SF Chronicle Film Critic blasted by animation historians

Tsuyoshi-kun · Post by **Tsuyoshi-kun** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 5:35 am

So did you or did not enjoy it? I wasn't too impressed with it myself, despite the good CG.

Radrappy · Post by **Radrappy** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:00 am

Cars was completely unremarkable. It was Pixar's first decent into mediocrity. I personally couldn't care how "great" the cars looked. You know a movie is in trouble when all its TV specials center around how hard it was to make the cars look shiny as opposed to talking about the story or characters. Owen Wilson as a Voice Actor did nothing to enhance the experience.

Avatar is a weak show in my opinion. It has a forced atmosphere of "asianess" only made stronger by its generic elemental plot. (how many American TV shows do we know with elements as a theme? It does have some nice moments (and nice samples of animation), but to me, all of this is overwhelmed by the fact that this is a show drawn in anime style to be popular here.

Tsuyoshi-kun · Post by **Tsuyoshi-kun** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 5:42 pm

I argue against Pixar's first descent into mediocrity. I didn't enjoy Finding Nemo or The Incredibles all that much either. The Incredibles was too long and too violent, while Finding Nemo almost felt by-the-numbers in its plot. Both are the most overrated animated films in the last decade.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:35 pm

Avatar is a weak show in my opinion. It has a forced atmosphere of "asianess" only made stronger by its generic elemental plot. (how many American TV shows do we know with elements as a theme? It does have some nice moments (and nice samples of animation), but to me, all of this is overwhelmed by the fact that this is a show drawn in anime style to be popular here.

The actual animation and character design is handled by an actual anime company. An affiliate of Ghibli, I believe. I do wish they had used the five Asian elements (Fire, Water, Earth, Metal, Wood) instead though. And how many fantasy stories revolve around the elements? Pretty much all of them, in one way or another.

I argue against Pixar's first descent into mediocrity. I didn't enjoy Finding Nemo or The Incredibles all that much either. The Incredibles was too long and too violent, while Finding Nemo almost felt by-the-numbers in its plot. Both are the most overrated animated films in the last decade.

Since when is violence bad? Unless it's done without any taste. And Finding Nemo was barely saved by Ellen Degenres' performance. I still say the worst Pixar Film was A Bug's Life.

Radrappy · Post by **Radrappy** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:06 pm

I don't know where your information comes from but the last I heard, the only truely asian thing about avatar is that it's animated in korea like every other american cartoon. It is "produced" by a Californian nickolodian animation studio though. Not every fantasy story revolves around elements. Just the ones that that air on American childrens' networks.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 3:04 am

I don't know where your information comes from but the last I heard, the only truely asian thing about avatar is that it's animated in korea like every other american cartoon. It is "produced" by a Californian nickolodian animation studio though. Not every fantasy story revolves around elements. Just the ones that that air on American childrens' networks.

Name me ten fantasy stories that do not involve either or both of the following at all:

* Elemental magic or symbolism
* Dragons

Good luck, you'll need it.

Radrappy · Post by **Radrappy** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 3:24 am

I did say "revolved" not "involved." There are gobs of fantasy stories whose plots do not center on such elemental themes. I admit that I would have an extremely hard time naming even 5 fantasy stories that had no mention of elements, symbology, or dragons. Pullman's "His Dark Materials" series is one though.

Tsuyoshi-kun · Post by **Tsuyoshi-kun** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:43 am

Zeta wrote:Since when is violence bad? Unless it's done without any taste.

Violence is bad when it involves gunfire at children. Not to mention all the life-threatening things that happen to the Incredible family as a whole. It seemed like all those action scenes were in there to make the movie go on longer. Two hours is too long for an animated movie not from Ghibli for me.

Radrappy · Post by **Radrappy** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:56 am

I agree with you about Finding Nemo but not about the Incredibles. The actions sequences only furthered my enjoyment of the movie. Kids can get shot/shot at too. It's a fact of life. Helen does a good job making it clear that being shot is entirely possible for her kids which further goes to justify it's occurence.

Dash · Post by **Dash** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:21 am

Radrappy wrote:Cars was completely unremarkable. It was Pixar's first decent into mediocrity. I personally couldn't care how "great" the cars looked. You know a movie is in trouble when all its TV specials center around how hard it was to make the cars look shiny as opposed to talking about the story or characters. Owen Wilson as a Voice Actor did nothing to enhance the experience.

Man, what special were you watching? The one I saw mentioned the visuals but mostly focused on how the team had taken a long road trip on Route 66 with a guide to show them all the forgotten towns. To be sure, there are a lot of celebrity VAs in this flick. Even so I felt no sign of a phoned in preformance(though I'll admit that I wasn't feeling Owen Wilson's preformance in places).

Pixar has done better films, but to call this one mediocre is a bit ignorent. It's not The Incredibles, but it wasn't trying to be that kind of movie. It has a very simple message and it didn't pretend to be anything more than it is. It just tries to give audiences a good time. I went in with no expectations and came out entertained. It's getting some flack from certain people, but I think those people just forgot how to have a plain old good time.

For the record though, I hate the It's Our Town song. Godammit Randy Newman, I can clearly see what's happening on-screen. You do NOT need to describe it to me as it happens.

Just for kicks, I went back and watched the original Toy Story. It's amazing to see how much better their dialog and comedic timing have become since then. I still like it, but the whole thing feels pretty unnatural now. I'm actually surprised they got away with a few of their gags in Cars (like where the Twins flash their "headlights" at McQueen? Where were the Disney censor monkeys hiding when that one made the cut?;P)

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:59 am

For the record though, I hate the It's Our Town song. Godammit Randy Newman, I can clearly see what's happening on-screen. You do NOT need to describe it to me as it happens.

"Lady gonna eat an apple, she takes a bite, no, shines it on her shirt. Fat husband walking over. Left. Right. Left. Right. Left. Right."

Radrappy · Post by **Radrappy** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:13 pm

What you say may be true about the movie offering a good time. However to me, that's all an average movie offers. There was no depth to Cars or memorable characters. We've seen all of these characters before in countless other movies. Also I do not believe that pixar, in making this movie set out to give audiences just a simple forgettable good time. I doubt that they sat down and said "well now that we made the Incredibles, let's back track and make something completely ordinary and typical." A review I read put it very well when they mentioned that the tone and humor used in Cars was more reminiscent of late Dreamworks films and were not hallmarks of true makers of magic.
I did not say it was bad. Just average and unremarkable. I'm sorry If I did in fact have expectations walking into this movie.

Dash · Post by **Dash** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:00 pm

Whoawhoawhoa hold on. I made that post right after I woke up so I really didn't word it right. I didn't mean to insult you, it's just that I've read some reviews that were extremely harsh. Sorry, didn't mean to be a dick.

I don't think I can make a good point right now, I just felt that the movie was above average and not total crap as I've heard some people say. I'm going to be lazy and let this review speak for me 'cause I'm definitely not with it today.

Radrappy · Post by **Radrappy** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:03 pm

eh no harm no foul. I actually really like this review you have here.

Locit · Post by **Locit** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:24 pm

In other Pixar news, Ratatouille looks great, while Flushed Away looks like crap and steals liberally from Wallace and Gromit's art style while keeping up the traditional "Oh Pixar is doing that well we'd better too" thing that's been going on for ages now.

Post by **Segaholic2** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:38 pm

Uh, I don't think it's so much stealing the Wallace and Gromit art style as it is an actual co-production with Aardman Animations.

But yeah. Two movies starring a mouse with a European accent? How does this stuff happen?

Oh, and the trailer was painful. PAINFUL.

Dash · Post by **Dash** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:54 pm

Crotch Hit X 4 = 4 Times The Hilarity!!!

Locit · Post by **Locit** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 3:01 pm

Segaholic2 wrote:Oh, and the trailer was painful. PAINFUL.

Apparently the annoying-as-hell squealing slugs are actually hilarious when you're high, as discovered by the ten people sitting behind me in the theater.

Radrappy · Post by **Radrappy** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 3:54 pm

minus 5000 dignity points for Dreamworks everytime they employ this stategy.

Post by **Esrever** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:52 pm

Segaholic2 wrote:But yeah. Two movies starring a mouse with a European accent? How does this stuff happen?

It happens because of Dreamworks! They've been deliberately lifting ideas from the competition since day one. It's incredibly easy to do, because the subjects of animated films are widely known within the industry years in advance. For example, everyone already knows what the next three animated Disney films will be, and they only come out once a year.

Cars was a bummer. It may seem strange to say this about a film full of talking cars, but I think it was just too entrenched in reality. Pixar films are always message heavy, but usually those messages are about basic universal concepts like friendship or family.

Cars, on the other hand, is a relentlessly heavy-handed nostalgic love letter to two specific things: "American small town values" and car culture. If you don't happen to share the love for those two things, the whole movie feels insulting.

Yessir, it sure was great to live in a rural American town in the 1950s. Everyone was friendly and respectful and treated you right... as long as you weren't female, ethnic or homosexual. Boy Howdy! But wait! Now we have to get lectured about today's wasteful, fast-paced lifestyle... by a bunch of talking cars! Nothing contradictory about that!

It was a very screwed up movie.

Post by **Popcorn** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:52 am

Yeah, anyone remember A Bug's Life vs Antz? And now The Ant Bully's arrived, a movie so shockingly derivative I'm stunned even the ignorant masses haven't shunned it. Actually, before Cars, the movie theatre showed a bunch of different trailers for upcoming CG movies, and they all featured talking animals. It was a painfully surreal experience, like having seen the same trailer six times. I didn't think Cars was great, but at least it wasn't about a moose or a stick insect or something.

Oh, has everyone seen the Hoodwinked trailer? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc9VchQShro) It seems to have reached a new low.

Shadow Hog · Post by **Shadow Hog** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:41 am

I believe that's what the reviews for the full movie (now on DVD, if anyone cares) said, too.

I'd say the epitome of bad CG, though, safely rests with The Legend of Zelda: The Light of Courage - although it's made to be intentionally bad.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:51 am

Hoodwinked - awful animation, hilarious writing, and the usual funny performance from Patrick Warburton (for some reason, he always makes me laugh no matter what he does).

Dash · Post by **Dash** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:35 pm

Same here. I even stomach through the farily lame Emperor's New School just to hear his preformance as Kronk. He and Eartha Kit make that show worth a watch.

Esrever wrote: Cars, on the other hand, is a relentlessly heavy-handed nostalgic love letter to two specific things: "American small town values" and car culture. If you don't happen to share the love for those two things, the whole movie feels insulting.

Yessir, it sure was great to live in a rural American town in the 1950s. Everyone was friendly and respectful and treated you right... as long as you weren't female, ethnic or homosexual. Boy Howdy! But wait! Now we have to get lectured about today's wasteful, fast-paced lifestyle... by a bunch of talking cars! Nothing contradictory about that!

I took it as more of an "Appreciate what you have" kinda thing, but that's funny to think about.

Roarey Raccoon · Post by **Roarey Raccoon** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:31 pm

For someone essentially brought up watching 2D animation, all this 3D stuff has been somewhat hard to stomach. It feels like as soon as some kind of nichÃƒÂ© is found, animation studios feel the need to milk the teat as much as possible. Not that I can provide an unbiased observation, given the fact that my preferences for animated films were already solidified before 3D animation began. I wouldn't go so far as to say that this transition from 2D traditional animation to 3D is inherantly bad, I mean only the medium has changed, not the potential. I've liked a few films I've seen in 3D, like The Incredibles, Toy Story (awesome) and Over The Hedge but I couldn't give two shits about the majority of these films. They look like rehashed plot concepts with different sprites; I just can't see the point.

Then again, I'm still a shallow bastard who can't talk, given the fact that I watched Over The Hedge for the sole reason that I loved the look of the animal characters.

I think the problem, in general, is that witnessing new things makes it hard to put things into perspective. Old shit always looks better because the past is filtered by the memorable bits, so we remember a constricted spectrum of animation films that give us a really inaccurate view of how animation used to be. It'll be the same thing with this. 3D animation isn't a descent into the pit of medeocre filmmaking, it's the same crap that's always been happening.