The Fantastic Mr. Fox?

[socketlevel]

before you judge all recent animations based on the 2 new movies a year that you watch...
have you not seen anything from Japan and France in the last 10 years?  and even Canada from time to time?
Look up Mind Game.

sorry without a quote or mention i don't know who you're framing that response to. I assume you're talking to Alexandro.

in the small chance you're talking to me, or both of us, i'll say that i do actually watch a lot of animation.  i never disregard it.

i absolutely love Japanese animation, the 1% of the time it's actually accompanied by a remotely good narrative. i do watch canadian animation as well, being canadian myself i gotta support it because recently that's all we've been winning awards for... whereas in the past it was all docs.

[pete]

I was talking to alexandro.  and I can't really defend what you're saying about japanese animation since you might watch 12 times as many as I do, but either way, Tekkon Kinkreet I've just found to be so amazing, same with Mind Game.  I absolutely loved the Incredibles, but Ratatoulie, Wall-E, and Up have all had weak third acts.

[Alexandro]

I was only talking about Hollywood, Pete. I threw Miyazaki in there because of his Hollywood / International success and his clear influence on the Pixar team. Fantastic Mr. Fox is a Hollywood movie with big stars based on a popular author's book. So it is fair to compare at least superficially.

I'm aware of the third act problems, particularly in Walle, but still they kick pretty much every other animated film's ass.

[socketlevel]

what third act problems?

[pete]

fighting amongst zepplins, fighting in a spaceship, impressing a food critic...etc., they do not live up to the scope of the premise, because in each of the instance they end up being about the villains who really don't matter too dramatically when your hero is a melancholy old man, a lovelorn robot, or an aspiring mouse. 

[socketlevel]

well if they had made it about those things then it might not be too appealing for kids. I think some type of action is needed, physical peril is kind of a staple for these kind of movies.

I'm not going to defend them staunchly but i will say that while you might be right, deviation from the well oiled genre and addressing the "true" nature of the characters might in turn make for a worse ending. i think the point is to make a conflict about something entirely different, and then end with the protagonist over coming the conflict and being changed, so indirectly he/she solves the initial issue as well as the physical peril. and through the growth that has transpired they can find resolution.

if, for example, the old man talked out his issues, or somehow addressed his loss directly, it's a little less metaphorical isn't it? by him acting it out in the physical world, the house symbolizes his dead wife, and through helping the other characters he can let go.  also his nemesis represents what will happen to himself if he cannot let go of his sadness. if this sadness takes over his life all he will be left with is obsession, apathy and embitterment. by ridding the world of the antagonist, he himself finds freedom needed to avoid the trap of becoming what he loathes.

otherwise would be a little too literal for my tastes.

[tpfkabi]

Ratner never tires of these. 

http://twitter.com/BrettRatner/status/5790567442

Was a The Departed one already done? (in reference to the final shot)

[AntiDumbFrogQuestion]

You know, they don't have to be quoting about PIXAR in the Mr. Fox reviews...they need to be BASHING DREAMWORKS

Or how about the CG stuff Disney produced sans Pixar?

We showed BOLT to the kids at summer camp this year & I knew that it was the epitome of the crap I don't like to see happen to kids' movies.

Pixar, minus "Cars" which I never want to see, has produced some good stuff.

"UP" was really damn good.  Most things were seen and not explained, and it made perfect use of some cliches by turning them on their heads (Dog Henchmen?)

So yeah, it expected the kids to FIGURE OUT what's going on instead of knowing EVERYTHING.
Kind of like how some parts of Mr. Fox look to be.
Or like how "Calvin & Hobbes" used high vocabulary, TRUSTING the kids to know what's going on.

[JG]

the food critic's monologue is like my favorite part in any pixar movie ever! haven't seen it in a while, but i remember being impressed by the way they effortlessly weaved that subplot into the larger story.

re: fox.. i'm not as savvy a viewer when it comes to animation, so i can't refute any of mod's problems, but i still think fantastic mr. fox works. one of his more focused stories. very funny. a real joy!

[New Feeling]

Pixar, minus "Cars" which I never want to see, has produced some good stuff.

"Cars" is a beautiful movie that gets way more shit than it deserves.  It was my son's favorite movie for about a year and I've seen it dozens and dozens of times and can safely say it stands up there with the best of what Pixar has given us.  It's got a great message, great performances, and some of the most amazing animation I've seen.  If you love Pixar you really should check it out. 

[socketlevel]

Pixar, minus "Cars" which I never want to see, has produced some good stuff.

"Cars" is a beautiful movie that gets way more shit than it deserves.  It was my son's favorite movie for about a year and I've seen it dozens and dozens of times and can safely say it stands up there with the best of what Pixar has given us.  It's got a great message, great performances, and some of the most amazing animation I've seen.  If you love Pixar you really should check it out. 

i agree the message is pretty great, david vs goliath kinda deal. showing the destruction of middle america in the process. however beyond that it doesn't really hold up imo. it seems like a john laseter just loves cars so that's why he made it. it kinda falls flat, i'm just not into car racing myself.  while i give the movie a 6.5/10 it is my least fav pixar.

[pete]

well if they had made it about those things then it might not be too appealing for kids. I think some type of action is needed, physical peril is kind of a staple for these kind of movies.

I'm not going to defend them staunchly but i will say that while you might be right, deviation from the well oiled genre and addressing the "true" nature of the characters might in turn make for a worse ending. i think the point is to make a conflict about something entirely different, and then end with the protagonist over coming the conflict and being changed, so indirectly he/she solves the initial issue as well as the physical peril. and through the growth that has transpired they can find resolution.

if, for example, the old man talked out his issues, or somehow addressed his loss directly, it's a little less metaphorical isn't it? by him acting it out in the physical world, the house symbolizes his dead wife, and through helping the other characters he can let go.  also his nemesis represents what will happen to himself if he cannot let go of his sadness. if this sadness takes over his life all he will be left with is obsession, apathy and embitterment. by ridding the world of the antagonist, he himself finds freedom needed to avoid the trap of becoming what he loathes.

otherwise would be a little too literal for my tastes.

you can have an exciting ending without resorting to your suggestions.  and they knew that - that was how they made Toy Story, Finding Nemo, and The Incredibles.

[socketlevel]

well if they had made it about those things then it might not be too appealing for kids. I think some type of action is needed, physical peril is kind of a staple for these kind of movies.

I'm not going to defend them staunchly but i will say that while you might be right, deviation from the well oiled genre and addressing the "true" nature of the characters might in turn make for a worse ending. i think the point is to make a conflict about something entirely different, and then end with the protagonist over coming the conflict and being changed, so indirectly he/she solves the initial issue as well as the physical peril. and through the growth that has transpired they can find resolution.

if, for example, the old man talked out his issues, or somehow addressed his loss directly, it's a little less metaphorical isn't it? by him acting it out in the physical world, the house symbolizes his dead wife, and through helping the other characters he can let go.  also his nemesis represents what will happen to himself if he cannot let go of his sadness. if this sadness takes over his life all he will be left with is obsession, apathy and embitterment. by ridding the world of the antagonist, he himself finds freedom needed to avoid the trap of becoming what he loathes.

otherwise would be a little too literal for my tastes.

you can have an exciting ending without resorting to your suggestions.  and they knew that - that was how they made Toy Story, Finding Nemo, and The Incredibles.

agreed, but in my opinion, no way inferior

[Alexandro]

what third act problems?

I actually wrote some lengthy comment on this back when walle won the best film xaxie. Basically I felt betrayed by the movie because the first act was a masterpiece about a robot in love and the second became truncated by the humans subplot and their problems. walle and eva's costar ended up being the captain of the ship, who really is one boring character, probably the most boring character in pixar's history.

[socketlevel]

meh it's a masterpiece, you guys are crazy