Disney stole all their talent leaving Pixar proper to be run by a bunch of art school students who launched their dream projects which all sucked.
Their newest is a romcom about immigration, ffs. How is that supposed to win over kids?
I saw this movie and enjoyed it, but most of all I wondered who this movie was for. It's not a kids film. It's very much an adult romantic comedy, and immigrant family story about the disconnect between 1st and 2nd generation, with a female protagonist who is so completely mixed up that she continually pushes away the advances of a guy who is way more charming and likeable than she is.
This is not the kind of movie Hollywood has been making lately so I really appreciated that, and there were some genuinely successful scenes of romance (the hand holding scene in particular is the movie's highlight) but why was this movie made? It's not a kids movie, and if I had seen it as a kid I'm pretty sure I would not have liked it. It puts a mundane story inside a fantastical world, which kind of begs the question of why even make it animated at all? You can tell this same story with humans and it will be just as compelling, if not more so. The fantastical piece of them being elements didn't actually add to what the film did well, or what the film really cared about, which was the central story.
I was actually asking myself the other day why Illumination have become animation's top dogs and Pixar and Dreamworks are in the gutter, and I think this is the answer. Illumination is actually making movies for children that appeal to kids and parents, Pixar is not. This film was not marketed as a rom-com for adults even though that's what it was, and even if it had been I don't know if there's really an audience for it. It's not even a great date movie because it's so focused on the immigrant story, and Ember is just not a charming or likeable romcom protagonist.
Very strange movie, and unsurprising that it's unsuccessful. But it's a shame because I did enjoy it.
The movie seemed as if it was written by one of those parents who fabricate those woke child tweets - a narcissist who has no idea what kids like or what is age-appropriate
did you actually see the film? I thought that before going in (especially after seeing the "marry fire" threads) but saw the film with an open mind, and I'd say you're being overly harsh. It is a personal story, but I enjoyed that. The relationship between ember and her father felt like honest storytelling to me. The only big criticism I had of it was that the explanation of why they came to element city needed to be better. That's such a huge part of the immigrant story, and he came because...a storm destroyed his shop? So what, we see him repair his shop like 10 times in the movie. His daughter blows it up every other day. Especially since he emigrated with a pregnant wife and was literally the first one there. Immigrating to a new land where there isn't any community at all takes a very special kind of person, and we don't see that from him. There needed to be a much better explanation for why he couldn't stay in fire land. And there are so many you can use, like political repression, lack of economic or education opportunity, and just wanting a better life for your children. But we got nothing.
Inconsistancy is such a part of this movies DNA, my favorite flub was giving wade backstory and even a flashback giving him a phobia of sponges, but also portraying him wearing sponges on his hands and head with no problem a few scenes earlier at the airball game, lol
I saw this movie and enjoyed it, but most of all I wondered who this movie was for. It's not a kids film. It's very much an adult romantic comedy, and immigrant family story about the disconnect between 1st and 2nd generation, with a female protagonist who is so completely mixed up that she continually pushes away the advances of a guy who is way more charming and likeable than she is.
This is not the kind of movie hollywood has been making lately so I really appreciated that, and there were some genuinely successful scenes of romance (the hand holding scene in particular is the movie's highlight) but why was this movie made? It's not a kids movie, and if I had seen it as a kid I'm pretty sure I would not have liked it. It puts a mundane story inside a fantastical world, which kind of begs the question of why even make it animated at all? You can tell this same story with humans and it will be just as compelling, if not more so. The fantastical piece of them being elements didn't actually add to what the film did well, or what the film really cared about, which was the central story.
I was actually asking myself the other day why Illumination have become animation's top dogs and Pixar and Dreamworks are in the gutter, and I think this is the answer. Illumination is actually making movies for children that appeal to kids and parents, Pixar is not. This film was not marketed as a rom-com for adults even though that's what it was, and even if it had been I don't know if there's really an audience for it. It's not even a great date movie because it's so focused on the immigrant story, and Ember is just not a charming or likeable romcom protagonist.
Very strange movie, and unsurprising that it's unsuccessful. But it's a shame because I did enjoy it.
A big problem with animation in recent years is that you now have adult animation fans making personal stories for other adult animation fans. It's not necessarily a bad thing. It's sort of like how back in the 70s and 80s you had these guys who wanted to lift animation as an art form, but they still knew that in the US animation was very much a kid's thing so they made kids stuff that dealt with serious themes embedded in them.
You can absolutely do animation for adults, you just can't spend 200 million on it. Studios are consistently greenlighting budgets so high that movies need to break the top 20 highest grossing movies just to make their money back, it's insanely reckless and seems so common right now
it's been a really rough summer for blockbusters, I wonder if this will lead to real changes in production budgets. Spiderman, transformers and GotG did well, and little mermaid will probably do a little better than break even (sadly), but everything else seems to be bombing hard.
I'll be interested to see how the rest of the summer goes. We still have mission impossible, barbie, oppenheimer, TMNT, haunted mansion, and blue beetle.
>immigrant family story about the disconnect between 1st and 2nd generation >This is not the kind of movie hollywood has been making lately
I seem to remember a few of these movies being extremely popular the past few years.... I think one of them was called turning red all at the same time?
They've been releasing too many movies. A new Pixar movies used to be something special, but now there's so many of them and none of them are really unique.
>none of them are really unique
I was really surprised by Soul. While it did do a lot of things we'd seen in Pixar movies before, that movie's nihilism was definitely out of the norm. >when you die your soul is placed on a conveyor that leads towards a giant soul furnace that obliterates all spirits that touch it, and you are given no explanation or direction >before they inhabit bodies, souls are tended to by spirits that have an open contempt for humanity
The setting may or may not have potential for an interesting story, but "WHOAH ROMEO AND JULIET BUT THEY'RE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS" is the most braindead, uncreative and downright moronic way of using it.
Romeo and Juliet isn't about people from different clans falling in love. Yes the play does have that, but it's about the self destructive nature of clan warfare, and that it takes the death of their children for them to see that. Shakespeare was so determined to make sure that people didn't miss the point that he spells out the message right in the prologue. Yet here we are. >Two households, both alike in dignity >(In fair Verona, where we lay our scene), >From ancient grudge break to new mutiny, >Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean. >From forth the fatal loins of these two foes >A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life; >Whose misadventured piteous overthrows >Doth with their death bury their parents’ strife. >The fearful passage of their death-marked love >And the continuance of their parents’ rage, >Which, but their children’s end, naught could remove, >Is now the two hours’ traffic of our stage; >The which, if you with patient ears attend, >What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.
You call others braindead and moronic but you don't even know this?
I dunno if you're EFL or not but I find it's reasonably common to use 'Romeo & Juliet' as shorthand for any situation where families/society don't want the lovers together. Yeah I know the similarities are limited otherwise, I've read the play, poor choice of words perhaps - you get my point.
No worries. When I call it uncreative and stupid, what I mean is the obvious fact is that fire and water destroy each-other, a child understand this. There is no creative way to utilise this with a fire person and water person falling in love and living happily ever after. You just have to go "well they're magic element people and won't destroy each other like real elements would, they can be a couple because they just can." What's the purpose? Fire and water actually CAN mix? What the frick was the point of element-world then? They may as well be normal people.
You could tell a buddy cop story in this setting like Zootopia and it'd work better.
Why don't you go to the 200+ thread on Cinemaphile about this exact topic, you bandwagoning desperate loser? Do the replies make you feel less alone? Get a hobby instead of asking obvious questions.
No imagination. Elemental would have been interesting if they took a speculative fiction mindset and developed unique societies for each. But it's just an interaction between Americans if they were fire, Americans if they were water, Americans if they were clouds, and Americans if they were potplants. The Last Airbender had more interesting worldbuilding.
Your not fooling anyone. The march through the institutions was a great plan except the degraded output affected your kind just as much if not more than the people you were after.
gaygit communists will be openly beaten and worse in our lifetime.
Romantic comedy about people from different races dating? Oh wowz what a wacky concept that isn't decades olds and done to death!
Just cause they changes asian for fire and stuff like that doesn't mean it's original.
Otherwise my hit book series, King of the Necklaces, which tells the tale of two gnomes in their journey to destroy the necklace of might from the Evil Lord Sauropod would've been a blockbuster
>my hit book series, King of the Necklaces, which tells the tale of two gnomes in their journey to destroy the necklace of might from the Evil Lord Sauropod
Tell me more, anon.
Talent and brain drain. Good thing about Pixar's recent flops is that maybe the masses will see that the brand means little dogshit but the people behind said brand is what's really important.
Who the frick wants to watch a boring romantic ‘comedy’ with the only gimmick being they’re made of elements, that has to cater to kids due to being animated?
Pixar making a film called elemental should imply something like a fire elemental is the main character and has to go on an adventure to stop Glacius, the coolest kid in school, from trying to false flag a volcanic eruption with the aid of Cliff, the good hearted but dim witted earth elemental, and learn about the value of his friendship with Zephyr the wind elemental.
Or an ancient Titan sized elemental was bound into human form by a wizard, wakes up in the modern time, learns about friendship, love etc, then tragically has to break the spell and take his true form when an ancient elemental threatens all he loves
Pixar was always melodramatic slop for moronic children. Not one single ounce of originality since its inception. Animation is only impressive to people who have only ever seen pixar/dreamworks movies. I could go on and on about how shit Pixar has always been. Rewatch Toy Story and Ratatouille and tell me they aren't the most whiny annoying israeli shit ever.
I think modern Pixar is way too up its own ass with what a Pixar film is supposed to be. Granted, that statement might be too absolutist, given Luca exists. I hear that movie is trying to be a pleasant time, but I haven't seen it.
But think about what movies like Toy Story, The Incredibles, Finding Nemo, and Monster's Inc are about in text versus subtext. Yes, the fantastical things has metaphors behind them, but the movies are not just the metaphors. Onward, Turning Red, and Elemental are creatively motivated ENTIRELY by their metaphors. Even Inside Out, one of the post TS3 Pixar movies people consider great, is a pretty bottom of the barrel idea to personify X in kids movie and have them do exactly what X would do if it was personified.
If Finding Nemo was made by today's Pixar, Marlin would be a Seahorse in order to make the single dad needing to take on a maternal role feel more fitting in the eyes of the current writers and directors.
I dunno, almost every kid in my class said they were going to watch it this weekend, cept for this sick girl who said she wanted to watch the weird mermaid movie
>Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Monsters Inc, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Cars, Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up, Brave, Inside Out, The Good Dinosaur, Coco, Onward, Soul, Luca, Turning Red, Elemental
All their non sequel/prequel films
>Andre & Wally B, Luxo Jr, Red's Dream, Tin Toy, Knick Knack, Geri's Game, For the Birds, Boundin', One Man Band, Lifted, Presto, Partly Cloudy, Day & Night, La Luna, The Blue Umbrella, Lava, Sanjay's Super Team, Piper, Lou, Bao
All their short films that aren't based on one of their films
>Pixar told kids not to be creative >Those kids grew up to be non-creative adults >Shocked Pikachu face
>Co-writer, Andrew Stanton, goes on to say: “A lot of us really played hard with our toys, but even though in our eye in the movie Sid’s a bad guy, and he does bad things to toys, it’s somewhat more true to what we were.” >Lasseter adds, “We all agreed that Sid was the kind of kid who would grow up to be an animator.”
https://collider.com/toy-story-sid-phillips-not-bad/
They dont create movies for kids/families anymore. Who wants to watched a dumb allegory about menstruation, immigration, interracial relations.They create movies for themselves. Lightyear was supposed to be a space adventure, not a shittier interstellar.
disney
Disney stole all their talent leaving Pixar proper to be run by a bunch of art school students who launched their dream projects which all sucked.
Their newest is a romcom about immigration, ffs. How is that supposed to win over kids?
The movie seemed as if it was written by one of those parents who fabricate those woke child tweets - a narcissist who has no idea what kids like or what is age-appropriate
did you actually see the film? I thought that before going in (especially after seeing the "marry fire" threads) but saw the film with an open mind, and I'd say you're being overly harsh. It is a personal story, but I enjoyed that. The relationship between ember and her father felt like honest storytelling to me. The only big criticism I had of it was that the explanation of why they came to element city needed to be better. That's such a huge part of the immigrant story, and he came because...a storm destroyed his shop? So what, we see him repair his shop like 10 times in the movie. His daughter blows it up every other day. Especially since he emigrated with a pregnant wife and was literally the first one there. Immigrating to a new land where there isn't any community at all takes a very special kind of person, and we don't see that from him. There needed to be a much better explanation for why he couldn't stay in fire land. And there are so many you can use, like political repression, lack of economic or education opportunity, and just wanting a better life for your children. But we got nothing.
Inconsistancy is such a part of this movies DNA, my favorite flub was giving wade backstory and even a flashback giving him a phobia of sponges, but also portraying him wearing sponges on his hands and head with no problem a few scenes earlier at the airball game, lol
They don't die, but their meaning and exegesis can be distorted over time, which is like a death. Kid isn't as smart as she thinks he is.
the funniest thing about this tweet is that she's supposedly a poet and that's what she came up with
>not posting the infamous reply that went with the tweet
I saw this movie and enjoyed it, but most of all I wondered who this movie was for. It's not a kids film. It's very much an adult romantic comedy, and immigrant family story about the disconnect between 1st and 2nd generation, with a female protagonist who is so completely mixed up that she continually pushes away the advances of a guy who is way more charming and likeable than she is.
This is not the kind of movie hollywood has been making lately so I really appreciated that, and there were some genuinely successful scenes of romance (the hand holding scene in particular is the movie's highlight) but why was this movie made? It's not a kids movie, and if I had seen it as a kid I'm pretty sure I would not have liked it. It puts a mundane story inside a fantastical world, which kind of begs the question of why even make it animated at all? You can tell this same story with humans and it will be just as compelling, if not more so. The fantastical piece of them being elements didn't actually add to what the film did well, or what the film really cared about, which was the central story.
I was actually asking myself the other day why Illumination have become animation's top dogs and Pixar and Dreamworks are in the gutter, and I think this is the answer. Illumination is actually making movies for children that appeal to kids and parents, Pixar is not. This film was not marketed as a rom-com for adults even though that's what it was, and even if it had been I don't know if there's really an audience for it. It's not even a great date movie because it's so focused on the immigrant story, and Ember is just not a charming or likeable romcom protagonist.
Very strange movie, and unsurprising that it's unsuccessful. But it's a shame because I did enjoy it.
A big problem with animation in recent years is that you now have adult animation fans making personal stories for other adult animation fans. It's not necessarily a bad thing. It's sort of like how back in the 70s and 80s you had these guys who wanted to lift animation as an art form, but they still knew that in the US animation was very much a kid's thing so they made kids stuff that dealt with serious themes embedded in them.
You can absolutely do animation for adults, you just can't spend 200 million on it. Studios are consistently greenlighting budgets so high that movies need to break the top 20 highest grossing movies just to make their money back, it's insanely reckless and seems so common right now
it's been a really rough summer for blockbusters, I wonder if this will lead to real changes in production budgets. Spiderman, transformers and GotG did well, and little mermaid will probably do a little better than break even (sadly), but everything else seems to be bombing hard.
I'll be interested to see how the rest of the summer goes. We still have mission impossible, barbie, oppenheimer, TMNT, haunted mansion, and blue beetle.
>immigrant family story about the disconnect between 1st and 2nd generation
>This is not the kind of movie hollywood has been making lately
I seem to remember a few of these movies being extremely popular the past few years.... I think one of them was called turning red all at the same time?
They've been releasing too many movies. A new Pixar movies used to be something special, but now there's so many of them and none of them are really unique.
>none of them are really unique
I was really surprised by Soul. While it did do a lot of things we'd seen in Pixar movies before, that movie's nihilism was definitely out of the norm.
>when you die your soul is placed on a conveyor that leads towards a giant soul furnace that obliterates all spirits that touch it, and you are given no explanation or direction
>before they inhabit bodies, souls are tended to by spirits that have an open contempt for humanity
The setting may or may not have potential for an interesting story, but "WHOAH ROMEO AND JULIET BUT THEY'RE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS" is the most braindead, uncreative and downright moronic way of using it.
Romeo and Juliet isn't about people from different clans falling in love. Yes the play does have that, but it's about the self destructive nature of clan warfare, and that it takes the death of their children for them to see that. Shakespeare was so determined to make sure that people didn't miss the point that he spells out the message right in the prologue. Yet here we are.
>Two households, both alike in dignity
>(In fair Verona, where we lay our scene),
>From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
>Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
>From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
>A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life;
>Whose misadventured piteous overthrows
>Doth with their death bury their parents’ strife.
>The fearful passage of their death-marked love
>And the continuance of their parents’ rage,
>Which, but their children’s end, naught could remove,
>Is now the two hours’ traffic of our stage;
>The which, if you with patient ears attend,
>What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.
You call others braindead and moronic but you don't even know this?
I dunno if you're EFL or not but I find it's reasonably common to use 'Romeo & Juliet' as shorthand for any situation where families/society don't want the lovers together. Yeah I know the similarities are limited otherwise, I've read the play, poor choice of words perhaps - you get my point.
Sorry about that then, I'm just still mad after seeing the musical "& Juliet" on Broadway the other day.
No worries. When I call it uncreative and stupid, what I mean is the obvious fact is that fire and water destroy each-other, a child understand this. There is no creative way to utilise this with a fire person and water person falling in love and living happily ever after. You just have to go "well they're magic element people and won't destroy each other like real elements would, they can be a couple because they just can." What's the purpose? Fire and water actually CAN mix? What the frick was the point of element-world then? They may as well be normal people.
You could tell a buddy cop story in this setting like Zootopia and it'd work better.
have you seen the film? Yes it's conceptually flawed, but I thought they managed to make it work.
Fire doesn't destroy water or vice versa. Interesting little fact: energy is neither created nor destroyed.
visually. you know exactly what i mean you pedantic homosexual
Why don't you go to the 200+ thread on Cinemaphile about this exact topic, you bandwagoning desperate loser? Do the replies make you feel less alone? Get a hobby instead of asking obvious questions.
>visiting Cinemaphile, ever
beat me to it
Calm down incel
>WHY ARE YOU DISCUSSING A MOVIE ON A MOVIE BOARD??!?!
>Toy Story 5
>Bugs Life 2
>Walle-E 2
>Finding Nemo 3
>Cars 4
>Ratatouille 2
>Monsters Inc 2
Pixar bros....we are so back!!
>Walle-E 2
could be kino
No imagination. Elemental would have been interesting if they took a speculative fiction mindset and developed unique societies for each. But it's just an interaction between Americans if they were fire, Americans if they were water, Americans if they were clouds, and Americans if they were potplants. The Last Airbender had more interesting worldbuilding.
The people running things are the product of at least two generations of subversives dismantling our institutions
you don't have any idea what you're talking about
Your not fooling anyone. The march through the institutions was a great plan except the degraded output affected your kind just as much if not more than the people you were after.
gaygit communists will be openly beaten and worse in our lifetime.
see
Lemme guess....their baby is steam
Of course not you fricking dolt, you can see on the poster there's already an race of cloud people
Kids don’t want to see an Asian man seethe about his dead grandma for 90 minutes.
Pixar should try actually making movies for kids again like Illumination if they want money.
Romantic comedy about people from different races dating? Oh wowz what a wacky concept that isn't decades olds and done to death!
Just cause they changes asian for fire and stuff like that doesn't mean it's original.
Otherwise my hit book series, King of the Necklaces, which tells the tale of two gnomes in their journey to destroy the necklace of might from the Evil Lord Sauropod would've been a blockbuster
>my hit book series, King of the Necklaces, which tells the tale of two gnomes in their journey to destroy the necklace of might from the Evil Lord Sauropod
Tell me more, anon.
Getting politics in kids movie.
Why did they make Black folk water when the sea is where they drown en masse?
Jews
Talent and brain drain. Good thing about Pixar's recent flops is that maybe the masses will see that the brand means little dogshit but the people behind said brand is what's really important.
moronic BORING ROMANCE
Not closing the studio when they used every idea from that lunch meeting
Who the frick wants to watch a boring romantic ‘comedy’ with the only gimmick being they’re made of elements, that has to cater to kids due to being animated?
Pixar making a film called elemental should imply something like a fire elemental is the main character and has to go on an adventure to stop Glacius, the coolest kid in school, from trying to false flag a volcanic eruption with the aid of Cliff, the good hearted but dim witted earth elemental, and learn about the value of his friendship with Zephyr the wind elemental.
Or an ancient Titan sized elemental was bound into human form by a wizard, wakes up in the modern time, learns about friendship, love etc, then tragically has to break the spell and take his true form when an ancient elemental threatens all he loves
That's too creative and heartfelt, anon. Maybe 20 years ago they'd produce that, but not now.
Pixar was always melodramatic slop for moronic children. Not one single ounce of originality since its inception. Animation is only impressive to people who have only ever seen pixar/dreamworks movies. I could go on and on about how shit Pixar has always been. Rewatch Toy Story and Ratatouille and tell me they aren't the most whiny annoying israeli shit ever.
I don't like Toy Story but I do like Ratatouille.
I think modern Pixar is way too up its own ass with what a Pixar film is supposed to be. Granted, that statement might be too absolutist, given Luca exists. I hear that movie is trying to be a pleasant time, but I haven't seen it.
But think about what movies like Toy Story, The Incredibles, Finding Nemo, and Monster's Inc are about in text versus subtext. Yes, the fantastical things has metaphors behind them, but the movies are not just the metaphors. Onward, Turning Red, and Elemental are creatively motivated ENTIRELY by their metaphors. Even Inside Out, one of the post TS3 Pixar movies people consider great, is a pretty bottom of the barrel idea to personify X in kids movie and have them do exactly what X would do if it was personified.
If Finding Nemo was made by today's Pixar, Marlin would be a Seahorse in order to make the single dad needing to take on a maternal role feel more fitting in the eyes of the current writers and directors.
Dont fire Lasseter next time.
Time to apologize.
I dunno, almost every kid in my class said they were going to watch it this weekend, cept for this sick girl who said she wanted to watch the weird mermaid movie
>Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Monsters Inc, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Cars, Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up, Brave, Inside Out, The Good Dinosaur, Coco, Onward, Soul, Luca, Turning Red, Elemental
All their non sequel/prequel films
>Andre & Wally B, Luxo Jr, Red's Dream, Tin Toy, Knick Knack, Geri's Game, For the Birds, Boundin', One Man Band, Lifted, Presto, Partly Cloudy, Day & Night, La Luna, The Blue Umbrella, Lava, Sanjay's Super Team, Piper, Lou, Bao
All their short films that aren't based on one of their films
>Purl, Smash and Grab, Kitbull, Float, Wind, Loop, Out, Burrow, Twenty Something, Nona
SparkShorts
John Lasseter getting fired for hugging.
>Pixar told kids not to be creative
>Those kids grew up to be non-creative adults
>Shocked Pikachu face
>Co-writer, Andrew Stanton, goes on to say: “A lot of us really played hard with our toys, but even though in our eye in the movie Sid’s a bad guy, and he does bad things to toys, it’s somewhat more true to what we were.”
>Lasseter adds, “We all agreed that Sid was the kind of kid who would grow up to be an animator.”
https://collider.com/toy-story-sid-phillips-not-bad/
They deserve to fail.
Millennial are creatively bankrupt
They aren't nearly as obsessed with sequels as Dreamworks is tho.
get woke, go broke
They dont create movies for kids/families anymore. Who wants to watched a dumb allegory about menstruation, immigration, interracial relations.They create movies for themselves. Lightyear was supposed to be a space adventure, not a shittier interstellar.