Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: 42 on July 12, 2005, 05:16:30 PM
-
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/ice_age_2/
I guess this has been out for a while, but it's still funny.
I love the reference to "A Christmas Story."
Unfortunately, I have little hope the movie will be as funny.
-
I love that wacky sabre-tooth squirell.
-
I laughed, but I doubt I'll see it. Especially since I never saw the first one.
-
I saw (and liked) the first one. There are better movies, but there are many many worse ones as well. I reckon I'll be able to muster the old battle axe to go out and see this with me, so I'll probably see it.
-
I agree with SE, there are better ones but I liked Ice Age (better then recent Pixar movies infact) and have hope that if Shrek 2 was still funny (though not as funny) that Ice Age 2 would be good.
-
I reckon I'll be able to muster the old battle axe to go out and see this with me
Gee, I hope someday to be described like that. :P ;)
I wasn't really impressed with the first one. It was passably funny. But not, in my opinion, worth a sequel. But this company hasn't had much success with other movies, has it? I can't remember which CGI movies they've made, but Pixar seems to be the only company making CGI movies of true quality--well-written and well-executed.
-
While I agree that Pixar has a better batting average, Fox Animation has only had 2 movies (Ice Age and Robots) which, in my opinion, were both better the the last two Pixar movies. Will it be a long time until we see a 3-d animated movie as classic as Toy Story or Monsters INC? Yes. Will it be a long time until people forget about the dreadfully boring Finding Nemo or incredibly bland Incredibles? No. I don't see people latching onto Ice Age or Robots much either (just to be fair), heck Disney's Chicken Little looks to be better then anything else that has come out in the past few years (CGI wise) and that's saying a lot.
-
must... refrain... from... arguing about... movies... with... Spriggan....
-
That's because you've got nothing monkey boy! ;D
I judge movies based off if they entertain me, the last two Pixar movies I almost fell asleep while watching in the theater.
-
That's what I"m talking about. I bought (NEEDED) Incredibles the day it came on DVD. Shrek I can take or leave.
-
Spriggan, I have to side with e, I think. I place Incredibles and Nemo far above Ice Age. I haven't seen Robots, but I've had several people say to me that the story was cliche and full of gapping plot holes, which didn't make me want to see it.
But my criteria is pretty much the same as yours--whether or not the movie entertained me. I found the characters unique and story captivating in Nemo and Incredibles, and found the characters annoying and story lacking in Ice Age.
So it really comes down to preference.
-
Will it be a long time until people forget about the dreadfully boring Finding Nemo or incredibly bland Incredibles?
I think this is the part I disagree with most, Sprig. You're implying that everyone agrees with you on the quality of these movies. Which implies that because YOU didn't like it, no one did.
Shrek 2 did better than all the other movies we've been talking about, but Incredibles was the #4 movie that year. And Finding Nemo was the #2 movie that year. Not of animated movies, of ALL movies. Nemo made almost as much money as RETURN OF THE KING. While I don't think how much money a movie makes tells me how good it is, you can't tell me that people won't forget that Nemo was dreadfully boring when it does that well.
-
That's becasue there was nothing else good out at the time. You really can't say with a straight face that 10 years from now people will talk about Finding Nemo as some great animation movie like we do with Toy Story?
-
Dude, Return of the King! It beat out Pirates of the Caribbean, both Matrix sequels, and X2.
You're telling me that there wasn't anything else that good? Give me a break. and it's not just cuz it was a kids movie. It beat out Elf and Cheaper by the Dozen too, both family flicks that most people I've heard from liked. Your argument just doesn't stand up.
I didn't say they'd be talking about it as amazing in 10 years. I said they wouldn't be remembering "how boring" it was in evena couple years. Because the public apparently doesn't think that.
-
before you respond, note also that Finding Nemo is the 9th biggest world-wide grosser EVER. In contrast, Fellowship of the Ring was #10. (amusingly, Episode III is already #19, and still going)
The ranking order of animated movies is
1. Shrek 2
2. Finding Nemo
3. Lion King
4. The Incredibles
5. Monsters, Inc.
6. Aladdin
7. Toy Story 2
8. Shrek
9. Tarzan (Disney)
10. Ice Age (which is number 76 of all kinds of movies)
Nemo did pretty well for a boring movie that people only saw because nothing else was on.
edit: heh, interestingly, every feature film Pixar has ever made is in the top 100 movies of all times, world-wide.
-
The Incredibles, Shrek 2, and Finding Nemo where very good movies, not great but they where close. Robots was good, nothing more. I personally like Ice age a lot (not everyone does) but I do not think it should have a sequel, I will on the other hand go see it. Just not as soon as it comes out.
-
The Incredibles was an excellent film. Funny, clever, with some likeable characters.
And that trailer made me laugh greatly. I should hunt down the first one to see if it's as good.
-
First, people don't go to a movie because there isn't any better movie out there at the time. They go to movies because they are interested in seeing the movie. Movies that make big bucks get their money by being likable for some reason which can't ever really be explained.
Second, Spriggan has bad taste. Mr. Grumpy (i.e. Spiggan) severly lacks the skills necessary to appreciate anything cool.
Third, the sabre-tooth squirrel is the funniest part of Ice Age. Unfortunately, he's just a running gag and not really a main character.
-
The reason Movies make money is because they make there movie look good, most people go see movies because they think it is going to be good. I have seen many movies that I thought were going to be great movies, and by then end I walk away asking myself why I just wasyed X amount of money on seeing that crap
-
Yes, and movies like that tank in sales after opening weekend. Good movies, like the Incredibles and Finding Nemo get a certain demographic to keep coming back to watch the movie over and over again.
-
while a huge chunk of the movie's gross comes from opening weekend, opening weekend is far from sufficient to make top 10 standing. People see movies because they've heard good things about it or because it's popular. Which means they wait a week or two. If the movie stinks, they won't see it. So if it's hyped really, really well, it'll have a fantastic opening weekend. But if it sucks, the income will decline sharply afterwards.
That's why i feel comfortable using those numbers in my argument. a movie like Return of the King makes a huge portion of its gross from multiple viewings (I saw it three times in the theater, and I don't think that's even a lot of times, though it is three times as often as I see most of the movies I see in theaters -- my sister-in-law saw it at least 6 times). RotK made ~$377 million dollars. Nemo made a little under $340 million. It just doesn't make logical sense that Nemo made that much without people seeing it multiple times. Which means they did *not* find it boring.
-
Well this conversation didn't fulfill it's purpose, shesh, what's the point of trying to entertain oneself at work when no one bothers to reply until I'm about to go home. But ya, arguing that "no one will watch x years from now" isn't something I'd normally argue (or even believe) if work wasn't so lame. If you remember I made the exact opposite argument, ie the one SE is using now, in the book thread a few months ago (which surprising enough most people disagreed with me on.) since I do believe how much money a movie makes shows that it is generally "good". I just know mentioning "Incredibles" and any suggestion of "not the freaking greatest movie ever made" and people here get all defensive.
Anyway all silly arguments aside (no need to try and get people riled up now) I started my comments on the line of peoples notion if "if its not Pixar it's crap" which is a stupid comment and an argument no one would make interesting so I went with something else. I do find Nemo boring as watching grass grow and talk about one trick ponies too the only thing the movie had going for it was "how forgetful is the blue fish?" (forgot the name), but I really don't care how much others like it since I didn't. Titanic made a butt-load of cash and that doesn't mean I have to like it or should but that dosen't mean there's not some value to it.
-
I'm not trying to say, even remotely that YOU should like it. Just that arguing that others don't is an error.
Of course, arguing "if Pixar didn't make it than it sucks" is generally also an error (Shrek 2 made more money than they all), but there could be reasons for it (though these are theoretical reasons, I've never heard them actually used). So yeah, I agree with you there. I don't think Shrek was all that great, but I'm probably in the minority in that opinion. But I thought Ice Age was fun.
-
I don't think I ever said "If it's not Pixar it's crap." What I said was that, in my opinion, "Pixar seems to be the only company making CGI movies of true quality--well-written and well-executed." This is completely my opinion, but I still think it. I did not like Shrek, I only liked Shrek 2 because the references to pop culture made me laugh, but I don't think it has lasting value and one viewing was enough. I thought Ice Age was only passably funny--no repeated viewings please. All previews of Shark Tale and Robots drove out ANY desire to see the movies--and what I heard from other people confirmed this, so I never saw them. So, again, I don't mind being accused that this is my opinion--it is. I don't care if other people or statistics back me up or not--I think Pixar movies are the most appealing visually, as in that the computer graphics move the most gracefully (ie in the most realistic manner), and the backgrounds are the most convincing. Shark Tale looked so bland compared to Nemo. And I am also talking about the graphic design--I think the animation scheme/consistency in The Incredibles is fabulous art. But that is not the biggest reason I like Pixar movies. Even more important than the beautiful art is that they have great characters and unique stories. And they are funny without having the humor be the sole driving force behind the movie. AND they don't rely SOLELY on big names to provide their voices (which is always a red flag for me--"Come see the movie because it has X famous star's voice"--as if that is what makes me want to see an animated film. Riiiight. If you have to bulk up your poor story with big names, I'm not interested.)
Now, there have been times when big name actors/actresses have been a perfect fit for the role in animated films--Robin Williams as Genie in Aladdin, Eddie Murphy as MooShu in Mulan, Ellen Degeneris as Dory in Nemo. But when I saw the lineup for Robots, I thought to myself "Now, that movie has to suck. Why else would they need so many famous stars to bolster it?" Perhaps this is skewed thinking. But it's mine. ;)
So I still maintain that I am not excited about Ice Age 2. Being a sequel is one strike against it, being a sequel of a movie I didn't like that much is another, so that's two strikes against it already. I actually am also NOT excited about Chicken Little--the previews have given me doubts. I will probably see it in theaters, though--after I have heard from others what they think.
I also think Cars, which is, I believe, the next Pixar movie, looks silly. The previews have been very uninformative, and if they don't give more indication of a story besides "cars race fast" sometime soon then I probably won't be seeing it. I'm not going to start going to movies just because they are Pixar's--Pixar still has to deliver.
-
Your last post just did a great deal better of showing your prejudices then I would have ever bothered writing Chimera, thanks for saving me time. Not that there's anything overly wrong with you having those opinions but all those movies had very strong points to them that some Pixar movies have yet to meet like Robots which was visually the best "pure" CGI movie made in the US to date, the whole city was amazing so was the world they came up with. I use pure since technically Star Wars ep 3 and Sky Captain could be considered GCI since over 90% of each of those movies were animated. Shreck was the first CGI to use animated muscles under the skin and in the face. Shark Tale has Will Smith (umm ok so I haven't seen it so I cannot comment on it).
I also know, for a fact, that lots of the famous actors are in these movies because the film makers are fans of the actors (like Robin Williams in Robots or Ellen Degenris in Nemo) and their parts are written with them in mind not because big names will make people think crappy movies are good ones. That never seams to work or Gili would have been a run away hit. Of course there are times when big names are attached since studio heads feel better about a movie in those cases.
-
I'm a huge fan of Final Fantasy, too.
Honestly, I'm still not sure if I've seen a full-length (animated) feature film with as realistic CG to date, particularly when it comes to humans.
I've seen shorts that good, though, and I think it may not be long before another film with realistic CG comes out.
Final Fantasy was a pioneer, though, IMHO.
-
visually a pioneer. If they had just bothered to hire a WRITER though....
-
Yeah it was pretty, but I won't watch it more than once for visuals alone.
-
See, I actually liked much of story and writing, too. But then I wasn't expecting it to be one of the FF games transformed into a movie.
Personally, I'd place it way above Monsters Inc., but I tend to be abnormally receptive to philosophical content for an American.
-
that's the thing, it WAS too much like an FF game converted to film.
-
Huh.
Either way, among people I know, those that played many of the FF games seemed to like it less. Those who were not initially FF fans tended to like it more.
The only FF game I've spent much time on was FF1, which I played to completion, so I place myself in the latter category. Final Fantasy was nothing like FF1.
-
I was a big FF fan till about FF8 for the PS....now there games for the must part suck, thats for a different thread. FF movie was a great visual movie, and I enjoyed the rest of the movie to...however the new one looks like it is going to be amost a complete conversion of game to movie. It is based off of FF7 and the CG should be just as good as the first one
-
Personally, I'd place it way above Monsters Inc., but I tend to be abnormally receptive to philosophical content for an American.
Wow...
If I were tyrannical dictator of the world, you'd be hanged for a remark like that.
-
don't hold back fuzzyoctopus tell us how you really feel
-
She feels a little gassy.
-
My take on FF, which I have probably mentioned before, is that I'm shocked that anyone cares about it.
Yes, it is technically wonderful, but ideologically flawed from an art stand-point. Yes they made "naturalistic" looking people, but why? People in the animation field knew for a long time before FF that is was possible to make naturalistic looking people, but isn't the point of animation to see things that you can't see in real life. In way, the use of naturalistic looking people is insulting to the art of animation, which offers so much more than just illusionism. I know a lot of animators feel the same way.
And the fact that FF had a bland plot, mediocre voice acting, and convoluded philosophical foundations doesn't help it either.
So therefor, I agree with Fuzzy, hangings should be in order.
-
You know us, we're ALWAYS up for hangings.
-
Don't get me wrong I like hangings too, but I fail to see how the move FF is insulting to artiest. Yes abstract anime is cool, but what makes art so profound is the ability to work on details. FF shows us great detail in the animation of almost real looking animation. Sure the movie did not have the best of anything else but it is that attention to detail that made the movie stand out.
Sure animators COULD have done that along time ago, but the thing is that anyone could have done just about any piece of art at any time; the trick is to be the first one to do it......
-
Don't get me wrong I like hangings too, but I fail to see how the move FF is insulting to artiest. Yes abstract anime is cool, but what makes art so profound is the ability to work on details.
Um...no. What makes art so profound is it's revelations and insights into the human experience. FF just did this poorly. In fact, it's animation is very flat in many places. If they would have cut out many of the details they would of had more poignant and elegant work. FF is definitely missing (or at least struggling with) some of the underlying foundations. What made anime successful is that it was able to adhere to many fundamentals. Incidentally, anime is not abstract, it's highly stylized, cannonized, and somewhat elitist. In fact, animation rarely ventures too far into abstraction.
Sure animators COULD have done that along time ago, but the thing is that anyone could have done just about any piece of art at any time; the trick is to be the first one to do it......
Also...no. Being first doesn't necessarily make great art, otherwise all of the revival and eclectic movements would not be considered art at all. But you are right, that being first is a trick, a short-lived trick usually.
-
Don't get me wrong I like hangings too, but I fail to see how the move FF is insulting to artiest.
He's not being hung for appreciating FF, he's being hung for saying it's better than Monsters Inc., which is both visually well-done AND fun and enjoyable to watch, with a good script.
-
If you look back on what society in general considers being great artwork, it is work that has had great attention to detail, however that is only part of art. I agree, many piece of art are used as insights into the human experience, however most insight is done through details in art work. In one gallery, a man got famous for throwing candy on the floor in the corner and allowing people to take a piece if the wished. The candy would later be replaced. Since he was the first one to do it, he got famous.......do you think if a second person did something similar would they get as much credit for it.
Being the first means being original.
It was Felix González-Torres, Candy Spil....I believe
-
If you look back on what society in general considers being great artwork, it is work that has had great attention to detail, however that is only part of art.
Didn't Picasso master the art of not needing details?
-
This is detailed? (http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/picasso-540.gif)
And if you say you haven't seen that one before, then I'll be moderately shocked. That's a very famous Picasso piece. I bet I dont' even need to tell you what it is for you to understand it. It communicates nuances and meaning WITHOUT detail.
Methinks your philosophy of aesthetics is a bit skewed. Now, I won't go so far as 42. There's something in me that appreciates high level of detail -- so long as that detail functions for something that contributes to the point of the work. When that point is just "let's make a lot of detail" it becomes a lot less interesting.
I think that detail does show a lot of skill, but it's only one of many, many things that make art great. Composition, subject, color choice, medium, etc. They all function. Saying that only ONE of those is the determining factor for great art is an enormous falacy.
-
Didn't Picasso master the art of not needing details?
Thats why I said it is only part of art.
-
So is lack of detail. I could argue that rules for pregnancy are a part of RPG's, since they have come up before (I kid you not). But that doesn't make a very defensible position.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.