Pixar to Disney: Drop Dead

I think it was the NPR/LAtimes interview. Tbf they didn't call her annoying, but they did say after a while she makes you (that is, made the reviewer) a little irritable.

I don't expect this to be bad at all, but given the original "Nemo" (which I love) is not terribly ambitious by Pixar standards, this sort of redux seems not particularly compelling. It's curious, my kids have loved all those recent Disney-proper cartoons, even the older daughter, but neither wanted to see Inside Out, both actively refused to see Good Dinosaur (to my disappointment) and neither has mentioned Finding Dory at all.

I am curious about the animation. Nemo was, what, a decade ago? 15 years ago? A while ago, anyway, and I think it still looks gorgeous. Have there been any significant advances in computers that make this one look any better/different? I don't know where the animation can go from the first one. A lot of computer tech lately is going to fur and flowing hair and other hyper-detailed stuff. Computers seem to have nailed water stuff years ago.

the surfaces of the fish look very tactile in this, like you could just pick them up and touch them (and I saw it in 2d). And the water itself is mindblowing, particularly at the end credits where there is a scene that's held for about 10 seconds of the bay and the dock and it's utterly, completely photo realistic; if you didn't see the Good Dinosaur, there are scenes of wind through grass that are similar, where you can't believe this is animation. That's amazing, but it's also a bit...if it just looks completely real, then why is it better than actual film of a real place, you know? Luckily that kind of realism is left to the background textures and the character animation itself is just very very good. The way the octopus moves around, for instance....it's cartoonish, almost loony-toonsish at time, but somehow it's very believable.

for all the fuss (or, well, one article anyway) about there being a same sex couple in this, they are there for all of about 1 and a half seconds.

It's funny, the uncanny valley doesn't really apply to natural imagery, does it? Just people? Because there's a driving scene in Zootopia, too, where everything looks photorealistic (except for the characters). Even back in Life of Pi, the tiger is as real as can be; likewise the bear in The Revenant. I think that's why these movies stay cartoons, because they still can't do people, and thus go the opposite direction with cute and/or stylized protagonists, or talking animals. Though new Jungle Book was all CG, more or less, except for the kid, right? I wonder how far we are from a movie with photorealistic CG creature protagonists. Or how they would sustain a film in that mode, narratively. I guess a movie like Babe did it with a combination of real animals, puppets and CG.

Not really interested in photorealism in art, generally speaking. It's basically a magic trick (albeit one that that involves a lot of skill and technical mastery). But the extent to which movies like this are able to more fully and realistically realize an imagined universe is pretty amazing (the aesthetic of Zootopia was just gorgeous in this regard).

I pretty much agree with this review: http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Finding-Dory-brings-the-fish-tale-to-a-new-8133528.php

Dory is annoying

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, June 16, 2016 6:19 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

Can't believe JiC wants to fuck a fish

watching good dinosaur tonight; i guess they scheduled it to premiere on cable in concert with Dory's release?

while i don't really love cgi animated movies -- actually i kinda hate them -- pixar had the right idea from the beginning with regard to keeping the human characters (or just the characters in general i guess) relatively cartoony. (thus avoiding the uncanny valley shit.) the "realism" of the backgrounds is just kind of standard animation technique applied to cgi. animation (at least in the traditional disney style or stuff like studio ghibli, not so much classic looney tunes where it was much more stylized) has always been about contrasting vibrant and less "realistic" characters against hyper-detailed backgrounds.

Scott McCloud had a decent explanation of why this method works in Understanding Comics, but I can't find a full scan of that page
https://i.imgur.com/DwnhC0z.jpg

I always thought it was not jut about contrast but because the main characters have more changes and action than the backgrounds, and take more work, so the less something moves or needs to change, the more detail it can have. I guess the advance in CG is stuff like hair (or water, or plants in the wind or whatever), detailed things with automated natural motion, but that's still background and sort of designed to be random, vs. directing lead characters, which is hyper specific.

xpost Yeah, McCloud calls it the "masking effect" and asserts that we identify more easily with simply-drawn characters (smiley face could be almost everyone on earth, photograph could basically be one person)... so we can sort of put on the 'mask' of the simply-drawn character. He also gives the example of a prop like a sword - drawn simply when the character is swinging it, as an extension of you, the reader - but becoming hyper-detailed when the character notices some mysterious writing on the hilt, shoving it back into the alien, not-you space of the world.

I still basically buy it but I think it's probably a little more complicated and non-universal than he's suggesting. Great book, though, would get a kick out of flipping through it again. Was my Bible for years after it came out.

yeah mccloud was probably who was thinking of (in the abstract) when i wrote that. i don't know how well the book holds up since i haven't read it cover to cover in more than a decade-- i think he was a little too interested in a grand unified theory of comics, and too much has happened in comics in the years since that some things probably not longer ring true -- but i still have my original tundra copy somewhere. he was also super gracious to me when i was an annoying 17 year old pestering him with questions that i would in no way apply to my life or career once i woke up to the fact that i can't draw.

Yeah, at this point I'm pretty sure part of the book's appeal would be as kind of a period-piece glimpse into what would have existed, and been on the radar of a particularly enthusiastic consumer of American, European and Japanese work, at the turn of the 90s. The grand unified theory stuff might have some holes in it, but on the other hand I think some of the stuff it draws your attention to probably still obtains... like really focusing on what "happens" between panels, or how time can also pass within a panel, etc. Brain-expanding, at least for 12-year-old me.

Not to stray too far off-topic, but McCloud has written two follow-ups that address in part some of the changing landscape of comics.

Still haven't seen "Dory," but my wife tells me there is a slightly more than simmering parent revolt, or at least a lot of parents warning certain parents and kids away. Apparently "Dory" has been weirdly traumatic for younger kids, especially kids who have been adopted? Don't know what that's about.

http://www.adoptionlcsw.com/2016/06/finding-dory-adoption-movie-review.html

Interesting. Also interesting that like 90% of Disney movies begin with the death of a parent/loved ones, and afaict that's never proved particularly traumatic for little kids. Maybe it's the specifics of this scenario?

My almost 6yo is seeing it this weekend as part of a birthday party and I'm a little worried for him. He wept through most of Paddington because he could sense that Paddington was lonely and scared (but also refused to walk out because he didn't want to miss anything).

Finding Dory is better than most Pixar sequels. I'm convinced they had Dory's story all worked out when they made the first movie -- nothing feels like a retcon.

My 4yo non-adopted niece liked it. Not sure how much she understood.

The sea lions in Dory were String and McNutty.

Ha! Didn't notice that.

Finally saw "Dory" and thought it was a lot better than I expected. I can definitely see how it could be traumatic or at least troubling for kids who have been adopted, though I was surprised how well the film worked as a parable of special needs kids and hard it can be for them to navigate (or be allowed to navigate) the world. You've got Dory, of course, and her condition, you've got the sea lion and bird with some sort of intellectual disability, you've got a legally blind whale shark, traumatized beluga, an octopus missing a leg (and of course even Nemo has his tiny flipper). Without saying it a lot of "Dory" is about these characters overcoming their disabilities.

Not sure I was into the broad gag of the octopus driving a car (I just read Soul of the Octopus and know they're smart but come on), but I was willing to go with it.

Oh, also, the opening short "Piper" was cute, and was scored by Adrian Belew!

Not sure I was into the broad gag of the octopus driving a car (I just read Soul of the Octopus and know they're smart but come on), but I was willing to go with it.

― Josh in Chicago, Monday, August 1, 2016 3:22 PM (55 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

just fyi it's a movie abt talking fish

I guess that was just photorealism run amuck, I thought they actually had an octopus driving a car, suddenly it all makes sense!

One of the great things about the first one is how the characters, while anthropomorphic talking sea creatures, generally behave and act according to the species/physiology or whatever, so there was some ... internal logic? But I guess I do draw the line at an octopus starting up a car and leading the police on a high speed chase. Not just starting a car that rolls down a hill into the ocean, but steering, making screechy u-turns, etc.. I expect that from talking toys, but not from talking octopuses.

Seriously, Soul of an Octopus is a super-cool read.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51O7Qa9liKL._SX323_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Well if we're going to nitpick, that wasn't an octopus, it was a septapus, and the missing arm was probably its reproductive arm, and by Seinfeldian logic, that lack would make him a cognitive and spatial genius.

It's a philosophical quandary. If an octopus loses an arm, is it still an octopus? If a twin loses its twin, is it still a twin?

I'm talking biology!

I thought a kid tore one of his arms off?

The Good Dinosaur was a snooze. Weak characterizations, a poorly defined story universe and a disappointingly standard American Tail-style lost child narrative. And couple of lovely autumnal visuals towards the end notwithstanding, even the animation was barely better than average.

yeah. worse than brave in my opinion.

I couldn't get my kids to watch it when it was literally the only thing on TV. 50% of "Brave" is great, then it turns into My Mother the Bear.

that was the better half imo

my expectations for the good dinosaur were sufficiently low that i actually kinda liked it for what it was: a feature-length demo reel for pixar's amazing new digital grass and water effects

I thought "Moana" was great, easily one of the best looking Disney, etc. movies, sort of made me think of "Brave" if "Brave" was better.

Is this one Pixar or just Disney?

Disney.

Is the new one Pixar or Disney? Doesn't really matter anymore, I guess. Anyway, "Encanto" was absolutely gorgeous. It was also perhaps more patient than most Disney animated films, and perhaps just slightly more cliche-averse. That said, I don't think it made much sense, and my daughter immediately thought of a better ending, but it's worth it for the bright colors alone. Also, caught the trailer for this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdKzUbAiswE

Looks like it could be fun.

(Also some "Teen Wolf" vibes.)

whole lotta dreamworks face in that trailer

trailer is manic af

This is the one set in my old Toronto neighbourhood! Can't wait to see it. The short by the same director was a lot mellower, hopefully this was just trailer'd up

I literally lived opposite this house!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEZ0WZqWYAkpX6H?format=jpg