Brave Little Toy Story
Jun. 19th, 2010 12:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tealinI have laughingly referred to myself as The Pixar Grinch since Wall-E, and was not really looking forward to Toy Story 3, which I called Brave Little Toy Story because of its apparent similarities to a certain early Lasseter film about a toaster. But as the release date approached, the buzz started to build, and the clever and appealing viral marketing took off, it started to look like it had possibilities ... Then the studio had a screening last weekend, and I came back from my mini-holiday to all my colleagues, even the ones who didn't like the last few Pixar films, nodding in glassy-eyed unison that yeah, it was pretty much the best thing ever, and all was forgiven. Gosh, I thought, maybe it is good after all! I sure hope so, because I like seeing good movies, and I don't like losing faith in the people who have been a guiding creative light for so long (and, more importantly selfishly, dictate the creative path of the studio for which I work).
So I don't think my reaction was determined before I went in; I had not made up my mind to continue in the role of Pixar Grinch. I wanted my heart to grow three sizes today. I'm not entirely sure why it didn't, but I may as well attempt to apportion blame ...
My overall impression of the film was that it was a really good fanfic. Everyone was in character, there were some good scenes and fresh ideas that still kept in the spirit of the original, but it felt like a story that had been posted as each chapter was finished and then left at that: no revision, no wrangling and weaving of character arcs and plotlines to make a nice sturdy nest around the egg of What This Is All About, just an entertaining stream of consciousness from A to B to C and so on. Things from the beginning do come back at the end, and it seems like the author did at least keep in mind what the central drive of the plot was, but it wasn't ... finished. I don't know if this is down to the collaborative story process in which each story artist takes a sequence back to their desk and makes a little mini-film, and then strings them together until it's movie-length (this might explain why the first fifteen minutes felt like retreading the same conversation in different settings). Maybe it's the influence of serial TV shows on DVD. You can now watch umpteen hours of a television show all in one go, or in packages of your own devising – this is great for TV because it encourages writers to get a bit more sophisticated and dramatic and tell a Grand Story through a dozen smaller episodes, but if you want to do that you should work in TV. Toy Story 3 would have made a great miniseries. I don't just mean it would have been good, it would have been one of those things people refer to for ages as exemplary television, maybe even groundbreaking. But as a two-hour* feature this approach just lends it an air of distraction ... a 'what was I talking about again? Oh yeah ...' sort of feel.
*I don't know exactly how long it was; it felt really long
This is, ironically, diametrically opposed to my 'problem' with Pixar films lately being 'too mathematical' – they have seemed to be concocted in a lab, strictly following the correct formulae to produce laughter, tears, a satisfying arc, etc, but I almost wish Toy Story 3 had been more carefully constructed. If your typical Pixar movie is an impeccably groomed topiary bush, and a really well-made satisfying film like, say, Moon is a natural-feeling but subtly cultivated pine in a Japanese garden, Toy Story 3 is a ... a ... hazel thicket.
Once again it also seemed to fall victim to my personal Pixar gripe of overexplaining things. It wasn't so bad in the 'hit you over the head with exposition' kind of way this time, thank goodness, but there were lots of times characters stated the obvious in unbelievable dialogue and even – quelle horreur – explained the joke.. After I posted my review of Up in which I raised this same point, I was constantly pressed for examples, and I still have the DVD sitting in my desk drawer waiting for me to be bored enough to dig them up, but FEAR NOT! I have smuggled out of the theatre, in a warm little nest of towels, a quivering, trembling, newborn EXAMPLE!
A minor new Dumb Muscle character says, in reference to an established character, 'He's not exactly the sharpest knife in the ... er ... pully thing that has knives in it.' That is a joke. The fact he can't think of such a basic word is both amusing and illustrative of his character, and the irony of him stupidly botching his insult of someone else's intelligence makes us laugh. The implied meaning is: he is calling another character dumb, but he is even dumber! Haha! It's not a genius or original joke but it is, nominally, a joke. Go team. BUT THEN. The character to his right says something to the effect of 'Well you aren't exactly a genius either, dummkopf.' WE DON'T NEED THAT. That's gilding the lily (if you could call that gag a lily). We need two facts to get the joke: a)who the first character is and b)how he failed his insult. Both were delivered in a neat little package by Character 1. Anything else is just wasted screentime. If Character 2 had been a similar Dumb Muscle character, then there would have been another layer of humour, in the hypocrisy of yet another blockhead calling a blockhead stupid, but he wasn't. He was quite simply stating the subtext. Rule #1 of dialogue writing: YOU DO NOT OPENLY STATE THE SUBTEXT.*
*Well, okay, maybe this comes after 'make it sound natural' and 'stay in character.' But beyond that!
Now wait a minute, Tealin, isn't this something you've cited in your list of Reasons Dr Horrible Rocks My Socks?* Because Captain Hammer does the exact same thing. Well spotted, I reply! But there are some important differences. One is a little subjective: the statement Capt. Hammer was explaining wasn't exactly a gag in itself. 'These are not the hammer' is less of a joke and more of a subtext delivery package spiced with humour; it only turns into a joke when he comes back to explain it. (The fact he leaves and then returns to clarify makes it more obviously a joke, and a funnier one.) Second, and this is unassailable truth here: it's a character doing it, not the filmmaker. This little episode illustrates the fact he is the sort of person who a)explains jokes and b)thinks he is so intellectually superior to his audience than he has to explain something so enormously obvious, which makes him look even more stupid in our eyes. It's character development. When the FILMMAKER does this to US, it makes HIM look bad, and takes us** out of the movie.
*Why yes, I am also aware I have not yet posted Act III.
**by which I mean 'me'; for all I know I'm the only person bothered by this
I am always a little bit insecure when it comes to gauging whether a film is being overly simplistic or not. When I was in Grade 8 we had to do dramatic presentations on various socio-economic phemonena in the 19th century and I did one on the emergence of monopolies, which I packaged in what I assumed was a completely transparent allegory of one big fish eating all the little fish in the pond. When I presented it to the class, though, I might as well have done the whole thing in Russian for their blank stares. Ever since then there's always been the nagging doubt in my head that maybe people do need it spelled out for them in large block letters on a white background, but I refuse to believe that even films aimed at the same audience do quite as much overstatement as Pixar's recent films have done. And I've been to just enough meetings at Disney to know exactly who's behind this, which gives me very little hope for it changing in the near future. It's all fairly disheartening if I let myself think about it, so I usually don't.
I found it hard to get into this movie for any number of reasons, some of which may have been the sound system in the theatre, but more probably had to do with the film itself. Aside from resenting its constant assumption that I wasn't paying attention thirty seconds ago I found some parts predictable, others far too slow (see previous comment regarding the first fifteen minutes), and as much as I enjoy these characters in their first two films I found it difficult to care what was going to happen to them, no matter what increasing perils the filmmakers threw at them, very much like the last three Harry Potter books. The considerate people at work who have been discussing the movie in spoiler-free language consistently refer to 'this one really genuine emotional moment near the end' and I think I know what they're talking about, but the fact I'm not 100% sure is telling in itself. (If it is the moment I'm thinking of, I would like to point out to anyone within earshot that IT HAD NO DIALOGUE, DID YOU NOTICE?!) There was also the way the bloody score would not shut up. It was a decent score (even if it did steal phrases from familiar tunes, which kept distracting me), there was just too much of it – a quiet moment can be very effective. I was afraid I'd have to fault Michael Giacchino, who I assume scores everything Pixar does these days, but I was a little relieved to see it was Randy Newman who is already on my list after Frog.
From a technical standpoint the animation was faultless, though I suspect there was one animator on the crew with a much more exaggerated style because some scenes randomly stood out as 'cartoony.' The look was nice but not as much of a leap as from TS1 to TS2, and the cinematography aside from a few sequences was more or less pedestrian. Voice acting was OK, though the delivery of some of the lines tipped them into 'overstatement' even if they weren't necessarily written that way. There was a Time Out for Backstory that made me do a mental 'Backstory!' fistshake but it turned out to be important; I maintain it could have been handled a bit more organically but the fact it doesn't is very much in keeping with the 'first draught' impression I got of the script.
I am sorry to come across so universally negative; if I were writing a review for a paper not only would I be sacked for being so long and rambly and off-the-point, but I'd probably give it 3 stars out of 5; it wasn't a bad film, it just wasn't great. Everyone else in the theatre seemed to be enjoying it immensely. To sum up my personal appraisal: I don't regret seeing it, but I can't imagine going out of my way to see it again, or even stopping to watch for a bit if I caught it playing in a room I was walking through. I wouldn't buy the DVD; that money's much better spent on How to Train Your Dragon, which will actually get watched. Repeatedly.
Brave remains the only Pixar film I'm looking forward to ... Brenda Chapman, it's all riding on you!
So I don't think my reaction was determined before I went in; I had not made up my mind to continue in the role of Pixar Grinch. I wanted my heart to grow three sizes today. I'm not entirely sure why it didn't, but I may as well attempt to apportion blame ...
My overall impression of the film was that it was a really good fanfic. Everyone was in character, there were some good scenes and fresh ideas that still kept in the spirit of the original, but it felt like a story that had been posted as each chapter was finished and then left at that: no revision, no wrangling and weaving of character arcs and plotlines to make a nice sturdy nest around the egg of What This Is All About, just an entertaining stream of consciousness from A to B to C and so on. Things from the beginning do come back at the end, and it seems like the author did at least keep in mind what the central drive of the plot was, but it wasn't ... finished. I don't know if this is down to the collaborative story process in which each story artist takes a sequence back to their desk and makes a little mini-film, and then strings them together until it's movie-length (this might explain why the first fifteen minutes felt like retreading the same conversation in different settings). Maybe it's the influence of serial TV shows on DVD. You can now watch umpteen hours of a television show all in one go, or in packages of your own devising – this is great for TV because it encourages writers to get a bit more sophisticated and dramatic and tell a Grand Story through a dozen smaller episodes, but if you want to do that you should work in TV. Toy Story 3 would have made a great miniseries. I don't just mean it would have been good, it would have been one of those things people refer to for ages as exemplary television, maybe even groundbreaking. But as a two-hour* feature this approach just lends it an air of distraction ... a 'what was I talking about again? Oh yeah ...' sort of feel.
*I don't know exactly how long it was; it felt really long
This is, ironically, diametrically opposed to my 'problem' with Pixar films lately being 'too mathematical' – they have seemed to be concocted in a lab, strictly following the correct formulae to produce laughter, tears, a satisfying arc, etc, but I almost wish Toy Story 3 had been more carefully constructed. If your typical Pixar movie is an impeccably groomed topiary bush, and a really well-made satisfying film like, say, Moon is a natural-feeling but subtly cultivated pine in a Japanese garden, Toy Story 3 is a ... a ... hazel thicket.
Once again it also seemed to fall victim to my personal Pixar gripe of overexplaining things. It wasn't so bad in the 'hit you over the head with exposition' kind of way this time, thank goodness, but there were lots of times characters stated the obvious in unbelievable dialogue and even – quelle horreur – explained the joke.. After I posted my review of Up in which I raised this same point, I was constantly pressed for examples, and I still have the DVD sitting in my desk drawer waiting for me to be bored enough to dig them up, but FEAR NOT! I have smuggled out of the theatre, in a warm little nest of towels, a quivering, trembling, newborn EXAMPLE!
A minor new Dumb Muscle character says, in reference to an established character, 'He's not exactly the sharpest knife in the ... er ... pully thing that has knives in it.' That is a joke. The fact he can't think of such a basic word is both amusing and illustrative of his character, and the irony of him stupidly botching his insult of someone else's intelligence makes us laugh. The implied meaning is: he is calling another character dumb, but he is even dumber! Haha! It's not a genius or original joke but it is, nominally, a joke. Go team. BUT THEN. The character to his right says something to the effect of 'Well you aren't exactly a genius either, dummkopf.' WE DON'T NEED THAT. That's gilding the lily (if you could call that gag a lily). We need two facts to get the joke: a)who the first character is and b)how he failed his insult. Both were delivered in a neat little package by Character 1. Anything else is just wasted screentime. If Character 2 had been a similar Dumb Muscle character, then there would have been another layer of humour, in the hypocrisy of yet another blockhead calling a blockhead stupid, but he wasn't. He was quite simply stating the subtext. Rule #1 of dialogue writing: YOU DO NOT OPENLY STATE THE SUBTEXT.*
*Well, okay, maybe this comes after 'make it sound natural' and 'stay in character.' But beyond that!
Now wait a minute, Tealin, isn't this something you've cited in your list of Reasons Dr Horrible Rocks My Socks?* Because Captain Hammer does the exact same thing. Well spotted, I reply! But there are some important differences. One is a little subjective: the statement Capt. Hammer was explaining wasn't exactly a gag in itself. 'These are not the hammer' is less of a joke and more of a subtext delivery package spiced with humour; it only turns into a joke when he comes back to explain it. (The fact he leaves and then returns to clarify makes it more obviously a joke, and a funnier one.) Second, and this is unassailable truth here: it's a character doing it, not the filmmaker. This little episode illustrates the fact he is the sort of person who a)explains jokes and b)thinks he is so intellectually superior to his audience than he has to explain something so enormously obvious, which makes him look even more stupid in our eyes. It's character development. When the FILMMAKER does this to US, it makes HIM look bad, and takes us** out of the movie.
*Why yes, I am also aware I have not yet posted Act III.
**by which I mean 'me'; for all I know I'm the only person bothered by this
I am always a little bit insecure when it comes to gauging whether a film is being overly simplistic or not. When I was in Grade 8 we had to do dramatic presentations on various socio-economic phemonena in the 19th century and I did one on the emergence of monopolies, which I packaged in what I assumed was a completely transparent allegory of one big fish eating all the little fish in the pond. When I presented it to the class, though, I might as well have done the whole thing in Russian for their blank stares. Ever since then there's always been the nagging doubt in my head that maybe people do need it spelled out for them in large block letters on a white background, but I refuse to believe that even films aimed at the same audience do quite as much overstatement as Pixar's recent films have done. And I've been to just enough meetings at Disney to know exactly who's behind this, which gives me very little hope for it changing in the near future. It's all fairly disheartening if I let myself think about it, so I usually don't.
I found it hard to get into this movie for any number of reasons, some of which may have been the sound system in the theatre, but more probably had to do with the film itself. Aside from resenting its constant assumption that I wasn't paying attention thirty seconds ago I found some parts predictable, others far too slow (see previous comment regarding the first fifteen minutes), and as much as I enjoy these characters in their first two films I found it difficult to care what was going to happen to them, no matter what increasing perils the filmmakers threw at them, very much like the last three Harry Potter books. The considerate people at work who have been discussing the movie in spoiler-free language consistently refer to 'this one really genuine emotional moment near the end' and I think I know what they're talking about, but the fact I'm not 100% sure is telling in itself. (If it is the moment I'm thinking of, I would like to point out to anyone within earshot that IT HAD NO DIALOGUE, DID YOU NOTICE?!) There was also the way the bloody score would not shut up. It was a decent score (even if it did steal phrases from familiar tunes, which kept distracting me), there was just too much of it – a quiet moment can be very effective. I was afraid I'd have to fault Michael Giacchino, who I assume scores everything Pixar does these days, but I was a little relieved to see it was Randy Newman who is already on my list after Frog.
From a technical standpoint the animation was faultless, though I suspect there was one animator on the crew with a much more exaggerated style because some scenes randomly stood out as 'cartoony.' The look was nice but not as much of a leap as from TS1 to TS2, and the cinematography aside from a few sequences was more or less pedestrian. Voice acting was OK, though the delivery of some of the lines tipped them into 'overstatement' even if they weren't necessarily written that way. There was a Time Out for Backstory that made me do a mental 'Backstory!' fistshake but it turned out to be important; I maintain it could have been handled a bit more organically but the fact it doesn't is very much in keeping with the 'first draught' impression I got of the script.
I am sorry to come across so universally negative; if I were writing a review for a paper not only would I be sacked for being so long and rambly and off-the-point, but I'd probably give it 3 stars out of 5; it wasn't a bad film, it just wasn't great. Everyone else in the theatre seemed to be enjoying it immensely. To sum up my personal appraisal: I don't regret seeing it, but I can't imagine going out of my way to see it again, or even stopping to watch for a bit if I caught it playing in a room I was walking through. I wouldn't buy the DVD; that money's much better spent on How to Train Your Dragon, which will actually get watched. Repeatedly.
Brave remains the only Pixar film I'm looking forward to ... Brenda Chapman, it's all riding on you!
