Kong, for that matter.

[Rob-Bert]

I know Valve were kind of ripping off Pixar in the first place,

^ What is that implying?

[Tsuyoshi-kun]

I'll see Wreck-It Ralph because I see most (big-budget) CG films that come out in theaters, because they look nice on the big screen (not so much at home). Though Sarah Silverman is a turn-off for me.

The same department that made Chicken Little, Bolt, and Meet the Robinsons.

I saw all of those! I hated Chicken Little, thought Robinsons was okay, and Bolt, though very different from the original concept, was still okay.

If we're going to talk about Pixar, let's talk about Brave, shall we? 2 weeks until it comes out. I'm excited for it.

[Locit]

If we're going to talk about Pixar, let's talk about Brave, shall we? 2 weeks until it comes out. I'm excited for it.

I still have no idea what Brave is actually about. The trailers are terrible.

[Green Gibbon!]

I've been wondering about that. I'm assuming there's a big something or somethings pivotal to anything making sense that they're struggling not to give away in the trailers. It seems like everything they've shown is from the first 20 or so minutes of the film before anything, y'know, happens.

At least, that's what I'm hoping is the case.

[Cuckooguy]

I went to the kids sections in a Barnes & Noble and looked in a Brave book.

There was a pretty big spoiler that isn't in any of the trailers, and I imagine that spoiler takes up a lot of the meat of the movie.

BEARS

[Popcorn]

I was really hoping Brave was going to be the Pixar Mononoke. But I don't think it will be.

I know Valve were kind of ripping off Pixar in the first place,

^ What is that implying?

It clearly means "I know Valve didn't invent this style, so I'm not giving them the credit for it", you mental midget!

[Crisis]

People seemed surprised to learn that Brave has a female protagonist, and that the plot synopsis has vague messages of female empowerment, but if this was any other studio would it seriously be considered noteworthy? It just serves to highlight how strangely restrained Pixar's recent movies have been.

Ah well - maybe it will be more interesting than they're letting on.

[G.Silver]

I thought Brave's trailers looked pleasant enough. They weren't really getting me excited, but that's kind of what Pixar does for me--they have some concept and some trailers and I'm always thinking "well, here's the one that's not going to be very good," and then when I actually see the movie of course I'm totally floored. They do this incredibly well, even though I'm aware of the pattern I'm still shocked by their ability to not get me excited.

So for Brave I went about my usual business of ignoring it and expecting it to probably floor me later, but I came across this article which, in addition to being really informative about correct ways to miss your target in archery, contains a few minutes of actual movie (most of which is in the trailer anyway), which is apparently all it took to convert me completely. Perhaps it helps to have the accompanying article to help appreciate the fine details (Pixar is known for fine details anyway, of course), but this fits the pattern, except that it seems I don't even have to see more than a few minutes of footage in proper sequence to be completely won over. Or maybe I just love this clip and the rest will suck. That's possible too.

[Rob-Bert]

It clearly means "I know Valve didn't invent this style, so I'm not giving them the credit for it", you mental midget!

Then why didn't you just say that instead of specifically mentioned PIXAR?

[Delphine]

People seemed surprised to learn that Brave has a female protagonist, and that the plot synopsis has vague messages of female empowerment, but if this was any other studio would it seriously be considered noteworthy? It just serves to highlight how strangely restrained Pixar's recent movies have been.

Pixar's portrayal of women and girls has always been a bit... not off, but they haven't gone to any great lengths to challenge the status quo. Which is disappointing for a company that strives to tell good, fresh, creative stories. My favorite female Pixar characters -- Roz and Edna Mode, natch -- aren't even the heroes.

Also -- "if this was any other studio would it seriously be considered noteworthy?" Uh, yes. Female protags are rare. Strong female protags who don't enforce old-fashioned gender roles and aren't overshadowed by the male protagonist are even moreso. Lone female protagonists? Hoo boy. And even then, how often do they end up NOT settling down with their man at the end? And now you're going to give me a whole bunch of examples, yes yes now compare those to the number of male protags and sit down.

[Crisis]

Actually, film is an area where I'm seriously uneducated even compared to the average layman, so there will be no lists from me. I'll take your word for it!

But the inevitable comparison is to Studio Ghibli, which has a ton of strong female characters throughout its movies. Pixar seems a lot more creatively constrained. Maybe that's also an unfair comparison, but then as I say, my experience of movies is pretty narrow.

[Delphine]

Fair enough! Usually when I start these conversations someone feels the need to point out the 5% or whatever of films that have awesome female protags, so that was more of a general 'you' there.

Comparing any studio to Ghibli is unfair, because Ghibli is completely awesome. But yeah, you're right. Pixar can push their boundaries much, much further and they really don't. And to prosper they don't really have to -- their only main competitors are Dreamworks and Disney, the first of which sucks and the second of which, well -- Tangled is obviously meant to have a strong female main, and she was a naive pretty pretty princess with magic hair whose main weapon is a frying pan and who still ends up with the man at the end. Really, Disney?

[Popcorn]

I've never really been completely in love with Pixar for two reasons.

1. I infinitely prefer beautiful 2D animation (Ghibli, Chomet et al) over beautiful 3D animation.

2. Pixar is, to my mind, for all its cutting-edge techno-genius, weirdly conservative. They tell old-fashioned, nostalgic, backward-looking stories about restoring the status quo. They're safe. There's nothing exciting about Pixar movies. They're Disney movies.

Several friends have called me an evil, heartless bastard for this, but I kept expecting for the sad bit to come in Toy Story 3 and it never did, unless you're the kind of sap who weeps at soapy sentimentality. But I wept through more or less the entirety of L'Illusionniste just because I couldn't believe how beautiful it was.

I am intrigued by Brave because it looks vaguely Mononoke-y and it has a female protagonist. The latter is a big deal for me, because I prefer girls to boys generally. I am also a feminist, but still feel a bit self-conscious about saying it in public, especially if there are women around.

[Green Gibbon!]

I have zero respect for political ideology of any kind and the last thing I want is to have it compromise an otherwise great story. Am I sexist because I think it's completely ridiculous to criticize the entire Pixar catalog because it doesn't meet the narrow-minded standards of some political or social holy war? Why do people enslave their minds to this kind of thinking?

contains a few minutes of actual movie (most of which is in the trailer anyway), which is apparently all it took to convert me completely.

I did enjoy that one, but of course that wasn't really a trailer, it was an extended clip of actual movie. It still didn't tell me what the movie is about, just that it's probably well-done, which I expected anyway.

I am looking forward to it.

[Popcorn]

What does it mean to have "zero respect for political ideology"? Why do you ask if you're sexist if you have no respect for arguments for or against sexism? Do you accept that what you call a "holy war" might actually have a useful purpose?

There's nothing inherently sexist about making a movie without strong female characters. It's not like: oh, wait a minute, let's hate all the Pixar movies individually because they don't have any female protagonists. It's more like: when you average up all the movies made by Pixar (or indeed anyone), how many male protagonists are there versus female ones? What does this say about society's view of gender? It's about the broader cultural experience, not the individual movies or games (except for those which further actively harmful or ugly ideologies, of which there are many, but I don't accuse Pixar of that).

For me, it's as much an aesthetic argument as a political one. Having a female protagonist (who isn't a Lara Croft) in your adventure movie is an easy way to, you know, be original and different. It creates fresh experiences. So I'm pleased Pixar are doing it. That having a female protagonist is a novelty at all speaks volumes about the situation, though.

I also just empathise with female characters more, because I'm super gay. Most of my stories have female protagonists.