Monsters Inc. on Video an' DVD!!!!

[beaker]

>>>For whatever reason, Monsters Inc is so superior<<<

Heres mine:

*M-Inc trailer made me drool. The Shrek trailer made me wince.

*M-Inc is an original concept, that heavily falls on the most beautiful yet Pixar animation, very Muppet like feel and look,
great voices and characters, and a brilliant mix of humour/chemistry play, emotion, and adventure. Shrek is just a of the moment classic retelling of Goose stories. blah

*M-Inc, after the film finished...well I felt quite exhilarated, and called it the best film of 2001 hands down. Shrek made me want to wonder what I did to deserve that humiliation.

 

[kansasteen14]

rufus I hope you werent dissing Bugs Life because it was also better than shrek.I thought was ok when I considered it more I figured out that they could not make any original material so they had to make fun of Disney very bad.

 

[beaker]

I have been a HUGE HUGE fan of Pixar since the late 80's(when I first saw one of their shorts at an animation festival) It might surprise ya, but I betcha Toy Story could have been made in 1989 if Disney had gave em a ton of money. There was this short that came out in 1989 that ooks very similar from a visual and techinical aspect to the 1995 hit. In the early 90's a PIXAR movie/compilation came out with all their shorts, and really illustrates how cutting edge they have been for the last 16 years.

Now then, that said...while I LOVED Monsters Inc, and Toy Story 1&2...I gotta say, loved Antz much better than Bugs Life. Besides being a big Woodly Allen fan, it just had this humour about it, adventure, chemistry etc that I felt was missing from a Bug's Life.
My pick for best short though out of all of them is For the Birds.(Another very Muppety like Pixar thing)

 

[GWGumby]

If you listen to the commentary on Monster's Inc. you will learn that Pixar was not ready for feature films when they did Toy Story. They had a plan mapped out that they would do shorts then commercials then half hour TV specials then eventually get to movies. Disney asked them to do Toy Story when they were approaching their plan for half-hour specials. Since their ultimate goal was feature films, they decided to jump into it.

Personally, I believe Toy Story was an amazing breakthrough and arrived at a perfect time. However, had it been produced even just a few years earlier it definitely would not have been as good as it was. Just look at that ugly baby on "Tin Toy" and ask yourself if that is feature film material. The humans in Toy Story were the worst part of the film (next to Randy Newman's songs. But that's a personal preference) whereas in Toy Story 2 they were amazing. Computer graphics are still young enough that every year there are significant leaps and bounds. Look at the ugly animals on Jumanji compared to Sully's amazing fur in Monster's Inc. Jumanji is what happens when you try to make a movie with technology that is too young for what it is trying to achieve. Toy Story made any earlier could have fallen into that same trap.

 

[Rufus]

rufus I hope you werent dissing Bugs Life because it was also better than shrek.I thought was ok when I considered it more I figured out that they could not make any original material so they had to make fun of Disney very bad.

It's about time someone made fun of Disney! For the most part, their stuff is so cliched and so formula-ic, yet it's such a part of our culture, that it's a tremendous source of satire and parody.

But, I think my earlier post was largely misread. I wasn't dissing Bug's Life, and I wasn't saying Shrek was superior to the Pixar stuff. I was simply questioning the use of "pastel" in describing Shrek. "Pastel" is a kind of color - color style, and I would not use "pastel" to describe the colors in Shrek. I would use it- and have used it - to described the colors in Bugs Life, especially the color of the ants.

I think Pixar rocks! I was unsure of Monsters, Inc when I first saw it in theaters, but I have found a new appreciation for it after viewing it again on DVD. Both Toy Storys are awesome and amazing, Bugs Life is my least favorite Pixar film, but I found myself watching the second half of it when it was on TV awhile ago, so it's still a pretty neat film.

But I also liked Shrek, it made fun of something that badly needed to be made fun of, with all the crude humor that is the antithesis of that soure material.

Ice Age was decent too.

In fact, I really like this trend of non-Disney companies putting out animated films... successful ones at that! We need more animated films that are from different companies with different styles and views.

And doesn't Pixar look like a fun place to work? Too bad I have no desire to put my computer animation degree to good use...

- R -

 

[GWGumby]

Originally posted by Rufus
Ice Age was decent too.

This is not a direct strike at you, Rufus, but how can anyone think Ice Age was a good movie?

Obviously a lot since it did quite well at the box office, but I just don't get it. I am all for non-Disney animated movies succeeding whether CGI or traditionally animated or claymation, (Go Aardman!) but I'm also for *good* films with original or at least creative stories.

The whole time while I was watching "Ice Age" I kept going, "Hmm, a big creature who wants to be left alone gets befriended against his will by an annoying wise-craking smaller creature. Where have I seen that before?" (stolen from Shrek ) "Hmm, two creatures suddenly find themselves responsible for caring for a child and returning it to its home. Where have I seen that before?" (stolen from Monster's Inc.)

In fact there were many more instances where ideas and plot points were stolen almost directly from very recent animated and other projects. I'm very skeptical that any could be explained away as parodies or homages but rather as pure rip-offs. It upsets me that Ice Age made as much money as it did recycling other people's movies.

 

[GWGumby]

Nemo

Despite my previous post and this next one, I really do prefer to be upbeat about most things.

However, did anyone who saw the teaster trailer for the next Pixar film, "Finding Nemo" on the DVD (and possibly video) wonder if they may have finally dropped the ball on this one? There was some typical Pixar humor here and there but ultimately it didn't make me want to see the movie. Definitely not in the way Monster's Inc did.

 

[Drtooth]

My opinion..

Shrek: I loved it. I thought it hAd a lot of laughs. However, it REALLY deviated from the original book. I have read it. Other than the fact he was a friendly Ogre shutting people out, ran around with a donkey, and fell in love with a female Ogre, it was a totally different story. And I did like how it made fun of Disney.

Monsters Inc. DVD: I REALLY want a DVD player (though, since I will have the video, it will have to be down the line of ones I'd purchase behind Fraggle Rock{if it ever gets made} A Hard Days Night, and a couple of old shows released only to DVD). However, I don't have any money, so I'll try to get one asap.

Ice Age: I liked it becasue it was so funny, and I think the whole thing was worth it for the squirrel alone.

CGI Animated Movies: They tend to vary. I think Pixar isthe head of the field, while the other studios are strugling to be heard.

Let me put it this way. Pixar is like to CGI animation what Muppets are to Puppetry. Muppets are the highest respected Puppetry firm out there, while other ones who are about as good struggle to make a name for themselves, but still do a pretty decent job.

Besides the worst one, hands down is Jimmy Neutron!

 

[GWGumby]

Originally posted by Drtooth
My opinion..
Besides the worst one, hands down is Jimmy Neutron!

Interesting. From the previews, I would have agreed with you. Jimmy Neutron looked awful. There were lip-synch and even rendering problems that made me wonder if the CGI revolution had indeed ended and now we were getting Direct-To-Video crap somehow ending up in theaters. And how on earth did it earn an Oscar nomination?!

However, that was before seeing the movie. After seeing it, I thought it was a nice movie. Definitely not in the realm of classics that any Pixar film or Shrek fall under. I still don't think it deserved an Oscar nod. However, I found the film fun and original enough that I enjoyed it. One difference is that Jimmy Neutron was definitely made for more of a Nickelodeon audience whereas Shrek and most Pixar films are made for a much wider age of viewers.

 

[Drtooth]

I still stand by my word. Jimmy Neutron was lousy animation because it was a saturday morning cartoon. I'm sure if they made the show Donkey Kong Country into a theatrical movie, They'd nominate it too!

Basically it was made into a movie to preview Nickelodian's new show (taking Invader Zim's time slot, I still haven't seen him). I rant, because it is a commercial with B-List celebrity guest voices (Patrick Stewart and Martain Short). Plus I am very angry with Nick. First what they did to Ren & Stimpy, then Buying out Noggin, and buying the rights to rerun Pinky and the Brain, and using it only for a month! AT least I like Spongebob cartoons...I don't know what that says about me!