Also Dreamworks have a wider audience if your idea of mature writing is poop jokes and pop culture references.

Dreamworks basically wouldn't know subtlety if it walked up and shat in their mouths.

To be fair, they've been getting better about making more self-contained narratives that don't totally suck balls.

Still doesn't hold a candle to Pixar though.

I will defend Pixar to the death. My heartwarming, well-animated death.

Same here. Maybe I'm a fanboy but everything they do is just golden. I actually cried at the end up Toy Story 3, and Wall-E made me feel feelings I've never felt during a movie.

With the exception of Cars right?

Fuck Cars. I know I'm repeating myself, so I'll shut up about that now.

But yeah, Brave. Why don't you think it looks very good?

I think part of it is I'm just tired of CG animation in general. Everything since Rango looks like more of the same old shit.
The other thing is, based on what I know about "Brave", it's a story about a girl living in a man's world and she overcomes. I hate those kind of stories. Not because I'm anti-feminist or anything like that, it's just they're almost always a recipe for a poor narrative.

I just saw Requiem for a Dream for the first time. Freaky movie, definitely quite the downer. Now I feel all sad.

To be fair, they are getting better at that. There were quite a few moments in How To Train Your Dragon that came completely out of left field. The boob-helmets come to mind.

Megamind was also pretty good in that regard.



Am I the only person on the planet who liked Cars?

I haven't seen it, I've just heard it's "Eh".

Thankyou for not answering my question in any way, shape, or form.

Oh.

No, you aren't. It's got a pretty big fanbase, both adults and kids. Reviews were pretty solid for it too. From what I understand it's good, just not as good as certain other Pixar films.

EDIT: Just found this... the hell Pixar?

You're not expecting the guy in the 6300$ suit not to read the article are you? COME ON!

I liked it, thought they did a good job of making a significantly more blandly kid-focused movie into something that adults wouldn't hate. I enjoyed the various townsfolk in Radiator Springs the most. I'll occasionally watch some of it if it's on the movie channels.

I saw Cars 2 and loathed it, though. It's just two hours of Larry the Cable Guy Man squealing in your ear.

I read the article, it's just that this doesn't seem like something Pixar would attack their name to. I bet it's gonna be bad.

I didn't mind Cars at all.

But I'm still kind of weirded out by the lack of people.

Question, do you like entirely CG films like Wall-E/Rango compared to ones that do a mix like Harry Potter / Men in Black? I watched Men in Black 2 and to me, the CGI blended seamlessly with the story. Obviously it isn't true for all films, but for a few films it can blend to create something really great. I'm specifically thinking of District 9 and The Avengers.

Have fun thinking of action movies that don't blend CGI in nowdays.

Cars 2 is the only Pixar film that I never bothered taking Abbey to see. The first one was kind of dumb, and the second looked really, unbelievably fucking dumb.

I think they're supposed to be spies or something. I don't know, I haven't seen it. It does look stupid.

Cars was a lot better than Cars 2. The spy thing is tacked on and you get more goofy Mater antics than you could ever want or need.

You know that Stephen King story "Christine" about the sentient car that kills people?
Imagine that on a global scale. Sure, the Cars characters are cute, but they don't discuss their dark history and the unspeakable things they have done to ascend to the status of master race.


I didn't like Wall-E. Well, that's not entirely true. I loved the first half of Wall-E. The second half had so many story problems and, like UP, became far too cartoony and absurd for me. I could rant about it, but I won't.

I loved Rango. I could gush about it, but I won't.

As for modern films, I think some CGI is necessary, but I'm still a huge fan of more traditional special FX and I admire the directors that use them whenever possible. The Men in Black films are a good example. They only used CG when the aliens had to do something they simply couldn't do otherwise. The rest of the time it was Rick Baker's magnificent puppets, bodysuits, and make-up that stole the show.

What I don't like are movies that have computer-generated sets. Not only does it very noticeably limit the actors' performances, but I always notice it and it feels cheap and silly. Alice in Wonderland and the Star Wars prequels are good examples of what I'm talking about. When you film your entire movie on a chroma key stage, it's going to suck by default.

But it opens us up to such incredible cinematography, such as

• walking down a corridor
• sitting on a couch
• shot-reverse-shot

I actually don't mind it when it's used in a way that's necessary. Like if there's impossible things happening in the background, like a meteor crashing, or a giant alien battle. When they use it as a cheap replacement for something that could have actually been built as a set, then I get annoyed.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dH6zd98HBf...Wonderland.jpg

And yes, I've seen the Plinkett reviews about a million times. Love that guy.

All this talk of Pixar made me go back and rewatch Monsters, Inc. I love that movie.

Also saw Rattatouille for the first time, thought it was great as well.

Yeah, monsters inc. Is great, the only Pixar film that scared me.

I didn't like that film. I tended to side with the characters who didn't want a filthy rat cooking their food.

The original Toy Story and A Bug's Life both scared the piss out of me when I was little. Something about giant birds and mutilated toys just disturbed me.

I was fine with Monsters Inc. though because it was very comedic.

Apparently the animators/artists/magicians at Pixar attended a 6 month long cooking class to really get delicious looking food on the screen for Ratatouille. The dish itself is also quite good.

I read a lengthy article about how they had to find the perfect balance between making the food in the movie look cartoony, but also appetizing. CG food up until that point often looked waxy and unappetizing, so they really pulled out all the stops on that one.

If we're talking about animated food, I think Crabby Patties look amazing.

I was specifically talking about CG, since you know... we were discussing Pixar.

:I

A reveal trailer for Wreck-It Ralph was released. I think it looks great and can't wait to see it.

Food in CG movies and games is always tough. Can't remember a videogame where food looked nice and edible.

Just got back from Men in Black 3. Good nostalgia factor and a pretty solid ending. Time travel is always fun to play around with.

Just saw Prometheus, I really loved it. They did ruin some stuff in the trailers, but the scenes still had an impact when I saw them in the movie.

I also watched Prometheus last night. You can parse it into two bits:

David and scenes focusing on him
The rest of the movie

The former was extremely good, the latter was sort of terrible.

I have just seen Dazed and Confused. I enjoyed it.

I noticed on another forum, a lot of people didn't like it because they just couldn't get it. Seriously. Things that seemed plain as day to me just eluded them. I will agree that David is the best part of the movie, but I still loved the rest.