criterionforum.org

knives wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:11 pm

mfunk9786 wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:04 pm Yes, I could apply that logic to any film/group, although films made for children inevitably have an entirely different audience to please than most other genres of films. It's not as though Cars 2, to continue that example, wasn't made about as well as it possibly could have been considering what it is. It just didn't hold much appeal for adult viewers. And that's alright. Toy Story 3, in particular, held an unexpectedly immense amount of appeal for adult viewers (myself included to some extent), but that doesn't mean that Pixar needs to have that in the back of their minds every time out from now on, does it?

Glowingwabbit wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:02 pm I only remember the entire Car's franchise being hated on (for good reason) by cinephiles in their 20s-30s.

Because it wasn't made for them?

I haven't seen the Cars sequels so I can't speak to them. To use an example I am familiar with though, Carlos Saldanha's films are very popular with children and definitely shouldn't be judged according to adult standards. That said I would argue in spite of their popularity they aren't as well made as their goals entail and they could easily be improved upon while remaining engaging and fun for children. I don't think I'm expressing a ridiculously high standard either. While for older children then I think we are talking about the last three or four Dreamworks films strike me as at least striving to be great films directed at children. (this again to say I'm basically indifferent to Pixar on the whole; I am merely arguing that there are better choices for children out there so they don't deserve a pass when they do act lazily).

Oh, I am in no way saying that there's basically no standards around making excellent children's entertainment, just that there can be a different set of goals in place than the old "hey, and it's fun for mom and dad too!" chestnut while still putting one's best artistic foot forward for the target audience (Dan Schneider joke implied but redacted)

That I absolutely agree with and some of the worst examples of children's entertainment fit that chestnut. The board had a similar conversation a million years ago when people were complaining that Ponyo wasn't Princess Mononoke and that strikes me as a good example of how to make a great film for small children with no winking to the parents.

Immediately post-Shrek we were in the darkest depths of that line of thinking, as though if you get enough celebrity voice actors and G-rated Family Guy jokes in there, you've got a hit for the whole family.

That's exactly what I was thinking of. I'm guess my statement can be why settle for Howdy Doody when you can get Mister Rogers. Both are pretty unwatchable for adults, but one is good art and one is the '50s equivalent to the above image.

If my kid is telling me to put Howdy Doody on, and is gonna be miserable if I put Mister Rogers on instead, I've got more important things to be a purist about than what's going on the TV at that moment. Let's assume my kid is about 65 years old today to make this example work

I'm in the 3 is better than 2 camp though the second film is very enjoyable just the same. The third film provided closure that was bittersweet and arrived at in a way that felt natural within the narrative of the third film and all three films overall. The trailer for this fourth doesn't convince me this is a must-see but to be fair, neither did the trailer for the third. Still, Pixar used to be better before Disney swallowed them up so this looks unlikely to be in many people's or perhaps anyone's top ten.

What if I don’t have kids and all I care about is whether I like it or not. There’s no reason for me to give a crap about whether it hits its goals with some other hypothetical audiences and I’m under no obligation to evaluate it by that standard.

I find this teething ring boring, quite frankly. C-

mfunk9786 wrote:I find this teething ring boring, quite frankly. C-

By going with an example that can possibly only be of use by kids, aren’t you making knives’s exact point?

I’d go with baby food as an example, myself. It’s not really made for me, but if I think it tastes disgusting, why would I give it to my poor defenseless child?

mfunk9786 wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:27 pm If my kid is telling me to put Howdy Doody on, and is gonna be miserable if I put Mister Rogers on instead, I've got more important things to be a purist about than what's going on the TV at that moment. Let's assume my kid is about 65 years old today to make this example work

Would Puppy Dog Pals v. Odd Squad been a coherent set of words for you though?

I like the first the best. I haven't seen 3, but 2 veered heavily into that jokey formula of animated films of the time where references abound (I recall it feeling similar to Shrek 2 in that respect, a lot of pop culture references just there to get a knowing grin from the audience).

The body horror aspect of Sid's mangled creations in the first movie is to me the highlight of the franchise.

Brian C wrote: if I think it tastes disgusting, why would I give it to my poor defenseless child?

Because kids have no taste and they will eat anything.

I second knives' view that being a kid-targeted movie isn't an excuse for making a crappy lazy one. Sure, one needs to keep "not being the core audience" in mind, but still, there are tons of good stuff aimed at younger audience, so why accept when some makers don't care and go cheap and bad ?

As for the Cars sequels, as someone in his 30s, I both don't think they're that bad nor don't think they're that good just because they're not for me.
Cars 2 went in a very different direction than Cars 1, and seeing which direction it was, I understand people thinking it's a disappointment. I found it to be quite entertaining (I've actually seen it multiple times since), but it definitely felt quite simplistic and superficial compared to the first movie.
Cars 3 just felt like a Cars 1 rehash, but more boring and less compelling.

cdnchris wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:57 am

Brian C wrote: if I think it tastes disgusting, why would I give it to my poor defenseless child?

Because kids have no taste and they will eat anything.

Not that it improves over the years, though.

I thought Toy Story 2 was wonderful, maybe because it was kind of brutal toward the adult toy-collecting subculture my parents were a part of; I was a teenager when it came out so it was vaguely cathartic. I also think the emotion in the "When She Loved Me" scene is actually well-earned. Or maybe I'm just a sap.

Reviews for Toy Story 4 are so far surprisingly not terrible: a B from AA Dowd at AV Club, a B+ from Ehrlich at Indiewire, and 3 out 4 from Slant.

mfunk9786 wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:21 pm Immediately post-Shrek we were in the darkest depths of that line of thinking, as though if you get enough celebrity voice actors and G-rated Family Guy jokes in there, you've got a hit for the whole family.

Spoiler

That image epitomizes everything wrong with mid-00s animation better than anything I can think of. It's like Poochie from The Simpsons if he wasn't intended as broad, deliberate satire. I didn't like Shark Tale even at the time, and fifteen years later, I would probably despise it if I subjected myself to it again.

I love all three Toy Story films and I am not a kid. Conversely, I disliked Tarantino’s last two...which were not for kids.

Murdoch wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:06 am I like the first the best. I haven't seen 3, but 2 veered heavily into that jokey formula of animated films of the time where references abound (I recall it feeling similar to Shrek 2 in that respect, a lot of pop culture references just there to get a knowing grin from the audience).

The body horror aspect of Sid's mangled creations in the first movie is to me the highlight of the franchise.

I don’t remember any gratuitous pop cultural references along the likes of Shrek 2, the only ones I remember in the Toy Story films relate to the toys themselves and they are integral to the characters.

Many people have pointed out that Sid, a character set up as the villain in Toy Story, is actually just a creative and imaginative kid, but then isn’t that more of a flaw of the first film than an asset ? What I find admirable about the Toy Story films is how they expand on the themes of growing old and redundant, relationships changing or ending and the fear of not being loved or of use anymore. Cute toys doing funny things for the kids, deepening existential despair for the adults, what’s not to love ?

It’s been years since I listened but I believe the commentary track for the first film indeed addresses that seemingly everyone who made the film related more to Sid than to Andy. Not that Andy is much of a character anyway... but given this knowledge there is something a little cynical about the way the movie treats Sid, like an automatic attitude on whoever’s part that an eccentric child would’ve sent audiences running. Now I’m imagining a Toy Story with a Henry Selick or even a Brad Bird at the helm...

I dunno, Sid’s creative instincts do obviously trend towards cruelty and destructiveness for the sake of it. And I found myself really feeling sorry for his sister when I watched it last.

Lost Highway wrote: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:33 am

Murdoch wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:06 am I like the first the best. I haven't seen 3, but 2 veered heavily into that jokey formula of animated films of the time where references abound (I recall it feeling similar to Shrek 2 in that respect, a lot of pop culture references just there to get a knowing grin from the audience).

The body horror aspect of Sid's mangled creations in the first movie is to me the highlight of the franchise.

I don’t remember any gratuitous pop cultural references along the likes of Shrek 2, the only ones I remember in the Toy Story films relate to the toys themselves and they are integral to the characters.

Exhibit A

The first one had references like that throughout as do hundreds of films made since the '50s. I don't like the Toy Story films, but complaining that they reference Star Wars seems bizarre.

To me Toy Story 2 felt more obnoxious with it, but to each their own.

The key to the effective use of pop-culture references in comedy is, if you don't know that it is a reference, you're not taken out of a movie's immediate storytelling focus. The Simpsons was peerless at this back in its 90s prime. When a movie or TV show stops the narrative dead to jam in a reference to a recently popular movie/TV show/meme, then it's Family Guy, and fairly obnoxious about it. Good pop culture references flow out of the general storytelling so that, if you've seen the object of satire, you get an extra laugh, and if you haven't, it's not gonna have you wondering, "What the hell was THAT all about...?!" It's the difference between a movie like Airplane! satirizing the 70's disaster movie genre, and a movie like...well, Disaster Movie, which was basically "Pop-Culture Shit From The First Half Of 2008: The Movie!" The former kept slyly inserting weird non-sequitur references and visual gags into the overall plot structure of a film like Airport, whereas the latter was like, "Hey, Iron Man! Kung-Fu Panda! Hancock! These are recent things!", without any actual satirization, expecting us to laugh just for recognizing them.

That’s a really good point. I think many a 90s Kid has had that feeling of watching a movie years later and going, “Oh, that already funny on its own Simpsons joke was a reference to this!”