Okay, so I haven’t been showing Crabapple Cove much love of late, but I’ve been feeling a little tired and uninspired. I’m sure you know the drill. There’s also another reason — I’ve been moonlighting. I ran across a solicitation for contributors from national site Examiner.com. I cycled through their wants, did not see a listing for a correspondent for cartoons and animation, and politely asked if they’d be interested in having one. Oddly enough, they were. After a surprisingly rigorous application process, they offered me the gig. Actually, I shouldn’t use the word “gig” since that implies there’s money to be had. While there is some compensation, it’s pretty minimal — but cash wasn’t really why I signed on. I’ve been doing the column for almost a month and, while I’m still finding my voice and drafting my long-term plan, I am rather enjoying the process.
For a while there, I was maintaining a separate site with some of my 3D model work. Although that site is no more, I thought I’d make a new page on the good ol’ Cove and throw up some of those stills. Check it out…
Pete Docter’s only other film as director is Monster’s Inc. — a decent enough movie, I suppose, but not one of Pixar’s best. “Monsters” certainly doesn’t prepare you for the marvel that is UP. I hesitate to say this, but this tenth movie from the Emeryville studio might just be its best. I hesitate to say it because I have a tendency to deify Brad Bird, and my prior Pixar favorite was The Incredibles. I still think The Incredibles is a tremendous achievement, but UP actually manages to do more with less. It takes a simple premise and a small group of characters and does everything a movie ought to do. It’s got action, it’s got laughter, it’s got tears — in short, it’s got all of the things that any storyteller aspires to deliver. Watching this movie was like watching Pete Docter move up from the minors to The Big Show.
I can sum up Monsters vs. Aliens for you in two words: “It sucks”. It has none of the charm or the heart of Kung Fu Panda — in fact, it’s so much like the prior (pre-Panda) entries from Dreamworks Animation’s back catalog that I’m willing to write off “Panda” as a fluke. Honestly, I should have known what I was in for given that some of the same minds that brought us Shark Tale were also behind Monsters vs. Aliens. If you didn’t see Shark Tale, count yourself fortunate: it’s probably the worst of the Dreamworks movies to date and that’s really saying something. I can’t even quite figure out who “Monsters” was supposed to be for. It’s shot through with broad, easy humor that adults won’t find funny and kids won’t get. In other words, nobody wins.
So, some of you out there might be asking “Okay, fine, but how was the 3D?” I can sum that up in one word: “Meh”. Was it bad? Not at all. Is it the FUTURE of movies as Jeffery Katzenberg and James Cameron would have us believe? I can’t see how it could be. The overall effect wasn’t unpleasant by any means but it also made little to no impression upon me. The truth is, if I never see another film in 3D, I doubt I’ll miss it. Jeff, Jim, c’mere for a sec… You guys want to know the secret to getting an audience and keeping it? You want to know how to get asses in seats? Gather ’round ’cause I’m only going to say this once…
As the title implies, The Pixar Touch: The Making of a Company is one part “corporate biography” and one part business book. It succeeds remarkably well on both fronts thanks to the impeccable research and deft writing skills of its author David A. Price. “Touch” is a better book in nearly every regard than last year’s To Infinity and Beyond. The fact that it is smaller and not as profusely illustrated is the only way in which I would say that it is inferior — but then it is not the book’s mission to be either an art portfolio or a love letter. One of the ways Price’s book differs from its predecessor is in its depiction of Steve Jobs. Since “Infinity” was largely written in-house at Pixar, the problem of Jobs’ irascible nature is side-stepped. Not so in “Touch”. Throughout much of the book’s length, the Apple Chairman and owner of Pixar comes off as not at all nice. I found this refreshing in a way since it’s consistent with much of what I’ve heard about Jobs in the past — apparently Steve can be a bit of a handful when he wants to be. Even with its warts-and-all portrayal of Pixar’s history, “Touch” never comes off as being mean-spirited or agenda-laden. It is, by all appearances, a straightforward history of Pixar and was very enjoyable on that level.
If you’re a fan of Pixar Animation Studios and what they’ve accomplished over the last thriteen or so years, pick up “The Pixar Touch”. It’s really terrific.
Just how bad is The Clone Wars? Well, really, really bad. I don’t know that it’s quite so bad as the critics would have you believe though — 18% on Rotten Tomatoes seems a little extreme even for a stinker like this. I’d probably be willing to rate it somewhere in the forties, but that still ain’t good, obviously. The script is bad, the new characters are atrocious and the musical score really calls attention to its own unrelenting mediocrity. I wish I could give you a good reason as to why I went to see this movie when I knew going in that it wasn’t going to be good. Somewhere deep inside me, the kid that loves lightsabers and dogfights in space refuses to die — despite Lucas’ best efforts to smother him. “Clone Wars” proves yet again that the gap between George’s tastes and the tastes of his audience is growing wider year by year. There’s stuff in this movie that’s quite literally beyond belief. Was the world really waiting for a gay Hutt? I could be wrong, but I think the answer is “no”.
I spent the better part of the day today at Siggraph (which stands for “Special Interest Group on Graphics”) — basically we’re talking a giant trade show for people into computer graphics and animation. So what did I learn? I learned that I don’t much care for trade shows. Or, rather, I was reminded of that fact. Siggraph and E3 (the Electronic Entertainment Expo — the equivalent trade show for video games) are very similar in the regard that they’re big and loud and I always feel like I’m missing something even though I’m probably not. I remember attending Siggraph in years past and seeing footage from Disney and Pixar films which were years down the road. But not this year. No, this year, the show felt even more like technobabble wrapped in an amalgamated sales pitch — with no glimpses behind the curtain whatsoever. Computer graphics software changes rapidly and it’s all about who has the latest bells and whistles. Even I don’t understand all the jargon that was thrown at me and I’ve been in the trade on and off for more than ten years. Maybe I’m just getting older, but I’m finding I care less and less about the tools and more about getting better at the actual work. If someone can show me a tool which will allow me to do better work then I want to see it, but I don’t want to muddle through a sea of bright lights and geeky bodies to get there.
Wall*E is a good movie. In fact, it’s very good, but I’m just not sure it’s 96% on rotten tomatoes good. There are several Pixar movies I like better and few I don’t like as well (The Incredibles being tops in the plus column and Cars being bottom in the minus). Maybe I was a victim of the hype going into this thing, but it didn’t fire on all cylinders for me. It’s beautiful to look at and I admire the hell out of the fact that it’s mostly told in pantomime (no mean feat to be sure), but there was just something lacking emotionally. A lot of the Pixar stuff really hits me on a gut level, but Wall*E never got there. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad film by any means, but Pixar’s just a victim of their own high standards, I guess. They can’t all be homers. This one’s more like a triple.
The Experience:
I saw Wall*E today through the good graces of ASIFA. The screening was held in the Frank G. Wells Theater on the Disney lot in Burbank. And thus was fulfilled one of my LA fantasies. If you’ve paid even casual attention to this site in the past, you know that a) I’m something of an animation nerd and b) Walt Disney is a personal hero of mine. The Disney lot isn’t typically open to the public so today’s visit was my first after eight years of living in the Los Angeles area.
I neglected to mention in my Kung Fu Pandareview that that too was an ASIFA screening. They’re a fine organization and, if you’re an animation fan like myself, you should become a member.
[Pictured above is the animation building on the Walt Disney Studios lot in Burbank. From 1940 through roughly the mid 1980s, this is where all of the Disney animated films were made.]
Update 7/1:
Unfortunate downside to the screening I attended: it did not include Pixar’s new short “Presto”. Lucky for me, iTunes posted the cartoon last night so I snagged it for 2 bucks and gave it a look-see. It’s really terrific. Fun, zippy animation and a decidedly 1940s-1950s studio cartoon vibe. One of Pixar’s best short offerings in years.
If you’ve paid any attention to this site over the years, you probably know that I like to rag on DreamWorks Animation. Their movies are generally soulless — bogged down with obnoxious behavior and pop culture references which serve no other purpose than popping you out of the story. Well, I’m about to say something I never thought I would say: Kung Fu Panda is good enough that Pixar could have made it. That’s a left-handed compliment to be sure, but Pixar set the bar that everyone else doing this type of film has to clear. And “Panda” directors Mark Osborne and John Stevenson manage to clear it. The movie has appealing characters, its sentiment is well-earned, the action is fantastic, and it’s quite possibly the best looking CGI movie to date. In fact, I think Kung Fu Panda is probably the best animated movie since Brad Bird’s The Incredibles.
For once I’m giving a DreamWorks movie an unreserved recommendation. Cue the apocalypse.
Here’re some more images of “The Brutalizer” — now with body! I’ve moved on to some other things since completing this project. I’ll post some pics of that stuff too when I get around to it.
For years, I was a 3D Artist in the games industry. For most of my career, I used Autodesk’s 3D Studio Max for all of my model building and animation. Whenever I had occasion to play with competing product Maya, I was very impressed. So much so that I always wanted to learn it. Well, now seemed like a good time, so I’m in the middle of building the sort of character one might find in a “next gen” video game. He’s an over-the-top superhero type I’m calling “The Brutalizer”. I’ve got the head knocked out, now I’m working on the body.
I really couldn’t have asked for more with To Infinity and Beyond!. It’s well-written, nicely illustrated, and, well, kind of inspiring. The book tells the story of the Emeryville, California animation studio’s first twenty years. From their early forays into (non-paying) short films to the billion dollar powerhouse they are today. Through the history lesson (which is engaging enough on its own) shines the passion and dedication of the people working on these motion pictures. You have to respect the fact that, if one of their films isn’t working, they do the only sensible thing which is to shut it down and fix it (costs be damned). At the end of the day, no one’s going to remember that you made your release date and you came in under budget. They’re only going to remember whether or not your movie was any good, and the folks at Pixar have a tremendous track record as far as that goes. “Infinity and Beyond” renewed the admiration I had for people like John Lasseter and Steve Jobs. Pixar must truly be a helluva place to work.
One cautionary word for the folks at Pixar (you are listening, aren’t you, folks at Pixar?): In your early films, you played to the strengths of your medium. Computers do hard shiny surfaces well so, hey, let’s do plastic toys and bugs. Makes perfect sense. But then Brad Bird came in and challenged you. He had an idea for a film that contained all of the things that computer animation doesn’t do well — flesh, hair, etc., etc. Well, Pixar, you rose to the challenge and The Incredibles is a damn good movie. But what did we get after that? John Lasseter gave us cars and now Andrew Stanton is about to give us robots. Two things that computer animation does inherently well. I’m being slightly cute here. I know these movies have a long lead time and the changes that Mr. Bird hath wrought might not have trickled down through the studio yet. How about for that next round of flicks you guys push the envelope a bit? Your first priority is to tell a good story, of course, but go on and stretch yourselves while you’re at it…
Just like Shrek 3 (and practically every Dreamworks Feature Animation film to date) Bee Movie is a pretty, but ultimately empty experience. Almost without exception, these flicks fail to connect on an emotional level — a real shame since animation is difficult and time-consuming.
Oh well, at least this one isn’t brimming over with loud non-sequitur songs, inappropriate pop culture references and gratuitous shots to the crotch. That’s something, I guess.
This film gets a lot of things right. The documentary-style camera work, the loose, improvisational style of its dialogue and –most importantly– the sheer beauty of its visuals. This is really an amazing film to look at. The water in particular is astonishing. But none of that really matters without a decent story, right? Well, Surf’s Up does a reasonable job with that too. Don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing particularly new here, but the characters are likable and the narrative has a laid-back style that’s appropriate for its subject matter (ie surfing and beach culture).
All in all, this is a much better film than Sony’s earlier effort Open Season.
I can sum up Monsters vs. Aliens for you in two words: “It sucks”. It has none of the charm or the heart of 
Recent Comments