are ya sick of Pixar copycats yet? (CG movies)
 

ever since Pixar has been breaking box office records left and right with their various titles Fox and Dreamworks have both tried to come out with alternatives. for every A Bug's Life and Finding Nemo there is an Antz and Shark's Tale. what you'll notice is that the quality of the content is far far inferior. Fox's Ice Age and the upcoming Robots is another copycat. though Shrek&Shrek2 was entertaining i still think they aren't as 'classic' as monster inc. no matter what the competition tries to do Pixar's stories seem to be much better in quality. an easy example is The Incredibles coming out in Nov. we already know it is awesome because the director is the guy behind Iron Giant. i think the Pixar CG movies are better because they are able to anthropormophize inanimate objects with a heart.


whadya think?

I just like them, because it isn't a crappy rehashing of something as old as me! The stories are better than a lot of the Hollywood drivel, and the imagry is nice in most cases. Of course... I feel the same way about some of the Japanese animation too.

My 4 and a half year old son loves them and thats about what matters to me. I dont take these films too seriously in terms of 'cinematic masterpieces'. To me, their just glorified cartoons and I enjoy them for just that.

john,

don't ya think the pixar movies are more wholesome? yesh there could be things that kids don't get but they are more hidden and implicit. fox just ain't even in the competition quality-wise. dreamworks, on the other hand, is very explicit. shrek2, antz, shark tales and the upcoming madagascar are all very wild. i think it's 2much for the kids. same with father of the pride on TV. i just don't think parading inneundo in front of kids is my brand of entertainment.

That is why you have a choice Yi... Watch it or not, but they will keep making them. Anime is as far from Mickey Mouse as they get, and I wouldn't let my kids watch some of them with me. However, the stories and art are in many cases, absolutely fantastic.

Shrek and the rest do have some raciness, but not nearly as heavy as Austin Powers, or nearly as crude as Jay and Silent Bob. This is why kids have parents. I remember as a kid, wanting to see the cartoon about a cat named Fritz. it wasn't till many years later, when I saw it, and understood why my folks wouldn't let me.

What I actually miss is traditional animation. Everything mainstream has to be 3-D or nothing these days. To me all that amounts to is animation that's trying to look real but just doesn't. I personally really don't care how amazing the hair looks on some animated character - it still isn't real and doesn't look real.

Stop wasting 4-years at a time to show me fake hair - just gimme a story!

Side note - I personally feel that Finding Nemo is one of the best modern American 3-D animated films - for precisely the reason that the story is just plain written well. Such a well sculpted script, full of incredibly well-timed highs and lows, good character development, and just plain enjoyable hijinks through and through. And I really don't care how much the water looked like water.

Pixar creators get a lot of their inspiration from the creator of the Japanese animated movie "Spirited Away". But I forgot his name.

<<<-- Originally posted by Imran Zaidi :

And I really don't care how much the water looked like water. -->>>


Actually, Imran, the water looked *less* like water than it could have: in the original test animations, the animators made the water look too real, and were asked to make it less life-like.

Hehe - yeah, I saw that in the extra features of my DVD. That's probably why 'water' came to mind.

The same thing also happened with Shrek- Some of the characters looked too real, and they kicked it down a few notches.

<<<-- Originally posted by Joe Calalang : Pixar creators get a lot of their inspiration from the creator of the Japanese animated movie "Spirited Away". But I forgot his name. -->>>

Hayao Miyazaki

The genius.

<<on the other hand, is very explicit. shrek2, antz, shark tales and the upcoming madagascar are all very wild. i think it's 2much for the kids. same with father of the pride on TV. i just don't think parading inneundo in front of kids is my brand of entertainment.
<<
Yi Fong Yu, you've made the incorrect assumption that all animation is for kids. It's not. Shrek was rated PG, yet parents still complained because they though they were going to see a Disney flick and dropped of the kids for cheap babysitting. Same with others rated higher than 'G'. People not paying attention.

NBC spent months warning viewers 'Father of the Pride' was an adult oriented series, and still many complained and acted surprised. Lazy, and lame and possibly dishonest. Parent should not be letting their young children watch it.

Animation is a serious art form that can be made specifically for all walks of life, and all ages. Pay attention to the ratings given the movie and don't assume anything.

Anyone thinking animation (2d or 3d) should only be made for young children is doing it a serious disservice.

Dreamworks is every bit as good as Pixar IMHO. Disney would have ruined 'Moses'. I think Dreamworks is behind the up coming Polar Express?
Who ever is behind it, based on the promos, the level of what can be done with CG/3D is going way up. The facial animation alone is superb.

P.S. the vast majority of Japanese Animation is for the 13 and up crowd.

i didn't make the incorrect assumption, it is the parents that have =). that's my point.

i still remembered when i saw blade2 on opening weekend and was horrified not by the movie but by the attendance of children under 13. 90% of the cinema were parents who took their kids under 13! some were as young as 5 or 6! the saddest part wasn't the action of the parents to take 'em in the beginning but the saddest part was only a few left (due to "misunderstandings" i'm sure)... but most of them stayed! afterwards i heard a lot of parents saying to each other, "wow what a bloody movie" and the kids going, "YEAH MAN!!! let's watch it again!

re: animation. th prob with it is US parents have been traditionally used to Disney's brand of "animation" from 2D through 3D (Pixar's partnership). they simply don't have time to "look it up". when they hear about this or that new animation they automatically take kids to it regardless. good thing XXX japanime isn't more prevalent here... or US parents would take their kids to see that as well out of ignorance.

Originally, cartoon shorts were aimed at adult theater goers, not children. Woody Woodpecker is a perfect example- In one cartoon from the 30's or 40's, Woody is trying to get a room. The sign in the lobby clearly states "No Opium!"

Just because it is animated, there is no reason to believe it is for kids. Look at Heavy Metal as another example. Some of us never quite grew up, and thoroughly enjoy animation... regardless of it's rating.

Also, the original Popeye cartoons from way back. Some of the stuff Popeye would mutter under his breath were almost downright dirty. Nothing direct - all double entendres.

But this goes to the nature of a lot of classic cartoons - a lot of them were just shorts that would show along with the newsreel before a matinee - where there were definitely no children present.

At some point, I'm not sure when, the transition happened to where animation started seeming solely for kids. Anyone a cartoon historian around here? I've always been curious as to how that transition happened.