Ice Age 2 Teaser

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

If you look back on what society in general considers being great artwork, it is work that has had great attention to detail

That doesn't include other things.

[Legion]

your right, I did not list them all. To many to list.  I was just trying to say that the reason why I think FF was so good, was due to the great detail and realism that was used during its creation.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Ok, so you just said it very very poorly then. Because what those words you typed said was that all works that are considered great are considered so because of their detail. The entire tone of the post was to negate most of the importance of any other aspect. So don't be surprised that people misunderstood you when you say that it's only one among many aspects now, because you made very little, if any acknowlegement of other aspects.

So FF excels at ONE aspect of art. No one you're arguing with is saying that FF didn't do very well at showing detail. What we're saying is that detail doesn't do much for the over all project. It is mitigated and countered by the great many failings of it's other aspects.

[Legion]

Sorry about that what I meant was that there are many aspects of art, I think, that detail is a more popular one, but by no means is the only important one to us

[The Jade Knight]

I know my views on Final Fantasy are unpopular, but I generally disagree with its detractors, here and elsewhere.

Concerning Monsters Inc., my biggest gripe with that film is that it is 100% (150%?) fluff.  Sure, it's fun to watch once, but I'd never want to see it more than once (though, thanks to my 5 year-old brother, I've seen it several times).  It doesn't make me think (and it doesn't really make me laugh, either).  The closest you can come to philosophical content would be to assume that the film's moral is "laughing is better than screaming."

Huh.  Now there's a revelation.  I don't know.  I've liked most of the Pixar films I've seen (I adore Finding Nemo, and I thought the Incredibles was very fun), but I consider Monsters Inc. to be mediocre.  Maybe if I were 5 years old, I'd feel differently.


To give you an idea of my movie tastes, among my favourite films are Les Miserables (with Neeson), Alegria, and Cyrano de Bergerac (with Depardieu).

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I'm still entirely unsure what philosophical content you're getting out of FF. The writing was contrived when it made sense, which wasn't very often.

Now, I'm not saying that Monsters, Inc is a deep film. But I, too, am gerenally more interested in thoughtful movies rather than the mindless. But As for laughing being better than screaming, that is not what it says. It's close, but not there. Try "Laughing is more powerful than screaming" particularly in times of crisis. IT's s simple idea, but so are prayer and faith. Thinking that an idea is without merit because it is simple is dangerous and usually wrong.

[The Jade Knight]

I never said that simple ideas are "without merit."  I'm fairly fond of de la Rochefoucauld's Maximes, which contains a plethora of simple truths.  I'm also aware of Occam's Razor.  However, even if we are to assume that "laughing is more powerful than screaming" is a deep insight (and worth an entire film of fluff), the movie doesn't really explore the idea or argument behind this at all, but rather hands you the "moral" without any sort of discussion as to its veracity (at all).  And the context the moral is put in is completely irrelevant to our world, except through metaphorical interpretation (which I doubt many 5 year olds will be doing).

Again, I disagree that the writing in Final Fantasy doesn't make sense.  There is only one line I can think of which really doesn't make sense, and in the French version of the film the line makes much more sense (in the French translation, a single word is added to clarify).

Regarding the philosophical content therein, the entire film focused on the naturalist/spiritual debate; that was a major (if not the primary) theme in the film.  It was an exploration of faith in a Sci-Fi context.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

It was choppy and inconsistent in it's presentation. It's not that individual lines didn't make sense. It's that the flow of one line to the next, and one scene to the next, were not comprehensible. A lot of things can talk about something, but if their conversation is a series of nonsequitors, it doesn't make it a worthwhile discussion.

As for MI only making sense metaphorically, of course it doesn't. No one's arguing that. It's primary purpose after all, is entertaining children, not lecturing to them. But hating it because you have to unpack the metaphor is a very very weak criticism. Because the same is quite true of every movie you've mentioned  in this thread. The same is true of Arthurian legend. The same is true of the way most kids understand scriptures. The same is particularly ture of Jesus' parables. None of these are good for kids? Sorry, I have to vehemantly disagree with you on the capabilities of kids to explore that metaphor. They're quite capable by age 5 of understanding symbolism and metaphor. Not on as deep a level as a college educated adult of course, but so what? The other problem with that criticism is it is NOT a world so entirely disconnected from the young child's life. Monsters in the closet and under the bed? that IS a child's world. They understand what's going on here.

[Legion]

I guess I missed how FF is choppy and inconsistent.  I am not trying to be mean, but could you give me an example....it has been a little while since I saw the movie.  I will try to see it again soon, but which parts would you consider choppy and inconsistent?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Pretty much any scene transition and the over all progression of the plot. It's been even longer since I've seen it. but I just remember that everything they did seemed to be more an excuse for the animators to show some action than it was to advance any plot or idea. And many of the ideas presented seemed to have no relation to the others.

[Legion]

We should view the movie again and talk about this after, because I do not think either of us are in a good position to talk about the plot, and its progression through the movie.

[The Jade Knight]

Saint E, I've seen the film in the last year, and I disagree once again with your points.  I dare say the ideas and transitions in Final Fantasy are more connected than those in Le petit prince which I consider one of the best books ever written.


Regarding Monsters Inc. and your criticisms of my criticisms:

1.  I never said I "hated" it.  I said it was "mediocre".  Compared to Pixar's other films, that's very bad, but it's still better than a great many other movies out there.  In fact, I actually used the word "fun" in relation to Monsters Inc.

2.  I never said that my primary objection with it was that you had to "unpack a metaphor".  I just feel (and meant to imply, if it was not explicit enough) that the target audience would be unable to appreciate the moral you drag out of it.

Please stop building straw men to knock down.

And I've certainly heard enough about it culturally, but I as a child never had "monster under bed" fears, and was unaware of any of my friends having them.  My five year-old half brother has also never had such fears (at least that I've heard expressed).  However, even if this weren't the case, it's irrelevant.

The context of screams and laughter in Monsters Inc. is that they are used to power houses, appliances, etc.  They are a source of electrical power, on par with solar or fossil fuels.  Screams and laughter are not, to the best of my ability, a sort of physical fuel, in my world, or the functional world of any child.  They can make believe, but the application, I dare assert, will generally stop there.

I'm not suggesting that the film is a bad one for youngsters to see, or that it wont be fun and enjoyable for them.  What I am saying is that

a) I do not find the film enjoyable to watch.
b) I do not find the film particularly edifying, uplifting, or thought-provoking
and while I'm at it, I'll add this to stir up another can of worms:
c) While well animated and acted, I do not feel that the film contained any particular artistic merit.


My half-brother is only one child, but Monsters Inc. is actually one of films "he" owns that he asks to watch the least.