In recent years, I've come to recognize how much of a negative influence critics like Adam Johnston (YourMovieSucksDotOrg) and Alex Horton (I Hate Everything) has had on alot of people on YouTube. Many YouTube reviewers tend to be so negative and cynical, that it makes it a chore to sit through their long winded rants about whatever movie they thought sucked. Schaffrillas Productions (real name James) is one such individual.
I first came across his channel with his video on Disney "twist villains," which I found myself confused by the end of it. His problem with all the recent Disney villains just amounts to "their motivations don't make sense." The following bullet points contain spoilers for Frozen, Big Hero 6, Zootopia, Coco, and Incredibles 2. If you haven't seen these movies, I recommend you do before continuing forward.
*Hans had 12 brothers and wanted to be king so bad, he was willing to lie, cheat and murder his way to the top.
*Callahan's daughter got sucked into an alternate dimension and he thought she was dead. Need I say more?
*Bellwether (as pointed out brilliantly by Giacomo Bianchi in the comments of the video) wanted to control the citizens using fear and hate. You know, the usual thing evil politicians do.
*Ernesto wanted to persevere his legacy, even if it's built on lies and murder. 'Cause hey, being famous is fun, even in the afterlife.
*Evelyn was trying to sabotage her brother's attempt to bring superheroes back because she blamed them (specifically the belief in them from people like her father) for her parents death. She's the embodiment of cynicism in a film directed and written by optimist Brad Bird.
Suffice to say, the recent trend of "twist villains" in Disney films is just an example of how times have changes and as such how we view our heroes and villains has also changed. Something that was either overlooked by James or completely ignored. Either way, the video wasn't my cup of tea.
What I also don't like about his channel are his reviews. He frequently uses the term "painfully average" which isn't a bad description for a film or tv show that falls short of its exciting premise. But the problem is he uses it to describe movies that, upon watching them for myself, are far superior than what he described. Opinions are opinions of course, but he made Incredibles 2, Captain Marvel and Ralph Breaks The Internet look bad by describing character development and bonding as "boring," surprising reveals and turns as "lazy," and characters doing bad things they're rightfully called out for in the film "a-holes." I don't bother with his "Why X is a Cinematic Disaster" videos as I don't have the time or patience to listen to him rag on for half an hour on why a film from a decade ago is a "cinematic disaster" (they are not, btw: they're just movies).
The most baffling video he has made though, is his video about Claude Frollo from Disney Hunchback Of Notre Dame and why he's "too evil." He goes on about how the stage play humanizes the character but I'm just like, he was already a humanized character. He's a judge who has a prejudice against gypsies yet he lusts after Esmeralda. He raised Quasimodo to resent gypsies as much as he, yet he can't stop thinking about one particular gypsy. Frollo is a hypocrite, but he's also one of Disney best villains because he's relatable, ruthless and prideful, yet he sees himself as in the right. James makes Frollo look like Dio from JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, a relentless psychopath with no redeeming qualities and takes forever before he gets his comeuppance.
Credit where credit is due, his more positive videos are well thought out and insightful. I particularly like hi Megamind video and how he celebrates it as an underrated gem.
Overall though, I'm just not a fan of Schaffrillas Productions due to him being cynical and sometime unnecessarily harsh. It's find if you like him, but I much prefer YouTubers who are optimistic, yet fair and constructive with their criticisms.
Sunday, December 29, 2019
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
Why I stopped watching Ben 10
I remember really liking Ben 10 when it first aired. At the time it was my favorite Cartoon Network show. It's one of those shows in which the execution is just as good (or otherwise better) than it's concept. This is due to its strong writing, amazing animation, likable characters and great vocal performances. Ben 10 was indeed a good show...until it was brought back as Ben 10: Alien Force. Now, Alien Force wasn't bad, but it I never got into it the same way I did with the original series. I felt the same way about Ultimate Alien, Omniverse and I couldn't even bring myself to watch the 2 steps back reboot. For the longest time, I thought it was the network's fault for milking this franchise. Once I laid that childish mentality behind me, I realized the problem was more understandable than that. I wasn't into the subsequent series because they just weren't for me. I like the original concept of a kid being able to turn into 10 different aliens and fight bad guys all summer as opposed to a teenager. I wasn't interested in Ben becoming a teenager unless he was still a kid at heart; but he wasn't. As for the reboot, again, it looked like it was taking 2 steps backwards. Maybe kids today are getting some entertainment value out of the reboot, but I wasn't impressed with the clips I saw nor was I interested in watching it. Quality wise, Alien Force and Ultimate Alien have nice animation, the voice work is pretty good and I like the new aliens. The same can't be said about Omniverse though, because I'm not a fan of the redesigned characters. You already know how I feel about the reboot, but the point is I stopped watching because I felt the magic of the original series was lost in the subsequent series. If you enjoy them, that's perfectly fine, I just prefer the original.
Saturday, December 7, 2019
My 2010s Retrospective: The Rough 10 years
The 2010s was a mixed bag when it comes to how things panned out in my life. High school wasn't that great (then again, there are very few people in this wotld who can say that it was), college was a slog, I've been in and out of churches before sticking to the one in Uncasville in 2013, and the things I wanted to do before this decade was out ended up never happening. Write a book? Didn't happen. Start a movement to drop suicide rates to 0? Didn't happen. Get a girlfriend in high school? Didn't happen. Get my license and a car? Didn't happen. The only thing I did plan that did happen was getting a job; a volunteer job, but it's still a job. But hey, at least I was healthy...until after high school. Now I'm just about 20 pounds shy of being 300lbs. Also, my eldest cat died in 2016, I've engaged in sexual activities with older men (yeah the less said about that the better), I was conned by some punk on Care.com, and I was in a car accident with my uncle in 2016. But enough about me, let's talk how after years of wishing it would never happen (even having a nightmare about it) my parents split. Yeah, alot of it was he said/she said, but the gist of it is out of the blue in 2018 my Mom decide it was best to leave Dad. I wrote a series of poems detailing my grieving process for the past year (all can be found on my Booksie profile here: https://www.booksie.com/users/benjaminfenty-157553) but to give you a general idea of how I felt, I was just one slit wrist away from going to Heaven. Yeah, I can definitely say that was my lowest point. But it's not all doom and gloom. I went to Indiana in 2017, got to meet my long lost cousin, my eldest sister gave birth to her first child this year, I graduated high school, I'm becoming more spiritual thanks to the church I'm going to, I was baptized in 2014, made a bunch of new friends and even got a dog and 3 new cats. And hey, what do you know? I'm still alive after several close encounters with death these past 10 years. I think the best I can say about this decade is that I'm smarter now than I was at the start. So, what are my hopes for the 2020s? Honestly, these are more naive wishes than hopes but: my parents reconciling, getting published, using the royalties to build my own animation studio, get a girlfriend, get married, have a kid, have another kid, and going to Paris. So, yeah, that's been my life for the past 10 years. The optimist in me wants to believe the hard part is over, but I know life is not designed to be that easy. If it was, it'd be a Disney movie.
Thursday, November 21, 2019
In Defense of Jon Favreau's The Lion King
Disney has been on a role with it's recent trend of live action remakes of their animated films. While not so much critically, finacially speaking they're some of the companies most successful films outside of Marvel and Lucasfilm. The Lion King though is an interesting example of because aside from one shot, the entire movie is completely animated with photorealistic CGI. This has had many people questioning it's purpose for existing if the original was already animated. In this post, I'd like to explain what separates this film from the original animated masterpiece and why it's a solid film in it's own right.
While it's easy to point the finger at the financial success of these live action remakes, the actual teason for this film's existence is far more telling. After The Jungle Book (2016) was given positive feedback for the visual effects on the animals, Jon Favreau pondered the idea of an entire feature film using the same photo realistic technology. He's not the first man to pitch such an ambitious concept to Disney (as they have films such as Dinosaur and A Christmas Carol in their library), but the goal with this film was what convinced Disney to give it the greenlight. The goal of Jon Favreau's The Lion King was not to outshine the original, but to set a new standard for the use of photo realistic CGI in a feature film. Yes, this is an animated film, but it's how it utilizes the medium that sets it apart from any other animated film made today.
But why The Lion King as opposed to a book or comic that also has a strong absence of humans? Well, this is because Jon Favreau was a fan of the original film as well as the Broadway show and he wanted to honor both of them. This is why he brought back Hans Zimmer, Lebo M, Elton John and Tim Rice to compose the music as opposed to getting someone else. He also brought James Earl Jones back to reprise his role as Mufasa and Shahdai Wright Joseph as the voice of Nala as a cub (like she did in the Broadway show). That said though, he still brought in new voices for his version, such as Chiwetel Ejiofor as Scar, JD McCrary and Donald Glover as Simba, Beyonce as adult Nala, and many more. In addition to using the old songs, the film incorporates a new song from Beyonce called Spirit, which plays as Simba is returning to the Pride Lands. There's also a new song from Elton John that plays during the credits called Never Too Late, which perfect captures the arc Simba goes through. All that's well and good, but how's the plot and characters? Well, in my opinion, both are handled really well.
It's understandable why people were disappointed that this film recreated some of the best moments from the original film as opposed to doing something new. That said, it does have plent of new material that make it stand on it's own. Scar is given more of an edge (similar to Shere Khan in the 2016 Jungle Book), Shenzi has a more prominent role, as does Sarabi, Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan bring their own personal improve to Timon and Pumba, the oasis they reside in feels more lived in, and thanks to the amazing technology, this film captures the beauty of the African Savannah in the style of a nature documentary instead of a painting (both work great mind you). All that said, I'm glad the film stayed true to the original film's message of growing up and accepting responsibility. I'm glad it still maintained that iconic father and son relationship between Mufasa and Simba, as there would've been something missing if that wasn't in the film. Also, I like how they incorporated the songs into this more grounded take on the film as it found creative ways to enhance the visuals without losing its aesthetic. I especially like how in the "young warthog" segment of Hakuna Matata, not only do we see Pumbaa as a baby warthog (and he's so adorable) but he even sings the word farted, which gave me a good chuckle.
That's not to say it all works as there's a reason why as good as this film is, it was never going to top the original in terms of quality. Because most animals don't have cheek bones, the characters in this film have limited facial expressions. This makes it difficult to understand what their feeling outside of their tone of voice and their actions. The song Be Prepared is more of a chant this time around, which I understand, but it doesn't quite leave the same impact as the other songs in the film. Lastly, the climax is adequate, if not a bit underwhelming because you can't clearly tell who's fighting who; not even Jon Favreau himself could tell as seen in the commentary on the Blu-Ray.
Overall, I get why many prople disliked Jon Favreau's The Lion King. It's got it's fair share of problems, but overall is still a good watch. Something that has always rubbed be the wrong way is when people claim this undermines the hard work and talent of the original. I do not believe this to be true at all as not only do the filmmakers of the original film get credit for the film, but in the behind the scenes featurettes and in interviews Jon Favreau has had nothing but admiration for the artists who worked on the origin. It was never his goal to make the original inferior, but rather honor it with this new film. Still, you're free to dislike this film and prefer the original, same as I'm free to enjoy this film and give credit where it's due.
While it's easy to point the finger at the financial success of these live action remakes, the actual teason for this film's existence is far more telling. After The Jungle Book (2016) was given positive feedback for the visual effects on the animals, Jon Favreau pondered the idea of an entire feature film using the same photo realistic technology. He's not the first man to pitch such an ambitious concept to Disney (as they have films such as Dinosaur and A Christmas Carol in their library), but the goal with this film was what convinced Disney to give it the greenlight. The goal of Jon Favreau's The Lion King was not to outshine the original, but to set a new standard for the use of photo realistic CGI in a feature film. Yes, this is an animated film, but it's how it utilizes the medium that sets it apart from any other animated film made today.
But why The Lion King as opposed to a book or comic that also has a strong absence of humans? Well, this is because Jon Favreau was a fan of the original film as well as the Broadway show and he wanted to honor both of them. This is why he brought back Hans Zimmer, Lebo M, Elton John and Tim Rice to compose the music as opposed to getting someone else. He also brought James Earl Jones back to reprise his role as Mufasa and Shahdai Wright Joseph as the voice of Nala as a cub (like she did in the Broadway show). That said though, he still brought in new voices for his version, such as Chiwetel Ejiofor as Scar, JD McCrary and Donald Glover as Simba, Beyonce as adult Nala, and many more. In addition to using the old songs, the film incorporates a new song from Beyonce called Spirit, which plays as Simba is returning to the Pride Lands. There's also a new song from Elton John that plays during the credits called Never Too Late, which perfect captures the arc Simba goes through. All that's well and good, but how's the plot and characters? Well, in my opinion, both are handled really well.
It's understandable why people were disappointed that this film recreated some of the best moments from the original film as opposed to doing something new. That said, it does have plent of new material that make it stand on it's own. Scar is given more of an edge (similar to Shere Khan in the 2016 Jungle Book), Shenzi has a more prominent role, as does Sarabi, Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan bring their own personal improve to Timon and Pumba, the oasis they reside in feels more lived in, and thanks to the amazing technology, this film captures the beauty of the African Savannah in the style of a nature documentary instead of a painting (both work great mind you). All that said, I'm glad the film stayed true to the original film's message of growing up and accepting responsibility. I'm glad it still maintained that iconic father and son relationship between Mufasa and Simba, as there would've been something missing if that wasn't in the film. Also, I like how they incorporated the songs into this more grounded take on the film as it found creative ways to enhance the visuals without losing its aesthetic. I especially like how in the "young warthog" segment of Hakuna Matata, not only do we see Pumbaa as a baby warthog (and he's so adorable) but he even sings the word farted, which gave me a good chuckle.
That's not to say it all works as there's a reason why as good as this film is, it was never going to top the original in terms of quality. Because most animals don't have cheek bones, the characters in this film have limited facial expressions. This makes it difficult to understand what their feeling outside of their tone of voice and their actions. The song Be Prepared is more of a chant this time around, which I understand, but it doesn't quite leave the same impact as the other songs in the film. Lastly, the climax is adequate, if not a bit underwhelming because you can't clearly tell who's fighting who; not even Jon Favreau himself could tell as seen in the commentary on the Blu-Ray.
Overall, I get why many prople disliked Jon Favreau's The Lion King. It's got it's fair share of problems, but overall is still a good watch. Something that has always rubbed be the wrong way is when people claim this undermines the hard work and talent of the original. I do not believe this to be true at all as not only do the filmmakers of the original film get credit for the film, but in the behind the scenes featurettes and in interviews Jon Favreau has had nothing but admiration for the artists who worked on the origin. It was never his goal to make the original inferior, but rather honor it with this new film. Still, you're free to dislike this film and prefer the original, same as I'm free to enjoy this film and give credit where it's due.
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
OPINION: Marvel movies ARE cinema
Martin Scorsese said Marvel movies aren't real cinema. This is a shockingly ignorant thing to say, especially from a man whose been in the business for over 56 years. If he had just said he didn't care for them but appreciates the hard work and talent that goes into the making of these films, I'd be perfectly okay with it. Instead, he compared them to theme park rides and said they're invading cinema, leaving little to no room for original and artistic films. This is the kind of thing I expect Adam from YourMovieSucksDotOrg to say, not an Academy Award winning director with so many great films under his belt (Raging Bull, Goodfellas, The Departed, Taxi Driver, just to name a few). I expected better from a man his age because contrary to his ignorance, Marvel movies are just as much cinema as all of his movies. Allow me to explain in the following post.
A cinema's primary function in our society is to show audiences a movie for 90-150 minutes of their time. It has been like that since Day 1 of filmmaking, long before Scorsese was even born. Cinemas today have vastly changed since the early days Hollywood, not just in terms of the movies they show, but also in terms of hospitality. Regal Theaters (or at least the one closest to me) have comfortable seats, great service, plentiful snacks and reasonable showing times. I don't know what it's like in other theater chains, but Regal seems to be doing just fine even in today's entertainment climate. It is true though that people come in droves to see Marvel movies as well as other blockbusters, but to say they're not cinema really undermines the filmmakers behind these films.
Marvel movies (specifically the Marvel Cinematic Universe) have been on a role at the box office since 2008 and it's not just because they're spectacle. If that were the case, the franchise would've lost steam after The Avengers and we would not be here talking about these movies today. Contrary to what people like Scorsese think, the MCU tell great stories with amazing well rounded characters, well handled and topical themes and outstanding performances from the actors involved. These are the same qualities that make any movie great, including Martin Scorsese's. Some of the most revered moments in the MCU aren't always the action set pieces, but are more so the character moments and subtle artistic choice the director's themselves put in. The Shawarma post credit scene, Frigga's funeral, Tony's struggle with anxiety and PTSD, Groot's sacrifice, the entirety of Black Panther, the list goes on. It's moments like these that made the general movie going audience fall in love with these movies and keep coming back for more.
It also should be noted that it's because of big blockbusters like the MCU movies that cinema's are still in business. Not many people know this, but the amount of money a big budget film makes at the box office doesn't just go to the studio that made it. Theaters chains like AMC and Regal gain a third of the total grossing of a film. That means a financially successful year for Marvel is an equally successful year for movie theaters. This is also good news for other film studios that have their films showing around the same time as Marvel films. While they don't always make the same amount of money, they do get more people interested in seeing them then they would when a Marvel (or any blockbuster) film would be playing that month. It also should be worth noting that a film doesn't have to make over hundreds of millions of dollars to be successful. If a film was made for just $50 million, it just needs to make at least $100 million to make it's money back. With films that cost $100 million or more, they need to gross about 3x their budget in order to cover that and marketing. It's always a gamble making a movie that costs tens or hundreds of millions of dollars because at the end of the day nobody knows what everybody wants.
Martin Scorsese's comments regarding Marvel films seem to stem from a bias against big budget movies overshadowing independent works. The thing is though, many of the directors of big budget movies he detests started out working on smaller indie films. James Gunn, Zack Snyder, Scott Derrickson, Shane Black, Taika Wattiti, Ryan Coogler, Patty Jenkins, J.J. Abrams, just to name a few. It's baffling why he would say such an ignorant statement regarding Marvel movies when he could barely sit through them. He could've just said "I don't watch them. I get that they're popular now, but they're not for me" and just leave it at that. Nope, instead he decided to throw talented filmmakers under the bus by calling Marvel movies "not real cinema." I'm not mad, just very disappointed. In conclusion, Mr. Scorsese, if you're reading this (he's not, but let's pretend he is), as talented of a filmmaker you are, you completely dropped the ball with your ignorant and bias comments regarding Marvel movies. Like I always say: Your Opinion Is NOT Law -.-
A cinema's primary function in our society is to show audiences a movie for 90-150 minutes of their time. It has been like that since Day 1 of filmmaking, long before Scorsese was even born. Cinemas today have vastly changed since the early days Hollywood, not just in terms of the movies they show, but also in terms of hospitality. Regal Theaters (or at least the one closest to me) have comfortable seats, great service, plentiful snacks and reasonable showing times. I don't know what it's like in other theater chains, but Regal seems to be doing just fine even in today's entertainment climate. It is true though that people come in droves to see Marvel movies as well as other blockbusters, but to say they're not cinema really undermines the filmmakers behind these films.
Marvel movies (specifically the Marvel Cinematic Universe) have been on a role at the box office since 2008 and it's not just because they're spectacle. If that were the case, the franchise would've lost steam after The Avengers and we would not be here talking about these movies today. Contrary to what people like Scorsese think, the MCU tell great stories with amazing well rounded characters, well handled and topical themes and outstanding performances from the actors involved. These are the same qualities that make any movie great, including Martin Scorsese's. Some of the most revered moments in the MCU aren't always the action set pieces, but are more so the character moments and subtle artistic choice the director's themselves put in. The Shawarma post credit scene, Frigga's funeral, Tony's struggle with anxiety and PTSD, Groot's sacrifice, the entirety of Black Panther, the list goes on. It's moments like these that made the general movie going audience fall in love with these movies and keep coming back for more.
It also should be noted that it's because of big blockbusters like the MCU movies that cinema's are still in business. Not many people know this, but the amount of money a big budget film makes at the box office doesn't just go to the studio that made it. Theaters chains like AMC and Regal gain a third of the total grossing of a film. That means a financially successful year for Marvel is an equally successful year for movie theaters. This is also good news for other film studios that have their films showing around the same time as Marvel films. While they don't always make the same amount of money, they do get more people interested in seeing them then they would when a Marvel (or any blockbuster) film would be playing that month. It also should be worth noting that a film doesn't have to make over hundreds of millions of dollars to be successful. If a film was made for just $50 million, it just needs to make at least $100 million to make it's money back. With films that cost $100 million or more, they need to gross about 3x their budget in order to cover that and marketing. It's always a gamble making a movie that costs tens or hundreds of millions of dollars because at the end of the day nobody knows what everybody wants.
Martin Scorsese's comments regarding Marvel films seem to stem from a bias against big budget movies overshadowing independent works. The thing is though, many of the directors of big budget movies he detests started out working on smaller indie films. James Gunn, Zack Snyder, Scott Derrickson, Shane Black, Taika Wattiti, Ryan Coogler, Patty Jenkins, J.J. Abrams, just to name a few. It's baffling why he would say such an ignorant statement regarding Marvel movies when he could barely sit through them. He could've just said "I don't watch them. I get that they're popular now, but they're not for me" and just leave it at that. Nope, instead he decided to throw talented filmmakers under the bus by calling Marvel movies "not real cinema." I'm not mad, just very disappointed. In conclusion, Mr. Scorsese, if you're reading this (he's not, but let's pretend he is), as talented of a filmmaker you are, you completely dropped the ball with your ignorant and bias comments regarding Marvel movies. Like I always say: Your Opinion Is NOT Law -.-
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
In defense of Pixar
Introduction
For the longest time, Pixar has been the top pioneer animation company thanks to the innovation and creativity of their features. Yet for the past several years, there's been thi as stigma that Pixar lost its touch and it doesn't like taking risks anymore. It also doesn't help that in 2017, John Lasseter, the man who helped shaped what Pixar (and Disney) what it is today, was accused of unwanted hugs and kisses from former employees. I'd like to take the time to address these critisms and why Pixar is still as creative as ever.
Lasseter's Last Days
It's well known at this point about the egregious accusations made against John Lasseter in 2017 during the rise of the #MeToo movement. He was accused of unwarranted hugs and kisses and generally being making a select few former Pixar employees feel uncomfortable. Make no mistake, these accusations are as shocking now as they were when they were in the news, but it's worth noting that these behind the scene drama do not show in the final product of films such as Coco, Incredibles 2 or Toy Story 4 (the last films Pixar released following the controversy). Whether you like these films are not, the quality of these films is still very much Pixar's standard and should be judged as such. I fully understand why people were disappointed in John Lasseter, but please don't throw all the talented artists at Pixar under the bus with him. It helps no one.
The Case For All The Sequels
In the 2010 decade, Pixar had made a total of 8 sequels to their original films. The general consensus is that they're derivative or completely unnecessary and I have to disagree strongly. Pixar's rule for making a sequel to any of their films is if they have an idea for a story that's as good (or better) than the one that came before. Many people give Cars 2 a bad rap because of Mater being the main character as opposed to Lightning McQueen and for being a spy movie in a world full of anthropomorphic cars. Personally though, I think the whole point of a sequel is to be a standalone adventure while also expanding on the world set up by the first film. The same is also true for Monster's University, which I think they made the right call in going with a prequel instead of a sequel. In addition to expanding the monster world, it also showcased how Mike and Sully became best friends. Finding Dory and Incredibles 2 have often been label for being derivative and I think that undermines the merit of directors Andrew Stanton and Brad Bird. To call these films derivative is ignoring the elements of world building, the vlearly improved animation quality, the memorable new characters and the themes each film presents in a unique and amazing way. To call these films derivative is to imply the directors got lazy after and went with the easy route, which is both untrue and really insulting. I get it's all a matter of taste but the crew at Pixar still poured their hearts and souls into the sequels just like they did with the originals.
The Well Is STILL Full
There's been this odd notion that Pixar is running out of original ideas for film. This mindset is false and completely devalues the creativity of the people at Pixar. In addition to the 8 sequels, Pixar also made 4 great original films with their own distinct vision and atmosphere. Brave seems to get a bad rap for beating Wreck-It Ralph for Best Animated Feature at the Oscars. I agree Wreck-It Ralph is a great film, but I feel as though the prize could've been given to either film. Brave was a great coming of age tale that also served as an ode to Scottish culture. I also think this film deserves more credit for depicting a mother/daughter relationship not often seen in animated films. Then there's The Good Dinosaur's underperformance at the box office (making $332.2 million on a budget of $175 million). This had less to do with the quality of the film itself and more to do with it's budget and marketing costs. The film was revised during production with a change in cast and director, and that's not uncommon in the animation (or even film) industry. It is disappointing The Good Dinosaur underperformed, especially when it came out the same year as Inside Out, which was both a critical and financial success. Lastly there's Coco, a film that celebrated Dia de los Muertos and Mexican music. People often compare it to The Book Of Life, which was released in 2014 (3 years prior to Coco). I very much see this as coincidence as director Lee Unkrich pitched the idea for Coco back in 2010, long before Book of Life was even released. Also I think it's great that there's more than one animated film celebrating Dia de los Muertos and Mexican culture: I hope there more where that came from. All that said and done, Pixar actually has a tone of original ideas coming for the foreseeable future, starting with Onward and Soul in 2020. They also have films coming out in 2021 and 2022 and they're all going to be original as they're holding off making sequels for a while.
Conclusion
Overall, the notion that Pixar's quality has been declining this past decade is nothing short of false. Sure, there were mistakes made behind the scene, but Pixar has maintained the same quality in their films as they did when they first started with Toy Story. I look forward to seeing what they have in store for us in the future and how each of their new films will turn out.
For the longest time, Pixar has been the top pioneer animation company thanks to the innovation and creativity of their features. Yet for the past several years, there's been thi as stigma that Pixar lost its touch and it doesn't like taking risks anymore. It also doesn't help that in 2017, John Lasseter, the man who helped shaped what Pixar (and Disney) what it is today, was accused of unwanted hugs and kisses from former employees. I'd like to take the time to address these critisms and why Pixar is still as creative as ever.
Lasseter's Last Days
It's well known at this point about the egregious accusations made against John Lasseter in 2017 during the rise of the #MeToo movement. He was accused of unwarranted hugs and kisses and generally being making a select few former Pixar employees feel uncomfortable. Make no mistake, these accusations are as shocking now as they were when they were in the news, but it's worth noting that these behind the scene drama do not show in the final product of films such as Coco, Incredibles 2 or Toy Story 4 (the last films Pixar released following the controversy). Whether you like these films are not, the quality of these films is still very much Pixar's standard and should be judged as such. I fully understand why people were disappointed in John Lasseter, but please don't throw all the talented artists at Pixar under the bus with him. It helps no one.
The Case For All The Sequels
In the 2010 decade, Pixar had made a total of 8 sequels to their original films. The general consensus is that they're derivative or completely unnecessary and I have to disagree strongly. Pixar's rule for making a sequel to any of their films is if they have an idea for a story that's as good (or better) than the one that came before. Many people give Cars 2 a bad rap because of Mater being the main character as opposed to Lightning McQueen and for being a spy movie in a world full of anthropomorphic cars. Personally though, I think the whole point of a sequel is to be a standalone adventure while also expanding on the world set up by the first film. The same is also true for Monster's University, which I think they made the right call in going with a prequel instead of a sequel. In addition to expanding the monster world, it also showcased how Mike and Sully became best friends. Finding Dory and Incredibles 2 have often been label for being derivative and I think that undermines the merit of directors Andrew Stanton and Brad Bird. To call these films derivative is ignoring the elements of world building, the vlearly improved animation quality, the memorable new characters and the themes each film presents in a unique and amazing way. To call these films derivative is to imply the directors got lazy after and went with the easy route, which is both untrue and really insulting. I get it's all a matter of taste but the crew at Pixar still poured their hearts and souls into the sequels just like they did with the originals.
The Well Is STILL Full
There's been this odd notion that Pixar is running out of original ideas for film. This mindset is false and completely devalues the creativity of the people at Pixar. In addition to the 8 sequels, Pixar also made 4 great original films with their own distinct vision and atmosphere. Brave seems to get a bad rap for beating Wreck-It Ralph for Best Animated Feature at the Oscars. I agree Wreck-It Ralph is a great film, but I feel as though the prize could've been given to either film. Brave was a great coming of age tale that also served as an ode to Scottish culture. I also think this film deserves more credit for depicting a mother/daughter relationship not often seen in animated films. Then there's The Good Dinosaur's underperformance at the box office (making $332.2 million on a budget of $175 million). This had less to do with the quality of the film itself and more to do with it's budget and marketing costs. The film was revised during production with a change in cast and director, and that's not uncommon in the animation (or even film) industry. It is disappointing The Good Dinosaur underperformed, especially when it came out the same year as Inside Out, which was both a critical and financial success. Lastly there's Coco, a film that celebrated Dia de los Muertos and Mexican music. People often compare it to The Book Of Life, which was released in 2014 (3 years prior to Coco). I very much see this as coincidence as director Lee Unkrich pitched the idea for Coco back in 2010, long before Book of Life was even released. Also I think it's great that there's more than one animated film celebrating Dia de los Muertos and Mexican culture: I hope there more where that came from. All that said and done, Pixar actually has a tone of original ideas coming for the foreseeable future, starting with Onward and Soul in 2020. They also have films coming out in 2021 and 2022 and they're all going to be original as they're holding off making sequels for a while.
Conclusion
Overall, the notion that Pixar's quality has been declining this past decade is nothing short of false. Sure, there were mistakes made behind the scene, but Pixar has maintained the same quality in their films as they did when they first started with Toy Story. I look forward to seeing what they have in store for us in the future and how each of their new films will turn out.
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
In Defense of Teen Titans Go!
Of all the animated shows made this decade, Teen Titans Go is arguably the most divisive one of them all. People either really enjoy it or utterly despise it. In either case, people can't stop talking about it. I'm one of those people that thinks the show on it's own is actually pretty good. Not the best animated series on television, but definitely better than it's infamous reputation made it out to be. If I could have a few moments of your time, I'd like to talk about why I like Teen Titans Go despite its polarizing reception.
The first thing that people seemed put off by is it's 180° tonal shift from it's previous incarnation. While the 2003 Teen Titans show had it's silly moments, it was primarily focused on action and character drama. Teen Titans Go, meanwhile, squarely focuses on the comedy. I understand why people were critical towards this direction, but I'd argue TTG handles it's comedy very well. This is a personal taste, but I love slapstick humor and this show has that in spades. I also like how self-aware the show is for being goofy and nonsensical.
Another quality this show has going for it and something that's not often discussed is the voice acting. The talents of Scott Menville, Tara Strong, Greg Cipes, Khary Payton and Hayden Walch are utilized to their fullest potential and then some. In addition to having perfect chemistry with one another, they also breath new life into the characters they previously voiced before. I particularly like how the voice actors have the freedom to be as eccentric and over the top as possible while also selling the more heartfelt moments.
Then of course, there's the animation, which is fitting for the tone this show set. It's simple, yes, but it's very loose and fluid, not to mention bright and lively. Some of the best moments of the animation are the action scenes as well as during the musical segments. I particularly like the episodes where they change up the style of animation, such as the one with puppets or the most well received episode 40% 40% 20%.
Lastly, there are the characters themselves and how they're portrayed in the show. I understand many people's frustration with how thr characters are depicted; Robin being narcissistic, Cyborg being an obnoxious frat boy, Starfire being an airhead, all of these are understandable criticisms. That said, there's still some redeeming qualities to these characters. Robin is smart, athletic, a determined (if a bit over his head) leader and he can be helpful to his friend. Starfire is just so bubbly and optimistic to a fault and I especially like how she turns Robin's advances on her down gently. Cyborg is smart and fun while also being loyal and caring. Beast Boy is clearly the youngest, but he matures and sometimes shares real words of wisdom. Then there's Raven, the voice of reason. She's mainly deadpan and cynical, but there are times where she'll get in on the fun and silliness.
Overall, there are legitimate criticisms with the show, but it's definitely not awful. On it's own it's a fun show with funny gags, good animation, great voice acting and solid action and musical numbers. True, it's silly and nonsensical, but that's the kind of show I like and many other do as well. It's perfectly fine if you don't particularly care for it, but constantly ragging on it isn't gonna make it go away anytime soon. My advice, talk about how much you like another show more than TTG. It'll be much better for you, trust me.
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Tropes I'm Tired of Seeing
Idiot Dad
Why are Dad's more often than not portrayed as incompetent morons who don't know how to tie their own shoes without reading the instructions? I mean really: Peter Griffin, Hugh Neutron, Timmy's Dad, Dexter's Dad, Jack Fenton, Stan Smith, Glenn Martin, and most infamous of all, Homer Simpson. Yeah, I get it, sometimes Dad's can be the silliest of people, but sometimes doesn't mean ALL the time. At the end of the day, they still have a duty to raise their children to be model citizens and be honorable to their wives. The men listed above don't do Dad's justice.
Jerky Best "Friend"
Even though they're portrayed as best friends, they might as well be mortal enemies. Bloo is inherently selfish, but there were times where I had to question if the reason Mac's Mom want him out was because he was a bad influence. There's also Jake from My Gym Partner's a Monkey, Gus from Robotboy, and Sam from iCarly. Even if you're a fan of these characters, you have to admit there were times where you thought "with friends like him, who needs enemies?"
Secret Identity from Parents
Don't you just hate it when a superhero has to hide their secret identity from their parents? Like sure, makes sense in Danny Phantom because his parents are ghost hunters. But why Teamo Supremo? Why Captain Flamingo? Why Ben 10? No, seriously; WHY BEN 10?! If I can go on a brief rant here, why were Ben's parents so against their son turning into 10 different aliens that they grounded him in Ben 10: Alien Force? "But he could hurt himself." Maybe you didn't hear me: <deep breath> HE CAN TURN INTO 10 DIFFERENT ALIENS!!!!! And there's plenty more where that came from. Sorry, that episode in particular annoys me now that I think about it.
Crying Wolf for Real (No one believes)
I can't stand it when the main character sees another character do something wrong and no one believes them. Kid vs Kat is the embodiment of this trope and it was annoying to say the least. Jimmy Neutron did this, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends did this, even Spongebob is guilty of this. This scenario almost never makes for an entertaining experience because we the audience ultimately end up hating every other character in the show because they're either blind, stupid or both.
Spoiled brat
Spoiled children are rarely anyone's favorite character because often they're one of two kinds of spoiled: the one that throws a tantrum or the one who undermines everyone who's not like her. Princess Morbucks, Gem Stone, Caillou, D.W. Reed, Penelope Lang, Heather; are there any fans or defenders of these characters?
Unwarranted romance
Why are characters that work well as friends written to be lovers later down the line? iCarly, Kids Next Door, Danny Phantom, heck, they even spoofed this in Spongebob. You know, the likelihood of that relationship working out in the long run is slim at best, but even then what impact does it have on the rest of the story?
Death Fake Out
Anyone else getting tired of a character being brought back from the dead because magic? Like, even if the trope is done well, you can't keep sugarcoating death as if it's something certain people can bounce back from. To paraphrase Don Bluth, kids can handle anything you throw at them as long as you give them a happy ending. SPOILERS: What if Ralph actually died in the climax of Wreck-It Ralph? Yeah, it would've been sad, but at least Turbo would be defeated and Sugar Rush would've been saved. Plus it embodies the famous quote from The Dark Knight: "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain." Not saying this would've made for a better film, but it is something to think about.
Underutilizing Good Concepts
There have been plenty of shows that I feel squandered their potential by not going above and beyond in the execution. Shows like Archibald's Next Big Thing, The Loud House, and Apollo Gauntlet have such interesting concepts, yet are bogged down by their lackluster executions. It's as if the creators felt the concept alone would make up for the amount of tired tropes and cliches the show uses. It doesn't.
One Dimensional Jerks
Crying Babies
As cute as babies are, the most annoying thing about them is when they cry. Yes I know they can't talk, but that doesn't make their crying any more pleasant. It's especially annoying when they do it in TV shows and the characters don't know how to shut them up. Shows like Fairly Oddparents, Polly Pocket, and Hey Arnold all have at least one episode with a baby crying and the character spending the majority of the episode trying to make them stop.
Dated humor
Not every joke is going to stand the test of time and it's really cringy when shows or movies try to be "hip with the kids." Trolls, Splitting Adam, The Emoji Movie and even Ice Age 5 are all guilty of making jokes about Internet culture and they became dated very fast. Out side of that though, there are also instances in which changing times have made once funny jokes into unintentionally cringy moments. Movies that include mocking other people's sexuality (i.e. Ace Ventura, Hancock, Death at a Funeral and more) or objectifying women (i.e. The Green Hornet, a few James Bond movies, Revenge of the Nerds and so on) have not aged well due to the rise of the LGBTQ community and the #MeToo movement. While you can still make light of these topics, it'd be smarter not to if you want to appeal to a general audience.
The Arrogant Hero
I get not every superhero is a modest nobleman, but the snobby egocentric ones are really tiresome. Protagonists like Atomic Puppet, Chuck Chicken, Captain Biceps, The Green Hornet (Seth Rogan) and Captain Man are so full of themselves it comes across as groan worthy. I can forgive Iron Man, Star Lord and Captain Marvel because they change throughout the course of their respective films.
Cartoon Kids Not Growing Up With Audiences
I know they're cartoons and not every cartoon kid has to get older. That said though, sometimes I think it's better for kids in animated tv shows to get older so that the passage of time feels believable. Ash Ketchum is probably the most infamous example of this trope. The official reason why he's still 10 is because the people making Pokemon want want him to be relatable to kids. Understandable, but I strongly disagree that Ash should still be the main character after almost 20 years. This has also bothered me with shows like Liberty's Kids, Fairly Oddparents, Rugrats, Family Guy and Powerpuff Girls. I'm willing to forgive this gripe if the execution more than makes up for it (i.e. Incredibles 2, Finding Dory, Hey Arnold and The Amazing World of Gumball), but I personally prefer kids growing up with the audience like in How to Train Your Dragon, Toy Story, Naruto, Dragon Ball and Steven Universe.
One sided love
I'm so tired of characters falling in love with someone based on their looks alone. Johnny Test, 6teen, iCarly, Stoked, The Green Hornet (Seth Rogan), and most recently Summer Camp Island all have the same one sided love subplot and it's so BORING! I get crushes can be cute, but when the person the character is crushing on has less personality than a piece of drift wood, I lose all interest. Take for example Trixie Tang, the popular girl Timmy has a crush on. There's only one episode that shows that she's not just a pretty face, but it's ruined by the ending returning things to the status quo.
Optional Continuity
Speaking of status quo, a lot of animated tv shows tend to see continuity as optional at best or nonexistent at worst. SpongeBob does this, Fairly Oddparents does this, Family Guy does this, Powerpuff Girls does this and so on. Understandably creators don't usually care about continuity as long as the episode is entertaining, but it's really annoying when an episode has an opportunity to develop the characters and either forgets about it in the next episode or worse completely squanders it by the end because the status quo is God.
Lying to Friends and Family
As I've grown older, I've learned the hard way time and time again that there is NEVER a good reason to lie to your friends and family. Especially when the characters are horrible at lying. Seriously, in virtually every movie, tv show, video game or web series, there's always an instance where the character couldn't tell a convincing lie to their friends and family members to save their life. They always studder and fumble their words, and it's always so annoying. I would rather they tell the truth and face the consequences than tell an inconveniencing to their friends and family.
Awkward First Date
I can't tell you how many times I've seen a character go on a date and become such a clutz because they're embarrassed by their own feelings. SpongeBob, iCarly, Drake and Josh, That's So Raven, Danny Phantom, 6teen and many more shows all have episodes that revolve around the awkward first date. Sure it can be funny when done well, but it's so frustrating when a character can't just own up to the fact that they're in love and relax.
Antagonists Getting Off Scott Free
Don't you hate it when the antagonist follows through with their evil plan and never gets their just desserts? Megan Parker, Susie (Summer Camp Island), Sarah (Ed, Edd, n Eddy), D.W. (Arthur), Mitch (Glitch Techs), and many more all do terrible things and never get punished for it. One of the most notorious examples are the Siamese cats from Lady and the Tramp, who only exist to frame Lady and they get off Scott free. With very few exceptions, such as Megamind, I'm always going to prefer stories where the bad guys lose.
Twilight Jabs
I'm so over the constant jabs creators take at Twilight every chance they get. Family Guy, We Bare Bears, Uncle Grandpa, Hotel Transylvania, and many webcartoons take the time to make constant jabs at Twilight. I get that that movie is not everyone's cup of tea, but these needless jabs are the equivalent of beating a dead horse.
Bad House Guests
This is a trope I never found particularly funny or interesting. In shows like The Looney Tunes Show, Dexter's Lab, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, iCarly, Big Time Rush and more there's always that one episode where the main characters invite an unruly guest into their house and they can't tell them to hit the rode until the end of the episode. As much as I don't like seeing people kicked out on the street, the minute a guest in my house shows any form of poor manners or lack of decency, they're gonzo.
Dumb Elders
Why are old people often portrayed as inept and clueless in shows? Particularly in Dexter's Laboratory, Powerpuff Girls, El Tigre, iCarly, Drake and Josh, and That's So Raven. In fact, kid shows seem to have a habit of making old people look so dumb and the excuse is they're old and don't have a strong memory. That's not always true and it's rather insulting to actual old people. Most old people are actually wise, quirky, and have a fairly good memory. Sure old people tend to have health problems, but they have means of taking care of themselves. The shows listed above just don't do old people justice.
Why are Dad's more often than not portrayed as incompetent morons who don't know how to tie their own shoes without reading the instructions? I mean really: Peter Griffin, Hugh Neutron, Timmy's Dad, Dexter's Dad, Jack Fenton, Stan Smith, Glenn Martin, and most infamous of all, Homer Simpson. Yeah, I get it, sometimes Dad's can be the silliest of people, but sometimes doesn't mean ALL the time. At the end of the day, they still have a duty to raise their children to be model citizens and be honorable to their wives. The men listed above don't do Dad's justice.
Jerky Best "Friend"
Even though they're portrayed as best friends, they might as well be mortal enemies. Bloo is inherently selfish, but there were times where I had to question if the reason Mac's Mom want him out was because he was a bad influence. There's also Jake from My Gym Partner's a Monkey, Gus from Robotboy, and Sam from iCarly. Even if you're a fan of these characters, you have to admit there were times where you thought "with friends like him, who needs enemies?"
Secret Identity from Parents
Don't you just hate it when a superhero has to hide their secret identity from their parents? Like sure, makes sense in Danny Phantom because his parents are ghost hunters. But why Teamo Supremo? Why Captain Flamingo? Why Ben 10? No, seriously; WHY BEN 10?! If I can go on a brief rant here, why were Ben's parents so against their son turning into 10 different aliens that they grounded him in Ben 10: Alien Force? "But he could hurt himself." Maybe you didn't hear me: <deep breath> HE CAN TURN INTO 10 DIFFERENT ALIENS!!!!! And there's plenty more where that came from. Sorry, that episode in particular annoys me now that I think about it.
Crying Wolf for Real (No one believes)
I can't stand it when the main character sees another character do something wrong and no one believes them. Kid vs Kat is the embodiment of this trope and it was annoying to say the least. Jimmy Neutron did this, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends did this, even Spongebob is guilty of this. This scenario almost never makes for an entertaining experience because we the audience ultimately end up hating every other character in the show because they're either blind, stupid or both.
Spoiled brat
Spoiled children are rarely anyone's favorite character because often they're one of two kinds of spoiled: the one that throws a tantrum or the one who undermines everyone who's not like her. Princess Morbucks, Gem Stone, Caillou, D.W. Reed, Penelope Lang, Heather; are there any fans or defenders of these characters?
Unwarranted romance
Why are characters that work well as friends written to be lovers later down the line? iCarly, Kids Next Door, Danny Phantom, heck, they even spoofed this in Spongebob. You know, the likelihood of that relationship working out in the long run is slim at best, but even then what impact does it have on the rest of the story?
Death Fake Out
Anyone else getting tired of a character being brought back from the dead because magic? Like, even if the trope is done well, you can't keep sugarcoating death as if it's something certain people can bounce back from. To paraphrase Don Bluth, kids can handle anything you throw at them as long as you give them a happy ending. SPOILERS: What if Ralph actually died in the climax of Wreck-It Ralph? Yeah, it would've been sad, but at least Turbo would be defeated and Sugar Rush would've been saved. Plus it embodies the famous quote from The Dark Knight: "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain." Not saying this would've made for a better film, but it is something to think about.
Underutilizing Good Concepts
There have been plenty of shows that I feel squandered their potential by not going above and beyond in the execution. Shows like Archibald's Next Big Thing, The Loud House, and Apollo Gauntlet have such interesting concepts, yet are bogged down by their lackluster executions. It's as if the creators felt the concept alone would make up for the amount of tired tropes and cliches the show uses. It doesn't.
One Dimensional Jerks
Bendy comes to mind as a one dimensional jerk. Same with Mrs. Hayfer from Drake and Josh, Wayne Collins from iCarly, Snotty Boy from Barnyard, and the citizens of Bikini Bottom in some episodes of SpongeBob. Like I get it, sometimes people can be downright jerks, but that does not equate to an interesting character.
Bad Teachers
Why is it that teachers are often portrayed as tired of their job at best or downright cruel at worst? I mean, if they hated kids and were tired of their jobs, why didn't they just quit? Mr. Muffin from Fanboy and Chum Chum, the Trunchbull from Matilda, Mr. Lancer from Danny Phantom, all of the teachers from Dan Schneider shows (except Sikowitz from Victorious and Mr. Henning from iCarly) and most egregious of all, Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter. Yeah, I get for the purposes of the story they have to be unlikable, but can we at least understand WHY they're like that? It can't just be for the money as there are plent of jobs that have bigger salaries than teachers. It also paints teachers in general in a bad light. Sure not every teach is a saint, but I NEVER had a teacher who didn't like their job or dealing with kids. Seeing tv shows and movies portray teachers so negatively is nothing shott of degrading.
Overprotective Parent(s)
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping kids safe; but that doesn't mean that should spin their childhood covered from head to toe with bubble wrap. Many movies and TV shows that use this trope (even if it's accidental) make loving and caring parents the bad guys by having them attempt to stop their kids from growing up or have fun. Manny from the Ice Age franchise, Dracula from Hotel Transylvania, Michellee from Green Eggs and Ham, the list goes on. The worst offender of this trope though is Marissa Benson from iCarly. I get that was part of the joke, but as the show went on for much longer than it should, they just beat it into the ground. Finding Nemo does this trope, but it works best there because we're shown why Marlin is so protective of his son and by the end he learns how to trust that his son can protect himself.
Overprotective Parent(s)
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping kids safe; but that doesn't mean that should spin their childhood covered from head to toe with bubble wrap. Many movies and TV shows that use this trope (even if it's accidental) make loving and caring parents the bad guys by having them attempt to stop their kids from growing up or have fun. Manny from the Ice Age franchise, Dracula from Hotel Transylvania, Michellee from Green Eggs and Ham, the list goes on. The worst offender of this trope though is Marissa Benson from iCarly. I get that was part of the joke, but as the show went on for much longer than it should, they just beat it into the ground. Finding Nemo does this trope, but it works best there because we're shown why Marlin is so protective of his son and by the end he learns how to trust that his son can protect himself.
Crying Babies
As cute as babies are, the most annoying thing about them is when they cry. Yes I know they can't talk, but that doesn't make their crying any more pleasant. It's especially annoying when they do it in TV shows and the characters don't know how to shut them up. Shows like Fairly Oddparents, Polly Pocket, and Hey Arnold all have at least one episode with a baby crying and the character spending the majority of the episode trying to make them stop.
Dated humor
Not every joke is going to stand the test of time and it's really cringy when shows or movies try to be "hip with the kids." Trolls, Splitting Adam, The Emoji Movie and even Ice Age 5 are all guilty of making jokes about Internet culture and they became dated very fast. Out side of that though, there are also instances in which changing times have made once funny jokes into unintentionally cringy moments. Movies that include mocking other people's sexuality (i.e. Ace Ventura, Hancock, Death at a Funeral and more) or objectifying women (i.e. The Green Hornet, a few James Bond movies, Revenge of the Nerds and so on) have not aged well due to the rise of the LGBTQ community and the #MeToo movement. While you can still make light of these topics, it'd be smarter not to if you want to appeal to a general audience.
The Arrogant Hero
I get not every superhero is a modest nobleman, but the snobby egocentric ones are really tiresome. Protagonists like Atomic Puppet, Chuck Chicken, Captain Biceps, The Green Hornet (Seth Rogan) and Captain Man are so full of themselves it comes across as groan worthy. I can forgive Iron Man, Star Lord and Captain Marvel because they change throughout the course of their respective films.
Cartoon Kids Not Growing Up With Audiences
I know they're cartoons and not every cartoon kid has to get older. That said though, sometimes I think it's better for kids in animated tv shows to get older so that the passage of time feels believable. Ash Ketchum is probably the most infamous example of this trope. The official reason why he's still 10 is because the people making Pokemon want want him to be relatable to kids. Understandable, but I strongly disagree that Ash should still be the main character after almost 20 years. This has also bothered me with shows like Liberty's Kids, Fairly Oddparents, Rugrats, Family Guy and Powerpuff Girls. I'm willing to forgive this gripe if the execution more than makes up for it (i.e. Incredibles 2, Finding Dory, Hey Arnold and The Amazing World of Gumball), but I personally prefer kids growing up with the audience like in How to Train Your Dragon, Toy Story, Naruto, Dragon Ball and Steven Universe.
One sided love
I'm so tired of characters falling in love with someone based on their looks alone. Johnny Test, 6teen, iCarly, Stoked, The Green Hornet (Seth Rogan), and most recently Summer Camp Island all have the same one sided love subplot and it's so BORING! I get crushes can be cute, but when the person the character is crushing on has less personality than a piece of drift wood, I lose all interest. Take for example Trixie Tang, the popular girl Timmy has a crush on. There's only one episode that shows that she's not just a pretty face, but it's ruined by the ending returning things to the status quo.
Optional Continuity
Speaking of status quo, a lot of animated tv shows tend to see continuity as optional at best or nonexistent at worst. SpongeBob does this, Fairly Oddparents does this, Family Guy does this, Powerpuff Girls does this and so on. Understandably creators don't usually care about continuity as long as the episode is entertaining, but it's really annoying when an episode has an opportunity to develop the characters and either forgets about it in the next episode or worse completely squanders it by the end because the status quo is God.
Lying to Friends and Family
As I've grown older, I've learned the hard way time and time again that there is NEVER a good reason to lie to your friends and family. Especially when the characters are horrible at lying. Seriously, in virtually every movie, tv show, video game or web series, there's always an instance where the character couldn't tell a convincing lie to their friends and family members to save their life. They always studder and fumble their words, and it's always so annoying. I would rather they tell the truth and face the consequences than tell an inconveniencing to their friends and family.
Awkward First Date
I can't tell you how many times I've seen a character go on a date and become such a clutz because they're embarrassed by their own feelings. SpongeBob, iCarly, Drake and Josh, That's So Raven, Danny Phantom, 6teen and many more shows all have episodes that revolve around the awkward first date. Sure it can be funny when done well, but it's so frustrating when a character can't just own up to the fact that they're in love and relax.
Antagonists Getting Off Scott Free
Don't you hate it when the antagonist follows through with their evil plan and never gets their just desserts? Megan Parker, Susie (Summer Camp Island), Sarah (Ed, Edd, n Eddy), D.W. (Arthur), Mitch (Glitch Techs), and many more all do terrible things and never get punished for it. One of the most notorious examples are the Siamese cats from Lady and the Tramp, who only exist to frame Lady and they get off Scott free. With very few exceptions, such as Megamind, I'm always going to prefer stories where the bad guys lose.
Twilight Jabs
I'm so over the constant jabs creators take at Twilight every chance they get. Family Guy, We Bare Bears, Uncle Grandpa, Hotel Transylvania, and many webcartoons take the time to make constant jabs at Twilight. I get that that movie is not everyone's cup of tea, but these needless jabs are the equivalent of beating a dead horse.
Bad House Guests
This is a trope I never found particularly funny or interesting. In shows like The Looney Tunes Show, Dexter's Lab, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, iCarly, Big Time Rush and more there's always that one episode where the main characters invite an unruly guest into their house and they can't tell them to hit the rode until the end of the episode. As much as I don't like seeing people kicked out on the street, the minute a guest in my house shows any form of poor manners or lack of decency, they're gonzo.
Dumb Elders
Why are old people often portrayed as inept and clueless in shows? Particularly in Dexter's Laboratory, Powerpuff Girls, El Tigre, iCarly, Drake and Josh, and That's So Raven. In fact, kid shows seem to have a habit of making old people look so dumb and the excuse is they're old and don't have a strong memory. That's not always true and it's rather insulting to actual old people. Most old people are actually wise, quirky, and have a fairly good memory. Sure old people tend to have health problems, but they have means of taking care of themselves. The shows listed above just don't do old people justice.
Downplaying death
Is anyone else tired of kids shows and movies downplaying death. Often in shows such as The Amazing World of Gumball, The Fairly Oddparents, Animaniacs, My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic and certain English dubs of Japanese anime (between the 1980s-2000s) tended to avoid directly saying "death" or "die." This is also true for movies such as Peter Pan: Return To Neverland, The Book Of Life, George of the Jungle and Superman 4: The Quest for Peace. It can be funny when it's spoofed (such as in The LEGO Batman Movie), but generally speaking I believe kids are more than capable of handling the subject of death. It's rather insulting to think kids can't handle the subject of death and I'm glad children's shows and movies today are recognizing that fact and don't try to pretend death is easy.
Mindless Sheep
As I've grown older, I've come to really not like it when movies and TV shows make the inhabitants of its set location mindless sheep. Shows like the Powerpuff Girls, Dexter's Lab, iCarly, Big Time Rush, and That's So Raven all have episodes that do this and it's just not funny to me anymore. Even movies such as Turbo, Animal Crackers, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Captain Underpants tend to use this trope. One of the worst examples of this trope is We Bare Bears. I really hope the people in San Francisco are actually decent because this show does NOT do them justice. The people in the show are arrogant, selfish, greedy, impatient and all around rude. Episodes like Tote Life and My Clique perfectly shows this and they were among the worst episodes of the show.
Grown Men Voicing Boys
I have nothing but respect for all voice actors. That said, I don't entirely agree with male actors making boys sound older than they actually are. Dick Wilson (Mother Up), Ben Higgenbottem (The Mighty B), Gus (Robotboy) and all the boys from Big Mouth sound nothing like actually boys, even if their voices were to depend due to puberty. Ted from The Lorax is possibly the most infamous example of this as hearing Zac Efron's voice coming out of a 12 year old kid really took me out of the film. I personally feel either voice actresses or actual boys should play boys in cartoons, with some exceptions such as if the boys are exaggerated caricatures of boys (a la Ed, Edd, n Eddy or Billy and Mandy) or for the sake of a joke (like muscular Timmy Turner).
Bad bosses
Why is it that bosses in alot of shows and movies are portrayed as horrible people? This is the same problem I have with bad teachers: it's like they hate their employees or their job in general. Most of the time bosses are depicted as angry and bitter. The Head Elf from Rudolph The Red Nosed Reindeer, Mr. Slate and Mr. Spacely from Flintstones and Jestons respectfully, and Mr. Smitty are all like this. I have not seen either Horrible Bosses movies, but I doubt I'd find them funny as an adult. Then there's Benson from Regular Show, whom I've come to like less now that I've had 2 great bosses. Benson is just so hot tempered and down right ungrateful when Mordecai and Rigby actually do their jobs. Yeah, they slack off often, but when they do their job without Benson having to tell them, they should still be appreciated for it. I would've straight up quitted if my boss told me to my face "I don't appreciate you." No seriously, Benson actually said that to Mordecai and Rigby's faces. Phil from Glitch Techs may not be angry and bitter but he's just so apathetic he ends up being dull and one dimensional. All I'm asking is that more bosses be portrayed like Phil Coulson from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D as not just a good leader, but also a friend.
Misunderstanding
This is yet another trope I've never particularly liked. Like, even as a kid watching Shrek, I couldn't help but feel annoyed that Shrek wouldn't let Fiona explain herself. Shrek could've been reluctant to say good bye to Fiona and leave with his head down. The whole fighting and yelling just felt forced. In facted, that's all the misunderstanding trope is: forced. It's baffling that writers still use this trope in shows like Summer Camp Island, Cobra Kai, and Green Eggs and Ham. I know this happens in real life, but just because something happens in reality that doesn't mean it should happen in entertainment.
The Obnoxious Valley Girl
I hope girls that are actually from Southern California are generally considerate and humble people because this trope doesn't do them justice. In shows like Fairly Oddparents, Jellystone, My Life As A Teenage Robot, Wander Over Yonder, The Mighty B, Adventure Time, Fish Hooks and The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy, there's always that one girl who has an obnoxious attitude and a stereotypical Valley Girl accent. They also speak in typical VG lingo, i.e. saying "Whatever, Shaw, Like really? OMG" and all that stuff. It's especially annoying when they're also the designated spoiled brat of the show.
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Why It Worked: The Prince of Egypt
Introduction
The Prince of Egypt is a 1998 animated Biblical historic epic directed by Brenda Chapman, Steve Hickner and Simon Wells. Produced by Penny Finkelman Cox and Sandra Rabins, with the screenplay written by Phillip LaZebnik and Nicholas Meyer, the film retells the Biblical story of Moses and how he freed the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt. The film stars Val Kilmer, Ralph Fiennes, Sandra Bullock, Jeff Goldblum, Michelle Pfeiffer, Sir Patrick Stewart, Helen Mirren, Steve Martin and Martin Short and features music and songs by Hans Zimmer and Stephen Schwartz respectively. Released on December 18, 1998, the film received very positive reviews (scoring an 80% out of 87 critics aggregated on Rotten Tomatoes, with a 7.08/10 average rating), was financially successful (making $218.6 million on a budget of $70 million), won an Academy Award for Best Original Song (When You Believe), spawned a direct-to-video prequel focusing on Joseph (the dream interpreter) and a stage musical at TheaterWorks in California in 2017. Out of the 37 animated films DreamWorks has made, I always viewed The Prince of Egypt as not just my favorite, but also their best film in terms of quality. In this post, I'm going to explain why that is and why we need more films like this.
The Plot
For those who aren't familiar with the story of Moses, it's a tale about hardship, sacrifice and deliverance. A young Hebrew baby is saved from the slaughter of Hebrew babies ordered by Pharaoh out of fear. That baby is picked up by Pharaoh's wife and is named Moses, for he was pulled out from the Nile river. Moses grows up being Pharaoh's son until he finds out his true heritage and essentially exiles himself in the wilderness. There he meets God in the form of a burning bush who tells him that He has heard the Hebrews suffering and has chosen Moses to free them. 12 plagues and 1 crossing of the Red Sea later, the Hebrews are free and Moses is hailed a hero. While this film stays true to the original text for the most part, it does make a few additions and subtractions so that the film flows naturally at an hour and 40 minutes. I could talk all day about the changes made from the text to the film (such as Moses having a stutter and Mirriam giving Moses to the Queen) but in an instance I wish was more common place when it comes to adaptations, the filmmakers provided an opening statement at the start of the film. "The motion picture you are about to see is an adaptation of the Exodus story. While artistic and historical license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, value and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The Biblical story of Moses can be found in the Book of Exodus." It's clear that the filmmakers had nothing but respect for the material and told a strong story about two brothers going on different paths in life. They also don't shy away from the brutality of the story, while still making it accessible for children. People are whipped, drowned, attacked by locus, and even straight up killed. What makes this film stand out from other Biblical films is that it's animated, but not like that of Disney. Where Disney tends to go for the fantastical and colorful, The Prince of Egypt is more reserved and grounded. The characters move more like humans and are designed more like Egyptian hieroglyphics and paintings than fairy tale illustrations. This grounded approach makes the fantastical stuff all the more powerful. The parting of the Red Sea (with blends 2D and 3D animation perfectly) is still one of the most iconic scenes in animation history. The animation in this film is so unlike anything I've seen before or since and it also helps that the story is well written and is brutally honest with it's depiction of slavery and a tyrant ruler.
Cast and Characters
The cast they got for this film is excellent. Sure they're celebrities who (at the time) didn't have prior experience in voice acting (with the exceptions of Michelle Pfeiffer, Jeff Goldblum, Danny Glover, Sir Patrick Stewart, Helen Mirren, Steve Martin and Martin Short). That said, in this film they nailed their respective characters. Starting off with our hero, Val Kilmer gives such a nuanced performance as Moses, making him cockey and arrogant at the start and then making him so well spoken and wise by the end. Moses is such a relatable protagonist and has a genuine arc through the film. His brash and fun loving demeanor is in direct contrast to his uptight older stepbrother, Rameses. Speaking of which, before he was Voldemort, Ralph Fiennes gave such an amazing performance as Rameses, who's at the top of my list for the best villain is DreamWorks' animated catalog. The thing about Rameses is before he became a ruthless tyrant, he strived to be just like his father, who he saw as wise, percise and a real king. At the same time he had such a good relationship with his stepbrother, Moses, that he hoped that they'd make Egypt a better place together. That all changed when Moses came back from his self imposed exile and asked him to release the Hebrews in the name of God. Ralph Fiennes showcases the right amount of worry, stubbornness and sadness of this character, and the chemistry he shares with Moses is perfect. Everyone else does a great job voicing their respective characters as well. Michelle Pfeiffer gives Tzipporah such a snarky personality and makes for a good wife to Moses, Sandra Bullock makes Mirriam such a motherly sister, Jeff Goldblum made Aaron as essentially the voice of the cynical people which this film couldn't function without (also Jeff Goldblum is always a win), and Steve Martin and Martin Short work off each other perfectly as Hotep and Huy. Then there's our Lord and Savior Himself, God. In this film, God is portrayed as the all powerful being He is as described in the Bible. He protects His people, He tells Moses exactly what to do and how to do it, He shows mercy and good favor towards the Hebrews, and He does keep His promise in bringing His people out of Egypt. Val Kilmer provides the voice of God and it sounds so majestic and calm, it's like listening to your best friend.
Songs and Music
There is not a single song in this film that I don't catch myself humming to on a daily basis. That is how powerful these songs are. The opening number, Deliver Us, perfectly captures the oppression of the Hebrews as they are whipped, pushed, and yelled at by the Egyptians. Oh and also babies are slaughtered during this scene, making the song even more powerful. Moses' song, All I Ever Wanted, plays after his encounter with Miriam and Aaron and brilliantly showcases his doubts to his upbringing; right before he's hit with that amazing dream sequence done in the style of Egypt wall paintings. Look at Your Life Through Heaven's Eyes was such an upbeat and fun song that shows you your life has meaning and you should look at it with a more optimistic perspective (through Heaven's eyes, if you will). Playing With The Big Boys is an amazing number, showing the dark mockery of God from Hotep and Huy as well as some impressive visuals (also there's this dope rock cover of the song by Jonathan Young and Caleb Hyles you should really check out: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gqlNY5iX-nA). The 12 plagues are shown via a reprise as All I Ever Wanted and it is genius. The visuals get noticeably darker with each passing plague until all of Egypt is covered in darkness. And Moses and Rameses' duet perfectly captures their opposing viewpoints during this time. Then there's the Oscar winning song, When You Believe. It's the ultimate song of hope, of faith, of belief; it's the song that should be song and heard around the world, especially today when hope and optimism are seen as being ignorant. Also, Hans Zimmer's score for this film is nothing short of magical. The way he uses brass instruments to emphasize God's power is just glorious and the choir is used in the exact place you expect there to be a choir. It's so soothing and majestic, I wish I had the soundtrack.
Where it Falters
My only gripe with the film is the ending. Not that it's bad, but that, well, it ends. Despite the film promising to bring the Hebrews to the promise land, we never actually go there. I thought they'd get to that in a sequel, but that's not likely to happen anytime soon because DreamWorks Animation swore off 2D animated films after Sinbad tanked and they're not nearly as ambitious now as they were back in the 90s and 2000s. Cosmodore made this really insightful video about how DreamWorks Animation almost went bankrupt twice and why their recent output has been geared more towards families (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dLa7xe5GTWw) but the tl;dr is DreamWorks Animation was 1 more financially disappointing year away from closing up shop completely. Still though, I would love to have seen a sequel to The Prince of Egypt focusing on how Moses lead the people through the wilderness.
Conclusion
The Prince of Egypt stands as one of the best animated films ever made. With an amazing soundtrack, memorable characters, beautiful animation, and a stellar voice cast, it's one of a select few films I consider a masterpiece. You could argue that it's not accurate to the story told in the Bible (a fact the filmmakers themselves acknowledge), but it does stay true to the spirit of the story and it doesn't go out of it's way to convince nonbelievers that this is truth. As a film on it's own, it's great and I hope it's watched and remembered for generations to come. Thanks so much for reading and I'll see you soon ;)
Sunday, May 12, 2019
Why CGI is better than ever
CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) has become a very prominent and accessible tool in our modern media culture. That said, it’s honestly quite discouraging to here people argue that “CGI is getting worse” or “There’s too much CGI.” I’m of the firm belief that CGI has gotten so much better these days than people seem to give it credit for.
One thing that’s worth noting is that CGI is used in places you wouldn’t expect outside of movies. It’s used in advertising, music videos, DVD covers, and especially video games. We essentially see CGI everywhere without even realizing it. That box of cereal you had for breakfast? The cover art was most likely enhanced with CGI. The latest music video from a pop star you’re a fan off? CGI was probably a key component to the visuals. CGI is also predominately used in video games such as Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, The Last of Us, Red Dead Redemption 2 and more.
Another thing CGI is often used for is taking the place of impossible to achieve stunts in movies and TV shows shot in live action. This is most evident whenever a character is falling from a great distance and a CG body double is used in place of the actor. This also applies to characters who can fly or when a character is sent flying into an object (sometimes with the famous Wilhelm Scream added for comedic effect).
There’s this notion that CG artists are often underpaid and overworked in order to achieve these lifelike effects you see on screen. This seems to be true for some companies (i.e. Rhythm and Hues), but I can’t confirm or deny these accusations for ALL CGI companies. All I know is that their hard work and ingenuity was not in vain and they definitely deserve more credit and respect.
Ultimately, CGI is a very valuable and clever tool that has a place in our modern media landscape. It’s something used in our everyday lives and we don’t often seem to notice. I hope this gives you a better appreciation for the work that goes into the media you consume.
Saturday, May 11, 2019
Stop Saying "They Put In No Effort"
One of the worst and most insulting arguments that is brought up in film/television is “The people behind this didn’t up any effort into it” or “the writing is lazy.” The people who use these arguments clearly have no idea what they’re talking about and come across as very mean spirited.
One of the most notorious examples of this argument being used is with The Emoji Movie. Many people claimed that the filmmakers just copy and pasted what previous works did before and made it with emojis. This assumption, however, could not be further from the truth. Director Tony Leondis was inspired by Toy Story as well as his personal life as a gay man to construct the film as a journey of self discovery. He initially wanted the emojis to go into the human world, but the producer, Michelle Raimo Kouyate, thought the world inside the phone was more interesting. It’s also worth noting that this film was completed in 2 years as opposed to the average 4-5. That means the storyboard artists, production designers and especially animators had to really push themselves to their limits just for the film to meet it’s deadline. But sure, they didn’t put any effort into the final product.
The word “lazy” is often used to describe a piece of media one does not care for. I’m sorry, but you’re inaccurate when you say “X was lazy.” Screenwriters spend so much time at their desks trying to write something special and unique and if the draft isn’t approve, they have to either rewrite it or come up with something new for another project. Animators especially are the furthest thing from lazy that you can get. Imagine having to set at a desk drawing slightly different variations of the same drawing all day and then doing it again the following day until the project is done. It’s especially difficult when deadlines are on the horizon and they have to spend the night at the studio just to complete the final frames of animation.
Then there’s the other aspects that goes into filmmaking such as cinematography, lighting, sound mixing, editing, stunts, practical effects, marketing, producing and so much more. This doesn’t just apply to movies and TV shows; video games, music videos, novels, comic books, and songs among other forms of entertainment have so much effort put into their craft for better or for worse. By calling a piece of media you don’t like “lazy” or say “they put in no effort” you’re undermining the very talented people that work harder than you think. Like I always say; your opinion is NOT law -.-
Mary Sue: You're Saying it Wrong
Before you get all upset, I’m not saying you shouldn’t call out characters you consider dull or uninteresting. That’s your opinion and no one can take that away from you. I’m just saying before you start calling that dull and boring character you don’t like a Mary Sue/Gary Stu, you should know what you’re actually saying and think about whether or not it applies to said character. KK? Let’s get started.
Now, for those who don’t know, Mary Sue was a character created in a Star Trek fanfiction back in the 1970s. The character was beloved by the entire crew and was essentially the hero of the story as she was able to do what the other members of the Enterprise were capable of by herself. In an ideal world, this wouldn’t be a big deal because it was fanfiction, aka not canon to the Star Trek universe. But since we live in a society where we make big fusses about everything, the term Mary Sue has since been applied to characters who do the impossible and face little to no challenges physical or emotional. Superman, Batman, Goku, Captain Marvel, Bella Swan, and most frustrating of all, Rey, have all been labeled Mary Sues or the male counterpart Gary Stus because of how overpowered and boring their detractors claim they are. I myself am guilty of this, dubbing the new female lead in the final season of Fairly Oddparents as such; but more on that later. For now, let’s talk about what qualifies as a Mary Sue.
1. The character does tasks that would otherwise be considered difficult on the first try.
2. The character invalidates the importance of the supporting cast, save for their love and affection to said character.
3. The character is not challenged physically or emotionally, making for a weak or nonexistent character arc.
Based on that criteria, it’s honestly surprising how people have thrown this term around to some of the most well written and beloved characters of all time. Sure Goku has essentially become a god at this point, but he’s still facing new challenges physical and emotional even after 35 years. Superman and Batman are two of the greatest superheroes of all time not because they’re the most powerful or the most skilled, but because they’re the most human and relatable (same goes for Spider-Man). By calling these beloved characters Mary Sues, you’re undermining there best attributes and essentially calling the writers who have years of experience in the business amateurs. It is possible to criticize the work of someone without being condescending towards them. Case in point, that time Butch Hartman and his crew made a new character to keep the show going was pretty frustrating to sit through.
For those who are unaware, the first episode of the final season of Fairly Oddparents introduced a new female lead to keep the show going. I assume the intent was to make her the opposite of Timmy Turner, but instead of making her, you know, and actual character with her own personal flaws and setbacks, she’s made to be the “perfect human.” She checks all the boxes of the criteria listed above and it’s baffling why they thought THIS was a good idea. If this was intended to be a joke, I’m sorry, but it’s not really funny. I mean, say what you will about Bella Swan, Captain Marvel and especially Rey, at least they resonate with people and have their fans. This character does not.
Ultimately, the term really should be laid to rest because it shouldn’t have been a big deal in the first place. Mary Sue was a fanmade character, you know for fun. The fact that it’s become this vile and toxic term to undermine not just beloved and iconic character but also professional writers who know the characters better than you or I is just bonkers. I reiterate though, that doesn’t mean writers shouldn’t be criticized for how they write their characters. If you feel a character is uninteresting, you’re well within your right to criticize them. But please be respectful of the writers and what they do. They’re not perfect and we shouldn’t expect them to be.
The Case for Live Action Cartoon Adaptations
Animation is a wonderful medium that has endless possibilities for creativity and storytelling. There have been plenty of movies, tv shows, music videos, and video games that utilize animation and have developed a strong following in there respective mediums. That said, when ever Hollywood makes a film based on an animated property, it’s typically met with groans from animation fans. This has always baffled me, as the films that have been adapted from animated properties are no different from films adapted from books or real people. Yet there’s this mentality that Hollywood producers and filmmakers don’t respect animation as a medium and that’s really not the case. Yes, there are people who mistakenly refer to animation as a genre (looking at you, Dwayne Johnson), but the people who make films based on animated properties clearly show respect to the source material and try to make a cohesive and fun film based on it. In this post, I’m going to go through the history of live action cartoon adaptations and why the most egregious complaints don’t hold as much water as you think.
The first live action film based on a cartoon was Popeye in 1980, starring the late great Robin Williams and Shelly Duvall. This film is not only faithful to the classic Popeye cartoons, but it also tells a solid story of Popeye trying to win over Olive Oyl whilst butting heads with Bluto. This film embraces the goofy nature of the cartoon and Robin Williams gives an excellent performance as he always did. The same can also be said for films such as The Flintstones (1994), Inspector Gadget (1999) and George of the Jungle (1997). The most common complaint about these films is that they’re predictable, and that’s a fair assessment. My rebuttal to that though is that it’s the execution of their standard premise that makes them unique. And now is a good time to talk about The Last Airbender.
Now, I understand where people are coming from when they say they despise this film. As a film, it’s most egregious crime was cramming in too much story in an hour and 43 minute run time. I understand what M. Night Shyamalan was going for, but the film needed more time to flesh out it’s story and characters. “No, the film shouldn’t have been made in the first place,” I here you cry out, but it was inevitably going to happen because the show was so popular. I mean, all the actors did a good job in their respective rolls, the effect and costume design was well done, and there were moments that made me chuckle. I say this is among the few live action cartoon adaptations that didn’t quite hit the mark, along side films like Yogi Bear (2010), The Smurfs (2011) and A Fairly Oddmovie: Grow Up, Timmy Turner. But, enough about that noise, let’s talk about the live action Disney remakes.
Disney has been on a role with these re-imaginings of their animated works. With the exception of Alice Through the Looking Glass and most recently Dumbo, all have their films have made bank at the box office. 2017′s Beauty and the Beast made $1.2 billion, making it the highest grossing musical film of all time. And yet with each passing film, fans of the original animated films complain more and more that these films don’t respect the originals simply by existing. I’m sorry, but that is such a ludicrous reason to dislike these films. If Disney had no respect for their old animated films, they wouldn’t make these remakes in the first place. Not only that, but these films don’t replace the originals in anyway shape or form. Another ludicrous argument for people not liking these films is because “Disney only cares about money.” 👏It’s 👏a👏business. In case it wasn’t clear, remakes of old properties make for good business; not just for Disney, but for every major studio in Hollywood. The Departed, Evil Dead, King Kong, Godzilla, The Mummy, the list goes on. Not only do they make money, but they also offer filmmakers a chance to tell their version of the story.
This all boils down to my final point about live action films based on cartoons: you don’t have to see them. To quote a controversial critic, “the cruelest form of attention you can give any form of entertainment is NO attention.” By complaining about these live action adaptations of your favorite animated shows/movies, you’re subconsciously promoting them. This is why I no longer have a Top 10 Blacklisted Cartoons on my blog: if I don’t like or have no interest in seeing a particular cartoon, I won’t watch or even talk about it. Instead of complaining about the next live action adaptation of an animated property, why not talk about films you’re actually looking forward to and plan on seeing? Wouldn’t that be more productive and rewarding? I hope this encourages people to have be a little more optimistic in this cynical landscape.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)