|
Egbert Souse posted:Perfect double feature: Hot Fuzz and Zootopia Alternatively: Kindergarten Cop 2
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
Kubo was dope. Very Zack Snyder-y, collage-like take on pretty much the same themes as a lot of films from this year, particularly Sausage Party, although obviously much more successful. Overall, I'd say it's the best animated feature I've seen in a slow year - but it's no bad shakes at all. Few films this year can attest to portraying an authentic sexual tension between a black beetle and a snow monkey.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:"And racism is also a problem, so be like Kung Fu Panda -- be white, black, asian -- and cut the balls!" It's funny, because Kung Fu Panda could easily take place in the same exact diegesis as Zootopia. Kubo, on the other hand, is more like James and the Giant Peach meets Hercules. The bottom-line is that the film is aggressively sarcastic - it is constantly making reference to its own diminutiveness against 'blind' forces, but as a misdirection from what really is its protagonists' emphatic reinvestment in a reactionary, conservative order. The film makes explicit reference to Peter Pan and the motif of the audience participating in reviving Tinkerbell. But there's also this subversive obsession with the gaze, with spiritual and social rituals conformed to a 'benign myth' but ultimately performed for an audience who needs must exist to legitimize this. Culture and race constructs enter into this as well - effectively, the father and the mother are both killed are replaced by ethnically neutral, demigod entities; and Kubo's grandfather looks like Peter Cushing. The story basically becomes about Kubo rescuing the memory of his family from this 'degeneration.' It's a darker, more egocentric version of exactly what happens in The Tale of the Princess Kaguya.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Disney canon isn't chronological and linear, it's more like a centralized web, where the magic castle at Disneyland serves as a kind of stargate. I'm not even bullshitting, the magic castle is incorporated diegetically into the opening of a lot of Disney movies, now. Heck, even the new Jungle Book explicitly takes place in Disney's Animal Kingdom. edit: And now that Star Wars is canon, you can officially say that all Disney movies take place long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Shadow Hog posted:Zootopia 2 has an after credits sequence with Thanos I mean, it might as well have! It doesn't even need to be that extreme. The Disney Cinematic Universe could very plausibly begin with a Zootopia-Wreck-It Ralph crossover.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Oh, hey, finally a Tom and Jerry cartoon made after 1952 which isn't mediocre: http://www.myvideo.az/v/1862337 If you, like me, consider suicide gags to be the highest form of classic animation comedy, Downhearted Duckling is pretty much just a 6 1/2 minute running suicide gag. K. Waste fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Don't Tell Mom was awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Kubo is very strong thematically, it's just that its conclusion is necessarily provocative rather than comforting. The point is that the plucky boy hero replaces his imperfect family with 'paper dolls,' but unlike James & the Giant Peach, there's very little attempt at sublimation.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
It looks like a puppet from a Team America sequel.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
DrakePegasus posted:I think Maleficient would be a perfectly fine, forgettable movie if the VERY LAST LINE of the movie didn't stick out as such a contradiction to its own central theme that I wrote too many words about it once to ever forget. Well, the central theme of Maleficent is just that it's a beat-for-beat remake of Sleeping Beauty with the paradigmatic fairy tale roles reversed. Making Beauty literally the mouthpiece of this narrative does not conform to the hyperrealism of Disney's modernized fairy tale, which perpetually assumes this 'objective,' paternalistic distance from the subjective of the protagonist. This is punctuated by the update of "Once Upon a Dream" during the end credits - it infuses the ending with melancholy and foreboding uncertainty rather than embrace. It's very much in the mold of Gus Van Sant's Psycho, but by way of James Cameron's Avatar, where the alien Queen is made the hero.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Antz is dope.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Drifter posted:I don't know, dude. She's deffo got a snout. The difference of conventional 'attractiveness' between the males and female anthropomorphs is pretty much just a mirror of what already exists in screen culture. There really is no way to realize Max Goof as a mask on an actual human without it being a hideous monster. And it's not like all of the female anthropomorphs don't share this quality, it's just that the most narratively 'important' ones are portrayed as more conventionally attractive, whereas men conveniently are exempt from this requirement, and indeed get to have a whole movie devoted to their weird, Oedipal body issues.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
I'm actually confident that the exact opposite would be the case: If Zootopia were by a 'no-name studio,' whatever that is, it would not actually appear to be that much of an improvement over Home and Madagascar 3 and Kung Fu Panda 3. On the other hand, folks would be more critical of it in the same way they're critical of Kubo. All of the residual goodwill would just funnel to Moana.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Haledjian posted:There's a not a lot of studios who could bring to bear the kind of resources it took to make that movie, so it's a bit of a moot point I think. That's the thing. There already was a 'no name' studio version of Zootopia, it was called Cats Don't Dance.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Warners Brothers and Turner Entertainment are no-name studios now? Yes. Relative to Disney/Pixar. Notice that nobody remembers CDD in the context of Turner Entertainment, but people will inevitably associate Z with a studio that technically had nothing to do with it. Z couldn't possibly be getting more acclaim, because Disney made it. But CDD only came to positive mainstream appraisal - without ceremony - through television programming, cultivating an unintentional cult following. The difference is that the 'name brand matters less' cross-media cult film is modeled after classic Hollywood musicals, where as Zootopia features Shakira.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
Gazelle is a villain. She behaves in exactly the same way as all the villains of Zootopia - outward platitudes of equality, really just advancing social Darwinism.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Haledjian posted:Her using tigers as stage props is pretty problematic tbqh Not really. That's just the Iggy Azalea meme, that she's appropriating predator culture, that she doesn't understand its authentic roots, etc. In reality, all of those dancers are paid very well, their families are very happy for them, they are privately parleying their own newfound privileges onto either their own 'personal endeavors' or 'giving back to the community,' whatever. There is functionally no difference between what Iggy Azalea does and what Shakira and Rihanna do. The problem is not the superficial content of Gazelle's pop music. The problem is the hegemony of capitalism. Samuel Clemens posted:That would still ignore the scene where Jiro's co-workers laugh in his face when he calls Japan a modern state or the fact that one of the most sympathetic characters is in hiding because he's Jewish and knows the Japanese government would sell him out to the Nazis. The Wind Rises has no love for a national mythos that shows Japan as victim of Western meddling, but it does have plenty of sympathy for the people suffering due to the madness of their leaders. Right. The film is merely honest about how Jiro's very personification before us has become just as 'protected' in a mythological sense as his literal job was in a political sense. It's very melancholy (like most of Miyazaki's films) about this premise that it is only as a ghost that humans can work 'for all mankind.'
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Deuxtopia
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Zootopia 2: Elephant Boogaloo
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
Back 2 Zootopia
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
Double feature: Zootopia and Fritz the Cat
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Heil Furry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDUks0pqMG0
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Osamu Tezuka's Broken Down Film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVBFRAYaZ1Y
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
He's the 'bad apple' who stands in for everything the mice fear about themselves. You see the same paradigm at work in An American Tail with Warren T. Rat, though the ethnic- and historical-coding in that film is more explicit.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
I'm unexpectedly getting that Beauty and the Beast live-action remake from Netflix tomorrow, so I guess that means because I like to torture myself that I have to watch all three of the direct-to-video sequels to the original. It is rather amusing that all of them seem to function as 'side-quels' to the original, because hardy-fuckin'-har, no child wants to actually see the movie where Belle lives a boring-rear end life with The Prince Formerly Known as Beast. Which makes me realize that there really is only one twist that the live action remake could spring, that I'm almost certain they won't do.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:They could pull a Shrek and have Belle turn into a beast at the end as well That's the rub, though, isn't it? Like, in the post-Shrek world, any straight Beauty & the Beast story just sounds gross. And I'm not even that big a proponent of Shrek, but, you know, its vulgarity and 'anti-Disney' partisanship is thoroughly consistent and remarkably compelling. Ostensibly the message of Renaissance Disney is that "true beauty is within," but watching it today, the experience for me is provocative of precisely the opposite: Like, "No, gently caress you, the cruel prince got exactly what he deserved, the Beast is the 'real him' (as the side-quels make abundantly apparent), and all this stuff about 'inner beauty' is obfuscation."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
Renoistic posted:Isn't the whole point that Beast is a big jerk who gets better? She doesn't fall for him until he shapes up. Correction: Belle falls for him in the process of reforming him. There is no getting around the romantic angle of the film's many musical sequences. Belle begins reading a book that she loves in particular, all about an anonymous every-girl who doesn't recognize the prince in disguise, which foreshadows her inevitable falling for some petulant, aristocratic bachelor. Like, in terms of what Timeless Appeal posts, it's not just Beast's gaze which clarifies that he's still 'really' the man she fell in love with, but particularly his 'beastly' eyebrows. Once this image is internalized, the reaction is automatic and wordless. Everything plays out exactly as you would expect it to, snowballing into highly choreographed, ornamental pageantry.  The nuance here is all in the projection into Belle's gaze - because she is the one being swept up into the sublime elation that, "Oh, thank God, I don't need to kiss a dog-man." But she is allowed this subtle feature signifying his 'dark past,' which is inextricable from what it would mean to grow fond of and love a being that was notorious for cruelty. It's part of the romance, which actually has undergone remarkably little change. It's just that the naïveté of the protagonist is changed from fawning loyalty to her father, to unremarkable escapism into fairy tales. Meanwhile, everybody sings about how she's simultaneously 'peculiar,' but also irrevocably desirable. Belle's musings beyond provincial life are left constantly vague and tinged by this Judeo-Christian image of white sheep drawn towards her as she herself 'pours over' (like the water behind her) a projection of another naive, unremarkable yet irresistible maiden. Pick posted:Also that she always treats him like a man, and holds him responsible as such. She never lets his being a beast be an excuse, because she does not see him as a beast. No, Belle definitely sees him as a Beast - she is explicitly not being given a choice. The relationship is coerced, she is merely accepting, as all of her antecedents have, the premise implicitly because it rescues her father. Belle is not merely 'seeing a man' - her dreams are becoming manifest, in a manner which is foreshadowed explicitly in "Belle," but which she nonetheless does not anticipate because the whole point of the fairy tale is that she just treats the guy with compassion like a model Christian, and then is surprised to discover that while he is cruel, he is also paradoxically the key to the actualization of these aspirational class fantasies. Macaluso posted:Plus if anyone is a beast it's the loving evil witch that punished a literal child to a cursed life as a monster as well as punishing all the servants that lived in the castle as well. It's like of loving course the Beast is such a poo poo when Belle first meets him, he was turned into a monster as a child and had basically accepted that he was never going to be transformed back. Meanwhile the evil witch that apparently goes door to door cursing naughty children was clearly capable of magic and didn't actually need to stay in the castle in the first place. The witch did not force Beast to imprison some peasant girl.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
Shadow Hog posted:All this discussion is now making me wonder what Kid!Beast was like. Assuming, of course, the change happened that long ago. (Certainly long enough for the French to somehow completely forget they had a prince that had been turned into a furry. Wikipedia says ten years, but I don't remember if the film ever makes that explicit.) The narrator says in the opening that the spell will either be broken or sealed when Beast is 21. The stain-glass panels seem to imply that the curse is cast upon him when he's relatively young, perhaps not even 12 or 13.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Jesus, that witch needs to tone it down. She's at a 27 and needs to be at more of a 3. In Villeneuve's original novel, the fairy is actually the prince's caregiver while his father is dead and his mom is busy waging wars to defend his birthright. She turns him into the Beast when she tries to seduce him and he refuses.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Pick posted:I've posted before about the timeline wackery in BatB. I personally discount the sequel and contend that Beast was cursed at around 20 (the age he clearly is in his portrait) and is about 30 when he meets Belle, and this isn't that weird as an age-gap relationship because Beast years are essentially "lost time". Otherwise, Chip makes no sense, he'd have had to have been conceived as a cup and that's really fuckin weird. Also the dog would probably be dead. In terms of verisimilitude, it makes no sense, but it's consistent within the naive framework of the story that Belle and Beast are both adults as well as children. We are told explicitly that the spell will be broken or sealed in his 21st year, yet there are clearly remnants of a character who was or was close to that age. Rather then discounting the scenario portrayed in the sequel (which isn't consistent with the portrait, but is consistent with the frame-narrative), one is forced to accept them as equally true. The portrait is enchanted, or some bullshit, mocking Beast, which is why he tears at it. Its significance in the opening and later when Belle discovers it is metaphoric, not literal. edit: Every time you see something like that, an enchantress did it. K. Waste fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
To me, that's not a bug, it's a feature. The subtly revolting qualities of the animation in Bluth's films is made all the more provocative because of how reactionary his films tend to be. His works - especially his early ones - have a phantasmagoric quality that (seemingly on a conscious level) harkens back to the Disney golden age.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:It depends on the film. When you get to Anastasia, it can often be off-putting. In general I don't think the Disney Renaissance's clean colors, full animation, and more exaggerated human characters has necessarily aged well. There is a lot in Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin that frankly looks like good TV animation instead of breathtaking spectacle. Prince Ali is a good example of a musical number that just isn't as impressive looking as I remember. Whereas the big numbers in All Dogs Go to Heaven or the finale to Land Before Time hit the same punches they did for me as a kid. By "golden age" I meant stuff like Bambi, Fantasia, Pinocchio - you know, the ones where really horrific/surreal poo poo happens. Bluth's aesthetics is just the wedding of classic Disney hyperrealism to modern scandal and obscenity. He's like Ralph Bakshi with a Protestant work ethic and no satire.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Now I just want to make an actually good rock-dog movie and name it after Nazareth's "Hair of the Dog": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCDhZpw8CSM
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Avshalom posted:i want to gently caress cartoon animals Then I have bad news.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:They acknowledged the movie that teaches us how our problems are ultimately caused by conspiracies. Maybe Crash was actually really good and we're all just being too cynical.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
hot dog!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:To this day everyone I know tells me that it's this deep, incredibly moving movie that unironically drives them to tears and while I can't disagree that it feels like that to them, I just don't see it or feel it. I agree, to the extent that the idea that Inside Out is 'deep' is in disservice to appreciating what it does have going on in its favor. I mean, it's called "inside out," implying an inversion of perception, not in the revelation of depth but exuberance of surface. To get the most out of it you have to read as a kiddie version of eXistenZ or Broadcast News, where these seemingly microcosmic emotions are actually looking in upon the hyperreal fantasy of a Pixar movie.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:I thought Inside Out was a cool movie that can help kids learn to deal with feelings All animated films are about helping kids deal with their feelings: Wreck-It Ralph, Frozen, Zootopia, Beauty & the Beast, Prince of Egypt, Shrek, Finding Nemo, characters learning to deal with their feelings is supremely generic. Inside Out features characters attempting to deal with their feelings as part of the generic conflict between its characters. The story is about attempting to write the perfect coming-of-age story.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
starkebn posted:Still a fun and cool movie I agree, it's probably the best film Pixar has ever produced.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
Fangz posted:I don't love Inside Out but I do like how dorky and uncool it is. The best part is where Abstract Thought is utilized in much the same way as the image of the factory in Modern Times. This degenerating engine of all consciousness not only threatens to destroy Joy, but also Sadness, evoking total alienation from social life and the perceived essence of humanity.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 00:55
|
|