Ko0K on 1/7/2011 at 07:23
"Can't be arsed." Yet you were arsed enough to retort in the first place.
dexterward on 1/7/2011 at 12:27
Quote Posted by Koki
but GET JUMPY? Seriously
If it was in South Guy you`d go gaga over it. Oh wait...you did ;)
Koki on 2/7/2011 at 13:14
I have no fucking idea what you just said.
dexterward on 2/7/2011 at 14:55
"Koki confused!" - it would make for a neat Achievement I suppose.
fett on 2/7/2011 at 17:33
I have no fucking idea what you just said.
Sulphur on 3/7/2011 at 20:28
Quote Posted by Ko0K
I see... So this was in their mission statement somewhere? How about their contract with the movie-goers?
Late reply, I completely forgot to come back to this.
I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. What's all this talk about a 'mission statement' for? It's been perfectly obvious that Pixar movies work on two levels since they released Toy Story, and they've almost never missed a beat with that reputation until now.
It's disappointing that they've decided to go guns blazing for thoughtless entertainment at par with a low-grade Disney feature; it's disappointing because Pixar set the quality precedent to begin with and stuck to it. I don't need a mission statement or a contract for that, it's a statement of fact
and popular opinion, and while I've not taken a consensus, I'm pretty confident the majority of adults who've seen a Pixar movie feel the same way about it, apart from the critics.
Quote:
It's a rewarding experience to enjoy a movie on a sensory level as a kid, and be pleasantly surprised to enjoy the same movie on a cerebral level later upon revisiting it as an adult. It's great if you expected to sit through a movie because your kids wanted you to take them to watch it, then realized that there was something for the grown-ups in there, too. Regardless, when you go into the theater to watch a G-rated movie, it's only appropriate to expect that you'll be watching a kids' movie. What, I'm supposed to think otherwise just because it's a Pixar movie, even though it's got bright colors, round shapes and talking cars in it, and everyone knows that there'll be kids being kids in the theater?
A G-rated movie does not have to mean dumb bullshit with zero thought behind it apart from a couple action sequences and daft comedy, especially when it's coming from a company known for the quality of their work. To take another example, E.T. worked with both kids and adults because of how well it was written, and while it's emotionally manipulative, you could level that criticism at a great many 'adult' movies too.
Quote:
Besides, what I was curious about was how this one, despite being shitty by Pixar standard (according to adults, anyway), fared with the primary target audience. ...not that said 'target audience' would respond here, anyway.
I'm sure they loved it. The kids at the theatre I went to certainly did. From a financial success point of view, Pixar's opening weekends are always big.
This isn't about the economics of a sequel however. If you want to discuss that, I'm perfectly willing to concede that the financial viability of sequels in a successful franchise with a less than discerning audience outweighs any concerns of quality. That point is moot.
When it comes to the quality of the sequel alone, however, things are different. The audiences at the screenings I went to - kids and adults alike - seemed more enthused with Kung Fu Panda 2, which is a better sequel than Cars 2 by
miles.
Koki on 4/7/2011 at 08:16
Quote Posted by Sulphur
I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. What's all this talk about a 'mission statement' for? It's been perfectly obvious that Pixar movies work on two levels since they released Toy Story, and they've almost never missed a beat with that reputation until now.
Is it as obvious as 28 Weeks Later being a commentary about Iraq?
Or is it a different level of obviousness
june gloom on 4/7/2011 at 09:18
whoa what's this about 28 weeks later
fett on 4/7/2011 at 13:38
It's pretty fucking obvious. Every parent I know owns a copy of most all the Pixar films and continues to watch and appreciate them long after their kids lose interest. Up is a perfect example of this - it's actually only good for about 1-2 viewings for kids, but for adults, it bears watching many more times than that.
Ko0K on 4/7/2011 at 21:27
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Late reply, I completely forgot to come back to this.
There's no need for this BS excuse; I was neither inconvenienced by nor concerned with the timing of your response.
As for the rest of it, again you go on about the perceived quality of the movie, how your expectation somehow translates to a mandate on Pixar's part, etc., but none of that has anything to do with what I said. Whether this particular movie is dumb or not isn't something I am not qualified to express, since I haven't watched it, and I have no intention of watching it. It's a kids' movie, and so far the only critics I've seen seem to be adults. My OP in thisa thread was a tongue in cheek remark to that effect, and somehow you see that as an attempt on my part to defend Pixar. How the fuck did that happen?
Forget dumb or not. By calling it a kids' movie, I only identified its intended audience and not its quality. I know it's a kids' movie because I expect there will be some kid in the back kicking my seat and tons of others wailing, shouting, and cackling in the theater if I were to watch it there. That's precisely the reason I never watched a single Pixar (or any other kids' movie, for that matter) in the theater, ever. Cut the bullshit and call it a spade already.
