thedriveintheatre

Looks like those little green men ain’t so little after all.

Andrew Stanton has a lot to live up to for his first live-action movie. Hot on the heels of Brad Bird, another Pixarian who also made his own live-action directorial debut in the specatcular Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, Stanton not only has to live up to the film’s reported $250 million price tag, but do the grandaddy of science-fiction tales justice.

John Carter has been a film in development purgatory for many years. Its first attempted screen adaptation by Looney Tunes director Bob Clampbett might have been stolen the title of first feature-length animated film from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, but it unfortunately failed with test audiences. Since then, it has gone through a number of notable film figures: animation legend Ray Harryhausen, producer Jeffrey Katzenberg who is now Disney and Pixar’s arch-nemesis, Robert Rodriguez and the late Frank Frazetta, and Jon Favreau, who would go on to direct another science-fiction blockbuster: Star Trek.

Eventually, though, the hot potato got passed on to Stanton, who had directed a personal favourite of this author which coincidentally, was also a science-fiction film. Wall-E, and his first Pixar film Finding Nemo, were one of the studio’s greats, and now he and Mark Andrews (also a Pixarian) have been tasked with this bringing Edgar Rice Burrough’s magnificent space opera to the big screen.

I have not read the source novels before, so I went in not knowing anything other than the cinema posters and Frank Cho and Frazetta’s renditions of the beautiful Dejah Thoris, Princess of Mars. In some aspects, the film succeeds in being the grand adventure tale it promises in the trailers and ads. The film takes a while to pick up, and one of my cinema partners almost fell asleep during the opening act. Once our hero arrives on Mars (or Barsoom, as the natives call it), the film kicks into high gear. It also features one of the most exhilarating and memorable scenes of the movie, when Carter discovers the extent of his strength and agility due to Mars’ reduced graviational pull. It managed to recapture the same childish delight of Wall-E’s first foray into outer space or the sea turtles whizzing through the East Australian Current in Nemo. The battle scenes also evoke the savagery of Frazetta’s paintings and a gladiator-style match is reminscent of a similar sequence in Star Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Clones.

Unfortunately, the film gets bogged down in tiresome exposition about halfway through, with Dejah Thoris explaining what the audience has already figured out if they have seen the trailers (that yes, he is in fact on Mars). Carter is also not so much a master of his own destiny as more of a pawn being conveniently rendered unconscious multiple times to meet the next character/go to the next setting.

Much like Finding Nemo’s Marlin, Carter has a tortured past and emotional baggage to carry with him on his journey. Unfortunately, this is hinted at early on in the film and much like Daniel Craig’s character in Cowboys & Aliens, I already figured it out way before the great revelation in the middle. Nemo does this better by getting us to empathise with the hero from the very first scene, but here it is executed in a very mauldlin and overly sentimental way. Dejah doesn’t fare better, as she is reduced to the typical damsel-in-distress-who-is-actually-capable-of-taking-care-of-herself. There’s nothing wrong with her being a stereotype, but it would’ve been much more intriguing if there was something more to her than just being the female badass.

Interestingly, it is the Tharks, who are the supporting characters in Carter’s quest, that prove the most interesting. Willem Dafoe (who voiced a fish in Finding Nemo) is Carter’s ally Tar Tarkas. His first interaction with Carter is another memorable sequence, bringing to mind Tarzan and Jane’s meeting from another of Burrough’s classics. His daughter, Sola is another empathetic character who looks out for Carter, despite his constant disobedience and ignoring of her advice. I kinda felt sorry with how much suffering her character goes through, often as a result of Carter’s nonchalant apathy and selfish desire to find his “cave of gold”. This was also another problem I had with Carter as a character; it is hard to admire him as a hero when he only looks out for himself, although this is somewhat redeemed towards the end.

Michael Giachinno, a longtime Pixar collaborator and composer of Ghost Protocol’s score, provides an entertatining, although somewhat forgetable soundtrack to Carter’s odyssey. I couldn’t remember any particularly outstanding track, and it felt very trailer soundtrack-ish. With his previous works like Wall-E, with its mechanical and etheral whines, or Up, with its classical strings and old-school adventure fanfare, or Cars, with is British surf-inspired espionage-y beats, there was a theme running through all the tracks. I can’t remember any from Carter. Maybe it will come to me on a repeat viewing, but for it to not linger in my mind, it must have been pretty unremarkable.

If you’re starting to think John Carter is a dud, either from this review or its current Tomatometer rating, I want to say it’s much better than that. When it fails, it’s mildly entertaining, but when it succeeds, much like the titular protagonist, it soars. There are unexpected moments of warmth and mirth when you least expect it. The side characters are rich and indelible (the little dog thing that chases Carter like the Roadrunner cartoons will no doubt sell Happy Meal toys faster than a White Ape). The twist ending involving none other than Burroughs himself delivers a huge payoff (my friends and I got a kick out of analysing it and the other possibilities that could’ve happened if it didn’t work out). And the final shot, when you see it, will remind you of another film which owes it a huge debt: James Camerons’ Avatar.

If you’re going in expecting something deep or insightful, you’re better off watching a George Clooney Hawaiian movie. But if you’re after a rousing pulp adventure that occassionally meanders but ultimately delivers, then suspend your disbelief and gravity and take a trip with Carter.

On Saturday, February 11th 2012, TDIT won a record five Pixar Planet Awards for ‘Funniest Member’, ‘Most Informative Member’, ‘Best Critiquer’, ‘Best Video Maker’, and ‘Best Debater’. Here is his acceptance speech, posted 2 weeks later.

Sorry for the late reply, but better late than never! For those who don’t have the time or inclination to read this whole post, just skip to the last paragraph for a ‘TL:DR’ summary!

I’m so touched to receive so many awards this year, I don’t think I’ve had this many previously! To be nominated for Best Critiquer and Best Video Maker for the third and second year running respectively is just… woah. Being the inaugural winner for ‘Best Debater’ (I should be a politician, hurr hurr) and ‘Most Informative’ was cool too. I’m flattered to think I’m the ‘Funniest’, but if I make you laugh, I guess that’s the icing on the cake! Kudos to my fellow winners, you deserve your titles! And a big thank you to those who have voted for me and supported my fanwork all these years. You are the reason why I do what I do.

To those who didn’t win or weren’t nominated this year, I strongly encourage you to keep at what you do, and hopefully you’d improve enough to be recognised next year! There are some categories which I wished I had won, like fanfiction and fanart, which I have never achieved, but I don’t let that get me down. There are people who deserve this more than I do, and maybe someday, I can be as good as them, with enough courage and perseverance!

I’m proud to be a part of this community for close to five years (I joined in late 2008), and contribute to its rich history. Over the years, I’ve seen members come and go, events commence and conclude, and the fanworks of our dedicated Planeteers florish and bloom. I will never forget the old-timers and those nights (or mornings) we shared together watching our favourite Pixar films. I will also cherish the memories I have and will continue to have with the newcomers, and watch as they continue to bring the site into a brighter future.

I remember there was one time I did a rant about how the Brain Trust should move on and let the younger Pixarians take over and move the studio forward. I’m afraid now I’m going to have to live my own words, judging by the budding talents and hardworking staff we have on this forum. While this will not be the end of my contributions to the fandom, I’m afraid my ‘golden era’ is over, as I move on the next stage of my life and the responsibilities of adulthood.

I’ll still pop in here, though, from time to time. Well, I pretty much do every week, anyway. I’m not quite sure whether I will ever leave this place, but if some day I do, I just want y’all to know it’s been a great ride, and that you made it all the more awesome.

A big shout-out too, to TSS and little_chef for organising this year’s awards. I consider you both as two of my best buds here, and I’m thankful for all the love and friendship you have given me. Same goes to everyone else here; whether you realise it or not, you have shaped my life in one way or another, and I am grateful for that. It has been an honour.

TL:DR Summary - Thank you for the Awards, and congratulations to everyone for being a part of the greatest Pixar fansite on the Internet!

The following are two separate posts on Pixar Planet by TDIT in reply to several members’ opinions on Derpy Hooves’ recent portrayal in ‘The Last Roundup’, an episode from ‘My Little Ponies: Friendship is Magic’. The pivotal scene where Derpy’s name is canonized drew controversy and criticism when fans wrote in to object to the name and behaviour of the character, which they felt was offending to the mentally-disabled. The episode has since been removed from iTunes for unspecified reasons.

Post on January 24, 2012

“I did enjoy the scene, although I do agree with the points you’ve raised regarding how it might be regarded as insensitive. I’m sorry about your friend and the pain she had to go through being called names behind her back; everybody deserves dignity and respect. Like you said, I don’t think the creators intentionally set out to demean those with intellectual disabilities, but since this was (perhaps unfortunately) the name the fanbase went with, they had to go with it for the namedrop. Perhaps a more neutral name like ‘Bubbles’ or ‘Muffin Top’ or even ‘Silly Willy’ would’ve been more tactful instead. But then you’d have another round of whiners complaining about ‘Golden Harvest’ or ‘Hearstrings’. Besides, we could attribute her being referred to as “Derpy” to Rainbow’s callous personality, so it could simply be a nickname people call her.

I’ve given this matter some thought and realised that giving ‘silly’ characters silly names in animation is nothing new. Disney has Goofy, Warner Bros. has Daffy, Pixar has Bubbles, Dreamworks has Lord Farqhuad, etc. ‘Derpy’ can be seen as an intellectual epithet, but it was never meant as a mean-spirited jibe for the majority of fans, only as a term of endearment. Not that there aren’t cruel fans who delight in seeing Derpy getting into trouble, but that’s probably why she’s so empathetic to all of us - cos’ we all make mistakes and we don’t know everything. Unlike say, Jimmy from South Park or Scrat from Ice Age, who play Butt Monkeys, Derpy doesn’t necessarily have misfortunes happen to her as cause them indirectly. And deep down, she’s just well-meaning and friendly, from what we’ve seen so far.

It’s good that the episode writer is aware of the repercussions of making the name Canon, and even then, it might not be entirely her fault. Maybe some higher-up or lower-down suggested she throw the fans a bone and make their day, so she just wrote it in.

Overall I’m really happy the creators have finally acknowledged her fanon name and personality, but reading posts by mentalguru and a few others elsewhere about how the name and voice has upset them makes me feel bad somehow (not blaming y’all, just that now I see that scene in a different light).”

Post on Feb 07, 2012

“I listened to balddumborat’s opinion video (we can all comiserate together over why she wasn’t picked to voice Derpy, as unlikely as it would’ve been) and was about to post it here, but someone has beaten me to it. Curse you, you have foiled my well-laid plans (well, actually my plans are mostly badly-laid, but I digress)!

Personally, I feel that both sides have an equal point on the matter. On the one hand, the word might be ‘loaded’ and offensive to some, and it’s better to err on the side of caution and be polite. On the other hand, to treat the mentally-disabled in a special manner (pun unintended, honestly) is in itself reverse discrimination (or affirmative action).

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t treat everyone with respect, because we all deserve it. But as balddumborat pointed out, there have been silly characters in the show before - like Snails, and Pinkie Pie to an extent. And of course, the entire Mane Six are stereotypes personified. You don’t see tomboys, or nerds, or beauty queens getting outraged over the (sometimes) heavy-handed depiction of their personalities. Maybe it’s because it isn’t as controversial or culturally-sensitive as a mentally disabled person. It shouldn’t be that way, really. I’ve had friends and relatives with such conditions but I talk to them in a normal manner, just that sometimes I have to be aware that they may require assistance with some tasks (just like an elderly person or a pregnant woman, you talk, you joke with them, but you’re aware of their needs).

Again, I don’t think they intentionally set out to outrage the mentally-disabled community. Perhaps they were being insensitive, but again the interpretation of the word is subjective. Disney has Goofy, and Dopey. Warner Bros. has Daffy. Cartoon Network had Billy from Billy and Mandy, Ed from Ed, Edd, and Eddy, I.R. Baboon from I.M. Weasel, etc (The last three from CN in particular, are as Robert Downey Jr. from Tropic Thunder would say, “Full Retard”). There’s a whole legacy of silly characters with silly names, but because MLP has entered the cultural zeitgeist, the helicopter parents, special needs caretakers and sensitive people take notice. Why the double standards, the hypcorisy? Why can’t a googly-eyed, klutzy pony have a nickname in a kid’s show? You might as well take out Timmy from Southpark (whose portrayal I find waaay more offensive than Derpy), or never have Forrest Whitaker act in any movie, because we refuse to ackwnoledge the existence of wall-eyed people.

Nobody complained when Snails spoke in a slurry voice, or when Twilight and Pinkie briefly ‘lost it’ in [i]Lesson Zero[/i] and [i]Party of One[/i] respectively (at least, not to my awareness). ‘Brown Syndrome’ folks never said a word when they made her eyes her defining feature. But you get a mare acting clumsy (notice, she’s merely being clumsy and blissfully ignorant, but not incapable of coherent speech or thoughts) and people get up in arms about it.

All that said and done, though, the way how people who voice their objection to Derpy were instantly dismissed or derided is not fair either. We should respect opinions from everyone, whether we agree with them or not. Even universally abhorrent things have shades of grey in them, depending on the context and circumstance (and which moral philosophy model you support). So while I, on a personal level, am not offended, I can understand how others can be, and they have my sympathy (I don’t know if that came out right). We shouldn’t shoot someone down when they say “I’m hurt by this statement/remark/character’s name/etc.”, but rather try to find the reason why.

You ask my opinion, I think they should keep Derpy in. I don’t mind if they change her name to Ditzy and change that awful voice (Tabitha in fact admitted she thought she was voicing a stallion! See, people derp all the time). But please don’t remove her entirely; to deny her existence or character as a simple-minded but good-hearted pony is still discrimination in my books.

On another note, the line between affectionate parody and cruel mockery can be very thin. Most people don’t see a problem taking the Mickey out of Twilight movies or Justin Bieber (and believe me, it does get downright mean-spirited at times), but when they do it to Schindler’s List or Stephen Hawking, we get outraged. Does a movie having serious themes mean it is immune to criticism or reconstitution? In this liberal age where we have ‘Hitler Rant’ videos, maybe not now.

Do we ascribe a greater human value to Stephen Hawking than Justin Bieber? Ignore the obvious answer that Stephen Hawking achieved more in contributing to the collecting knowledge of mankind than Bieber and that Bieber is able-bodied; what I mean on a fundamental level is why don’t we treat the two with equal respect as good-natured and law-abiding (as far as I can tell) human beings? Make a ridiculous parody of Bieber being blown to smithereens and nobody blinks. Do the same thing with Stephen Hawking (even though such a parody would have nothing to do with his disability) and you’re asking for trouble.”

The ‘mane’ cast just ‘lion’ around.

The Lion King has often been hailed by critics as one of the greatest motion-pictures of all-time, no small feat for a film back when the medium was still deemed by the average moviegoer as ‘just for kids’. Later animated flicks like Toy Story, Shrek, and Spirited Away began to change that perception, but this 1994 Disney feature continued Beauty & The Beast’s Oscar legacy by being the highest grossing 2D animated film of all-time in the United States and spawning two sequels and a Broadway adaptation.

The Lion King was one of my first unforgettable film experiences from my childhood. I remember watching it on VHS; the Elephant Graveyard sequence and the heartbreaking death of Mufasa brought me to tears as a six-year old. I remember my aunty, who watched the film with my siblings and I while babysitting us, desperately trying to cheer us up during the later ‘Hakuna Matata’ number. My dad later watched it on his own and became so enthusiastic about the Swahili expression, that he even wrote the phrase down and made my brother and I memorise the entire song.

This film holds a cherished place in my heart, and I haven’t seen the film in its entirety until now, sixteen years later, and in a theatre with surround sound, no less. Let’s get the most pressing question out of the way first - is the 3D worth the price of admission alone? Honestly, not really. There were a few great moments like the aerial shot of the flying flamingos during the opening sequence, or that iconic image of Scar leaping towards the audience with his claws out. But other than that, the added dimension didn’t really add much to the film, unlike movies like Avatar, How to Train Your Dragon and Legend of the Guardians, which had a lot of high-altitude flight sequences and multiple-planes shots.

But does it still stand the test of time? Unsurprisingly, yes. Unlike many contemporary ‘famliy’ flms like Transformers, Alvin & The Chipmunks, and Hannah Montana: The Movie, which will become dated within the next two months, TLK’s story is timeless, probably because it owes much of its plot to the epic Shakespearean play Hamlet. If you’ve been living under a rock for the past decade, here’s the story in a nutshell: A pride of lions rule an anthropomorphic kingdom of animals in Africa, led by the incumbent king Mufasa. His son, Simba, is next to ascend the throne, but Mufasa’s jealous brother Scar has other plans. There’s political manuevring, a love story, and a sweeping tale of redemption, betrayal, and destiny, all amidst the breathtakingly majestic plains and creatures of Africa.

As an adult, it is a real treat to rediscover a childhood favourite with new eyes. The subtext of Simba and Nala’s innocent game of ‘pinning’ as kids turning into something more as adults. The talented Nathan Lane’s wisecracks, Rowan Atkinson’s pun-laden morning report, or Jeremy Irons’ deliciously sardonic quips. The Zen-like philosophising of Robert Guillaume’s Rafiki. The gravity of change and renewal during the ‘Circle of Life’ exposition by Mufasa or the wildfire/thunderstorm climax.

And of course, the animation. You can tell the animators did their homework - the animals move naturally, whether they’re swinging through the trees, flying through the air, or beating the living daylights out of each other. With the exception of the comic-relief characters, there’s a certain theatrical quality to the acting that is not often seen in most animated movies nowadays, which tend to rely on Chuck Jones-style pose-to-pose movements. Not that the latter’s a bad thing, but the characters’ performance is more restrained and measured than say, Madagascar or Rio. It’s a reflection of a different era which lacks the hyperactivity and manic delivery of modern cartoon characters.

The score by Hans Zimmer is magnificent and evocative. ‘This Land’ was a highlight for me, as it is the musical representation of Simba and Mufasa’s father-son bond, and how that transcends even death. And of course, the catchy-as-heck musical numbers like ‘I Just Can’t Wait to Be King’, ‘Hakuna Matata’, and the evergreen favourite, ‘Can You Feel the Love Tonight’.

Did I mention the cast and crew list is a veritable dream team of animation and acting legends? Chris Sanders, Brenda Chapman, John Lasseter, Ed Catmull, Tim Rice, Elton John, Mark Mancina, James Earl Jones, Matthew Broderick, Whoopi Goldberg, Cheech Marin, and last but not least, Jim Cummings. Of course, I didn’t knew who on Earth these folks were as a kid, but many movies and a tertiary education later, I can now appreciate the immense talent behind this film. It is truly inspiring to see a few of these names with the knowledge that they will later go on to do great things in their subsequent years.

If there’s any criticism I have, is that some modern-day vernacular creeps into the dialogue such as “Jeez” and “fixer-upper”, as well as a few contemporary songs courtesy of Zazu. This might not seem remarkable in a movie where African animals talk in an American accent, but it does break my suspension of disbelief and ‘snap’ me out of the timeless quality of the setting.

In summary, it’s not like I would tell you to avoid this film. This is truly a motion-picture masterpiece that will be cherished for generations to come, and one that I fully admire even now as a grown-up. It was the glorious jewel in Disney’s crown during the Renaissance period, and still stands up to its revival now, despite the redundancy of the 3D conversion. Whether you liked it as a kid, or have never seen it before, or you just happen to be a fan of movies in general, go and see it on the big screen. I would’ve gladly settled for a 2D presentation, but it is just as amazing an experience with the clunky 3D glasses.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to re-memorise those snappy verses to Timon and Pumbaa’s catchphrase.

Disney’s best-selling “Cars” toys are being made in a factory in China that uses child labour and forces staff to do three times the amount of overtime allowed by law, according to an investigation by The Guardian.

“One worker reportedly killed herself after being repeatedly shouted at by bosses. Others cited worries over poisonous chemicals. Disney has now launched its own investigation.

It is claimed some of the 6,000 employees have to work an extra 120 hours every month to meet demand from western shops for the latest toys.

The factory, called Sturdy Products, makes toys for the giant Mattel company, which last month announced quarterly profits of £48m on the back of strong sales of Barbie dolls and Cars 2 toys. Sturdy Products, in the city of Shenzhen, also makes toys for US superstore chain Walmart. Among the brands produced are the Thomas the Tank Engine range, Matchbox cars, Cars, Toy Story, Barbie and Fisher Price products, Scrabble and the Hot Wheels sets.

The undercover investigation was carried out with the help of human rights group Sacom (Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour), which helped to expose abuses in Apple’s Foxconn plant in China this year.

Sacom’s accusations against the factory include:

■ The employment of a 14-year-old. Staff also reported the presence of other child workers, according to the investigator.

■ Routine excessive overtime. Employees produced a “voluntary” document they said they had to sign agreeing to work beyond the maximum overtime legal limit of 36 hours a month, along with wage slips that suggested they were averaging 120 hours of overtime a month.

■ A harsh working environment in which workers complained of mistreatment by management. One worker injured on the production line was shouted at and ordered back to work despite needing medical treatment.

■ Concerns about the chemicals in use and poor ventilation. Employees claimed three workers had fallen ill. They said they had to hide pots of adhesive and thinners during audits of the factory by its client companies.

■ They also claimed that they were paid by the factory to give misleading answers during audits and that they were fined for failing to hit targets. The calculation of wages for different workers was described by Sacom as arbitrary.”

I’m fully aware that this has little to do with Pixar, as it is a film production company. The onus lies with Disney, Mattel and Walmart, who owe a duty of care to ensure they have a responsible and law-abiding supplier. But I thank God that I didn’t support this despicable practice by buying any Cars merch. I had half a mind to get a Finn miniature from K-Mart the other day, but this horrible expose just put me off completely.

I’m not saying that all toy suppliers are free from guilt. I bought a Rio and Kung Fu Panda Happy Meal toy of Rafael and Mr Ping respectively, and I’m not 100% certain they came from an ethically-responsible source. I’ve looked at the labels of some of the spoof T-shirts I’ve bought and they mentioned they were made in Mexico and Vietnam.

But we should all be aware of where our products come from, and do our best to ensure that they were made in a workplace which respects human rights and dignity. There’s an ongoing controversy in Australia over cattle abuse by Indonesian meat suppliers. Again, when these unsavoury practices come to the surface, we must do everything we can to ensure these horrible acts do not happen again.

In the case of Cars merch, I am not buying a single product from now on until I receive news that Disney, Mattel, and Walmart are not using Sturdy Products as a supplier and have taken steps to properly assess their manufacturers. Essentially, if the parties responsible are gonna sweep this under the carpet, I am going to boycott their product line, and encourage other fans to do the same (I’m telling all my friends on social media and RL too).

If we truly care about human rights and are abhorred by the idea of children working years before they should, or workers suffering ill treatment and abuse by their employers, then not showing our support until things change is the least we could do. I’m even considering writing in to Disney Australia. It truly hurts me as a fan to know that merchandise of one of my favourite Pixar movies is part of a disgusting systematic abuse of human rights in China.

We all need to speak out against injustice, no matter where it takes place.

Disney factory faces probe into sweatshop suicide claims - The Guardian

If there’s one thing they share, it’s that ‘Dreamworks’ smirk…

Note: I have tried to avoid spoilers as much as possible, but I still advise you watch both films first before reading the following.

About a fortnight ago, I went to see one of my most anticipated films of the year, Cars 2, with a friend. You can read about my thoughts and opinion about the Pixar sequel here. After the show concluded, we snuck into another theatre to see Kung Fu Panda 2. I have supported Dreamworks with a rather pricey entry ticket for the Australian premiere (but it was worth every cent) and you can read about my experience in another post. For my friend, it was his first time viewing, and for me, it’s a rewatch in theatres, something I only do once in a blue moon (ie once-twice every year) and that I usually reserve for the best. I am going to rewatch Cars 2 in IMAX tomorrow, but I want to take the opportunity to compare these two very different films from the biggest rivals in the animation industry.

Now, I’m aware that comparing a panda on an existential quest with a tow truck embroiled in international espionage is like trying to compare rice with ‘bangers and mash’, but just for the sake of those who are considering which film to take their kids to this summer break, as well as for my own personal amusement, I will perform this little exercise anyway. My arguments will be structured under ‘similarity headings’, but I may mention where they differ when necessary.

1) Both are sequels to huge franchises for their respective studios.

Cars TWO and Kung Fu Panda TWO. Both generate huge amounts of tie-in merchandising for their parent companies. I was walking through ToysR’Us on a recent trip to Adelaide and the aisles were just filled with Cars merch, from talking Finn McMissile figurines to Lightning McQueen poster beds. There were a couple of Kung Fu Panda 2 figurines too, and McDonalds Australia is running a Happy Meal toy campaign (I got Mr Ping this week!).

The strange thing is, many people enjoyed the first Kung Fu Panda movie, because it represented something bold and pop-culture-references-free from Dreamworks, but many didn’t appreciate the first Cars movie, because it wasn’t ‘bold enough’ (I thought it was pretty touching, but most professional and amateur critics thought the theme was quite cliched) and had a few pop-culture references. Which is kinda sad, I feel, for Pixar, cos’ Cars is better than most of Dreamworks’ movies around that time.

2) Both feature accidental hero protagonists.

For Kung Fu Panda 2, Po was the accidental hero in the first movie. Here, he’s much more of a bad-ass, but he’s still prone to slip-ups, which makes him all the more flawed and emphathetic. This is due to any lack of intelligence on his part, but because of his physical shortcomings and rather boundless appetite (for food or adventure). Many nerds (including Yours Truly) can emphathise with his struggle for acceptance and his utter devotion to his passion. Some might feel his constant warcries and posturing annoying, but I feel that this is because he truly love what he does and this is how he expresses his enthusiasm. Besides, he is not arrogant, and he reveres his idols and is eager to learn from them. This is especially more pronounced in the second movie, where he finds his boundless optimism challenged by his idols’ (Master Ox and Croc) defeatist attitude in one memorable scene (where we actually see him being visibly shaken and speechless). And for once, his strength (ie Kung Fu) is rendered useless by Lord Shen, making him all the more vulnerable. By the end, he harnesses the ‘go with the flow’ technique of acceptance and non-aggressive combat in his final showdown with Lord Shen.

For Cars 2, Mater is the protagonist in a ‘North by Northeast’ plot of mistaken identity and reluctant heroism. Or rather, he’s not so much reluctant as blissfully ignorant of the dangers of being a secret agent. Although he tries to tell Finn and Holley many times throughout the film that he is not a mere “tow truck”, he still goes along passively for the ride (pun unintended) because he’s “always wanted to be a spy”. This, of course, leads to many misadventures and his incompetence almost cost his new spy partners their lives (although this is thankfully adverted). Some viewers found his constant pratfalls frustating, and while I, personally, found them endearing (in a Goofy or Mr Bean sort of way), I felt that he could’ve proactively tried to behave himself during the Tokyo dinner party or when he was pretending to be a spy instead of bumbling around aimlessly (he actually does try to be serious when infiltrating the lemons’ casino, but this doesn’t gell with his silly antics before). The way Mater ‘solved whodunnit’ at the climax is out-of-character for a guy who didn’t realize he wasn’t the one who was ‘leaking’ a few scenes ago, and this sudden burst of deductive reasoning seems a sudden and illogical character progression.

I’d also like to briefly mention the villains. Of the two, Lord Shen is pretty much the more fleshed-out antagonist. Dr Z has some pretty good motivations, but they were more of the ‘Freudian’ “I was bullied as a kid, therefore I have to take out my frustrations on innocent civilians” reason. He stood nothing to gain other than personal self-satisfaction. The real villain, I felt, had a more ‘Bond-ian’ reason of “It’s all about the money and to rule the world”, but that’s just my opinion. Lord Shen, on the other hand, had a more credible reason to destroy Po, and without giving away too much, the Panda poses a threat to his existence and supremacy, and that it was largely because of a prophecy predicting his arrival that Shen dug the hole into which he is now in at the start of the movie.

3) Both have incredible animation, sets, action sequences, and special effects.

Many have raved about Cars 2’s water and explosion effects during the spectacular opening sequence, and while I wholeheartedly agree, I find it interesting that the end of Kung Fu Panda 2 had equally amazing water and explosion effects. There was one shot where we see an explosion barrel down a canal from side-on and it looked stunningly real. It is also interesting how both Cars 2’s beginning and Panda 2’s climax take place at night.

Kung Fu Panda 2 had some pretty intricate detail in their architecture of Gongmen City, from the design of Shen’s pagoda to the little streetboard signs that Po smacks into during the rickshaw chase. But Cars 2 blows the panda’s rather static single set out of the water with not one, not two, not even three, but four different cities. I was amazed by the rendering of Rio de Janerio earlier this year in Blue Sky’s Rio, but Pixar managed to recreate FOUR cities, and ‘Cars’-ified each of them. From the multitiude of neon billboards in Shibuya, to the coastal cliffs of Porta Corsa in the shape of classic cars, the amount of attention to detail is staggering.

Both have great character animation. The first Cars succeeded in giving cars individual personalities and mannerisms, and this without conventional human hands or faces! In the sequel, they take it to a whole new level with the plethora of cultures and their own ways of expression and body language. You can ‘tell’ a kei car geisha is bowing, or that the Queen is knighting someone. Panda has it easier with anthropomorphic animals, but the animation is much sutbler and evocative than the first movie. We see how pained Mr Ping is at Po’s depature, or the thoughts going through Lord Shen’s mind when he is reminded of his bitter past. The most remarkable thing about Panda is that it has a very theatrical air to it; you feel you are watching a stageplay instead of a motion picture.

And of course, both have standout action sequences. Both films suffer from attention deficit in an attempt to keep the audience interested; at times I wish the characters would stop chasing each other and actually stop to have a meaningful conversation or reveal more of their character. Of the two, I felt Kung Fu Panda 2 devoted more time to character development, despite having the shorter running time. Cars 2 is a much better ‘action’ movie than Panda in terms of sheer quantity of action setpieces, but it suffers from a lack of poignant or contemplative scenes as a result.

4) Both have decent soundtracks.

Of all the reviews I’ve read, professional or amateur, I’ve seen few who mentioned the score or music of either of the movies. This either means I need to read more reviews, or that people simply found nothing to write home about. This wasn’t the case last year when it came to Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragon.

Again, Kung Fu Panda 2 is the better of the two. With two of the titans in film soundtracks (John Powell and Hans Zimmer) collaborating, I was worried that it would be a case of too many cooks ruining the stew. Thankfully, the soundtrack manages to stay cohesive, although I struggle to remember any ‘main theme’, unlike HTTYD or the first Panda, where I can hum the theme off-hand. But if there’s one track to redeem the entire soundtrack, it has to be ‘Po Finds the Truth’, which is a tour-de-force of raw feeling and emotional carthasis.

Cars 2, on the other hand, has a stronger theme running through the film. In fact, the hook is very catchy. “Da-da-daaa… da-da-daaa…” You’ll know it when you hear it. Giacchino interestingly chose to go with a British surf music theme, and while this is a very courageous move on his part, on a personal level, it is not really my cup of tea. I’m more of the David Arnold grand-orchestra or Harry Gregson-Williams synthesizer variety, but others might find the 70s-inspired groove more to their taste. What I don’t like though, is how often the hook is repeated, with very little variation. With his other albums like Up or Incredibles, he has various version of the theme, ‘light’, ‘dark’, etc. Here, it feels like a video game soundtrack from the 90s in its simplicity, but again, I must say, that hook is pretty darn catchy. “Dadadadadadada da-da-daaa…”

5) Both expand and improve upon their predecessors.

What both Cars 2 and Kung Fu Panda 2 manage to achieve is be fantastic sequels in their own right. In the case of Cars 2, it turned the first film’s themes and setting on its head. Instead of the city slicker being held against his will in a long-forgotten roadside town, it is now the country bumpkin who voluntarily goes on a trip around the world. Mater, who has never ventured beyond Radiator Springs (except for the last Piston Cup race and his occassional adventures in his ‘Tall Tales’), now finds himself a stranger in strange lands. The inclusion of a spy plot doesn’t really mesh with the first’s sedentary setting, but it makes for an interesting contrast. I had a problem, though, with the ‘Broken Aesop’ of Cars 2. In the first movie, Lightning has to change his character to be a better person (or car). In this one, we are told that Mater doesn’t have to change who he is to suit others, even though he is incredibly ignorant of (although charmingly eager to experience) other cultures’ customs. But, I liked how Lightning and Mater’s friendship is put to the test. In the first movie, Lightning needs a best friend in the form of Mater. In the second, Mater has to learn to ‘let go’ of Lightning and give him space by finding new friends in the form of Finn and Holley.

Kung Fu Panda 2, on the other hand, expands upon the first film. Po is now less of a klutz and more ‘awesome’, but he is not indestructible. He gets beaten (both figuratively and literally) many more times in this film, and at one point, he even undergoes a ‘Christ-like’ resurrection and enlightenment in time for the third act. We also find out more about his backstory, and one of my favourite scenes is Mr Ping telling Po how he came to be his ‘father’. In many ways, Po and Shen’s stories are parallels; both were abandoned by their parents (for different reasons), both have to find ‘inner peace’, both’s past and futures are intertwined… it makes for a very engaging dualistic tone to the film. We also get more developments between Po and Tigress, long the hotbed for fanshippers. We don’t get an outright declaration of romantic-love here, but there’s one heartwarming scene where Tigress does something to Po which reveals the depth of her friendship at this point. If there’s one thing I didn’t like, it’s that the film felt a little too short for a story of this magnitude. And the first had more setting-variations, while in this sequel, two-thirds of the film take place in Gongmen City.

So having watched both these films back-to-back on the same night, which one would I recommend? Well, on that night, I was pretty ‘high’ from Cars 2, so if you asked me when I finally left the theatre, I would give ‘two thumbs up’ for the Pixar film. But upon further contemplation and reflection, I have to say KFP2 had a more cinematic and theatrical sensibility that makes it storytelling more powerful and meaningful. If you’re looking for a good time and more ‘bang for your buck’, go see Cars 2. It is the epitome of popcorn-blockbuster fun and excitement, and it is Pixar’ best action movie since ‘The Incredibles’. But if you’re looking for grand, mythic storytelling with profound themes about forgiveness and redemption, then go see Kung Fu Panda 2. It will make you laugh, move you to tears, and warm your heart like the greatest of movies.

NOTE: I have tried to keep this as spoiler-free as possible, but I strongly advise readers to see the film first in case I reveal any minor plot or character details.

Pixar’s latest film has achieved an astounding feat, although it is not one its producers and fans have been hoping for. After eleven critically-acclaimed movies and sixteen years of feature film production, the award-winning studio finally created a movie that obtained a Rotten Rating on the movie review aggregator site, Rotten Tomatoes (at the time of writing, the rating sits at 35% with 159 reviews, a fortnight after its release). The sequel polarised fans more than the first ever did; most implored non-viewers to give the film a chance, saying it met their expectations, and for a few, even exceeded it. Others weren’t as forgiving, expressing extreme disappointment and even resentment at the studio. And there are those who remain ambivalent about their experience and said it was decent for the studio’s standards.

I am not here to discuss their opinions. I have covered that extensively in my past posts, and it has dawn on me that ‘secondhand reviewing’ is a weak, if seriously flawed way to judge a movie. This is why I believe I am now qualified to offer my opinion after having experienced the movie for myself first-hand. I will also not compare it with Pixar’s other films (besides the first movie), or recent animated films from other studios. I may do that in my next post, but I believe a film should be judged on its own merits. Lastly, I will not discuss this film in light of any real-life controversies surrounding it (such as the copyright claim lawsuit, or Lasseter’s late intervention and Brad Lewis’ rather unceremonious relegation to ‘co-director’ title). That will also be reserved for another post. I would also like to take the opportunity to inform you of my prejudices. It is my belief that a critic should always admit their biases and divorce their preferences or ‘conflict of interests’ from their assessment to remain as objective as possible. So here it is upfront; the first movie was what made me fell in love with Pixar. I have been disenchanted with the studio lately for many reasons, and it is with great trepidation and morbid curiousity that I walked into the theatre with a close pal of mine (one of my best friends, in fact) to watch one of my most anticipated movies of the year.

First off, let’s get the obvious out of the way. This is not Pixar’s best movie, not by a long shot. That would be still be any one of the ‘Big Three’ (my personal collective nickname for Ratatouille, Wall-E and Up, since these films represented the zenith of my affair with the studio), although Brave stands a good chance next year. It is also probably its ‘worst’, again, this being my opinion, and by that, I mean, it is not particularly revelatory, meaningful, or thoughtful as most of Pixar’s fare.

What it is, though, is one of the best action movies the studio has produced since The Incredibles. I have longed for Pixar to do a spy movie and a sequel to Cars, and I am pleased to say they have granted my wish. John Lasseter was right, this is a spy movie. There are plenty of allusions to great spy movies; the rooftop chase of one of the characters could’ve been straight from the Tangiers chase in The Bourne Ultimatum, the casino and torture scenes from a Daniel Craig or Timothy Dalton Bond flick, the plot about the control of the world’s resources probably inspired by The World is Not Enough or Quantum of Solace. Yet Pixar manages to take these references and make it their own (which they have done many times before with films like A Bug’s Life, Wall-E and Up). Not that there’s anything wrong with that. ‘Nothing’s original anymore’ is a maxim I believe in. What matters is the execution. And all I’ll say is that Pixar does this brilliantly with panache and verve.

Automotive enthusiasts will also find plenty to enjoy here; from the Karmann Ghia being a codeword (and any spy fan worth his salt would know that was one of cars driven by Maxwell Smart in the ‘Get Smart’ series), to the lemons sub-plot, and all the assorted celebrity voice-cameos in between. Oh, and I just discovered a few days ago that Siddeley the plane’s name is a reference to a British aircraft manufacturer company.

On a technical level, Pixar has crafted a visual masterpiece. I will compare this aspect to other films in another post, but I’m going to say that I was thoroughly blown away by the level of detail, like the breathtaking scenery of an Italian coastal town, the burning sparks of cinder in the aftermath of an explosion, the seafoam spraying from the crest of a wave in the dark of the night… the Special Effects, Modeling, and R&D Departments deserve kudos for pushing the envelope in bringing the Cars world to life.

The characters are nicely fleshed-out, especially the newcomers. It is hard not to fall in love with Finn and Holley, who have to be the most charming and suave characters the studio has ever created. Finn, deliciously voiced by the congenial Sir Michael Caine, is the vehicular embodiment of a spy, with more fancy gadgets than you can throw a portable mine at. I even found myself liking Holley as much as I liked Sally from the first film. I liked her character progression from inept tech geek to fully-fledged field agent, and her increasing exasperation at Mater’s antics is entertaining to watch.

It’s also nice to see the returning characters, although this is expected of a sequel. At times, I felt like I was meeting old friends and returning to a place I haven’t visited in a while - it was pleasant to see how much Radiator Springs has changed since we last saw it. Doc’s absence was handled decently, even though I wish they made it more obvious to the viewer that his departure was permanent. The supporting cast also have a bigger role in the story at certain parts; Filmore unexpectedly plays a crucial role in the film’s climax, and one of the more memorable scenes was when we discover the backstory of Luigi and Guido and how their relationship mirrors Lightning and Mater’s at that point in the movie.

On that note, I found myself empathizing with Mater. I mean, don’t we feel like a fool every now and then, especially if we find ourselves out of our element? For our intrepid tow-truck, the disorientation is two-fold; he joins Lightning on a whirlwind tour of the world and encounters foreign cultures and unfamiliar settings, and he gets mistaken for a secret agent and finds himself embroiled in international espionage, terrorist organisations, and global conspiracies. His naivety and direct honesty places him in many sticky situations, which makes for huge comedy and drama potential.

Unfortunately, this leads me to one of my biggest gripes with the movie: the conflicting message. In the first movie, Lightning’s developed from a selfish, self-centred loner to a more humble and big-hearted individual. In this outing, the focus is on Mater, who is now the protagonist and must undergo the biggest character arc of the story. To my disappointment, this was not handled well by Pixar, mainly because he remains the same character he was at the start of the film, a goof of a klutz. The only difference is that he accepts his fault without making any effort to change it, and inspires others to look at him in a kinder light. This results in a typical “Be yourself” message which feels contrived and contrary to the first movie’s moral of “Become a better person.” I felt they could’ve made Mater less of a clueless buffoon and have him at least attempt to behave in the presence of Lightning and his fellow racers during the party, only to be snubbed. Or made him be aware that he was being mistaken for a spy, and have him try to impress his new ‘friends’ by proactively pretending to be a spy, instead of having him guilelessly strung along for the ride.

On a personal note, I would’ve liked to see more of Sally. I find it hard to believe that Lightning would choose his best friend over his girlfriend to take on a whirlwind tour of the world, although it is plausible. Even then, I wonder why she couldn’t have been part of his pit crew, or why he couldn’t have just bought an extra ticket for her. I can just imagine a scenario with Sally after the Tokyo race which would’ve been great, but I won’t discuss that here.

I also felt the exposition was too quick, which might fly over the heads of the kids and confuse the adults who are not as familiar with the franchise as their younger charges. Even at one of Pixar’s longer runtimes of 2 hours, the film flew by too fast for me to appreciate the nuances of character or keep track of who is doing what. More adept viewers might be able to keep up, but I felt they could’ve paced the movie better.

There were also a couple of cringeworthy scatalogical gags that wouldn’t have looked out of place in a ‘lesser’ Dreamworks movie, but stick out like a sore tire from a studio of this calibre. Mercifully, most of them were already shown in the trailer, but I just wish they didn’t include them and devoted more time to character development or exposition.

Lastly, many reviewers, both professional and amateur, have not made mention of Giacchino’s score, which probably shows how unremarkable it is. Granted, it certainly is an interesting use of surf music, and it lends a very 70s Sean Connery or Roger Moore feel to it. Sadly, the hook, while catchy, is repeated too often, and there is very little variation to the tracks from memory. I might listen closely on a repeat viewing, but there are very few standout tracks, even those during the important scenes. And of course, the use of contemporary music is interesting (I am in fact listening to Polyrhythm as I type this), but this is the exception to usual Pixar soundtracks which rely almost entirely on score. Again, this is not really a bad thing, but it won’t stick in your mind either.

As I said in the beginning of this review, no other Pixar movie has generated this much controversy in the studio’s entire history. For once, the verdict is not unanimous; the critics wished it was never made, the fans think the critics are misguided, and the fence-sitters have little to praise about it. What do I think? Well, it depends. If you’re a Pixar fan, automotive enthusiast, or spy flick conoisseur, this is a must-watch. If you didn’t like the first film, Mater, or the idea of a world inhabited by talking, living cars, you’re probably not gonna like this one either (although I still recommend you watch it, as it might change your mind). If you’re hoping that Pixar has made another winner, I’m afraid it’s not this year. If you think Cars 2 is not worth watching in theatres, I can tell you that I saw it in 2D, and I immensely enjoyed it. It’s worth watching, preferably with your best friend. I might plan a rewatch in IMAX 3D, if only to provide more comments in a subsequent IMAX review and watch the Brave trailer for the first-time in all its glory on the big-screen.

The best line in Cars 2 sums up the open-minded and cautiously optimistic approach you must adopt should you choose to undertake the ‘dangerous’ mission of watching it:

“No one realizes they’re being fooled, because they’re too busy laughing at the fool.”

You said it, Finn.

It seems I have gotten some interesting responses from my ‘TDIT’s thoughts on Cars 2 Rotten Rating’ post on my fan forums, and I want to clarify some of my statements.

First off, I apologise if I have offended any Cars fans with my last post. It was not my intention to revel in the negative reviews, in fact, those who were present on Twitter yesterday afternoon would bear witness to my metldown over the dismal score. I basically posted a Tweet declaring Pixar as ‘done for’ and that it’s ‘game over’. I then made a concessionary Tweet saying I may have overreacted, but that I was deeply suspiscious of Pixar fans jumping to the movie’s defense without being objective. But there were many reasons for my anger, some of it personal (in a nutshell, I had a pretty bad day yesterday) that boiled over into my comments.

However, I still stand by my stance that as a fan of a studio, your views are immediately ‘compromised’ when reviewing any of its productions. Some people are better at maintaining an objective stance than more unconditionally-enamoured fans. I admit I am guilty of this to an extent, but when I see something that can be improved, I am not afraid to call it out. I have done this with many of my fandoms. This doesn’t mean I actively seek out faults when none exist, but that if I notice something ‘off’ or that can be better, I will say so.

A member on Pixar Planet also pointed out that I have been largely commenting on critics’ comments. And after some thought, I realize that’s is not a very strong argument on my part. I mean, I have the right to voice that opinion, but it’s a flawed and weak one. I am performing a second-degree commentary. Perhaps after seeing the movie, I would be more equipped to perform a second-degree commentary after experiencing it first-hand.

Having said that, I would just like to say that if a critic has prejudices or biases, we should always be aware of it, and maybe inform others about it. At no point do I say I think all Cars fans don’t have the right to be themselves. I implied that there are some Cars fans who are hypocritical. By hypocritical, I mean:

1) Fans who deride non-Pixar animated films such as Kung Fu Panda, Rango, LOTG, for being unoriginal, for being fun fluff, for having little ‘serious’ drama that will make you cry, etc. And then when Pixar creates a movie which bears these hallmarks (or something to that extent), these same fans ask us to overlook these aspects. They savagely attack the competition (“Shrek 4 is unoriginal, Rio’s story is predictable, Rango is a copy of every Western myth made”) and then turn a blind eye when these same flaws appear in Pixar’s movies. The sad thing is I have also seen this happen with a few professional film critics I follow.

2) Fans who complain that the critics are crazy, insane, biased, harsh, etc. (I’ve seen these words) When in actuality, these critics are perfectly well-adjusted people capable of writing a 500-word opinion piece, and have praised Pixar films before. So really, why do they condemn the film critics and then demand that the opinions be respected? There are some who are level-headed and say “You know, I fully respect the critics, but I have to disagree.” And then there are those who aggresively discredit constructive criticism and say “All the critics are crazy. Haters gonna hate!” There’s a difference.

I realize I have no right to attack fans for liking their fandoms, That was very silly of me, I mean, who’s to say that you can’t like something (unless it’s something abominable like racism or sexism)? But it sickens me that the same people who jeer at Dreamworks and other studios before are now crying foul when they get a taste of their own medicine.

I have nothing against open-minded, accepting fans who apply the same ruthless (or lenient) rules of criticism to every movie they review. I also have nothing against fans who unequivocally love Cars 2 that they are willing to overlook its faults (or not voice them if they notice it), as long as they don’t take a dump on other studios who put in just as much hard work into their movies but are limited by their talent pool and resources.

I know such kind, fair and respectful people exist, even on the fan forums. And I respect these people and always enjoy reading their reviews, while I ignore the more close-minded ones.

One last point- I am not certain if Cars 2 is truly a bad movie until I see it. But what I am calling for is an acceptance of the Rotten rating instead of dismissing it. Acceptance doesn’t mean endorsement. I can accept that 70% of children don’t like brocolli. That doesn’t mean I endorse these 70% children’s opinion of brocolli. But I don’t deny their view, or belittle it. I can try to poke holes in their arguments (“Some folks say that veggies are good for you”). I can try to reason with them. Or I can say, “You know what, you could be right. But I’m gonna taste that brocolli for myself and see if I agree with you.”

A lot of Pixar fans would’ve seen Cars 2 for themselves, and would’ve known in their hearts whether it met their expectations. And if they loved it, I’m happy for them. Their positive reviews fill me with hope that maybe I and a lot of the other cynics who haven’t seen it yet have a possibility of our preconceptions be proven wrong.

The motion picture event of the summer every Pixar fan and animation enthusiast has been waiting for is almost upon us (well, it’s out tomorrow, actually).

Over the past months, I have ranted and raved about Pixar and this sequel to one of my most beloved films in equal measures. Now that I have had the wisdom of a couple of trailers, several posters, and countless, countless turntable videos behind my opinion, here are 5 things that I will be anticipating when I walk into the theatre this weekend.

1) It will be a spy movie.
… and not a parody of a spy movie. I keep stressing this on the various fan forums and social media sites I take part in, and I can’t stress it enough. Part of the reason for this expectation is because John Lasseter, director of the film and CCO of Pixar, said it so himself.

Watch this video from 2:11 and hear it from the (proverbial) horse’s mouth.

John Lasseter Gives Cars 2 Sneak Peek

Had he not thrown down that gauntlet so unequivocally and earnestly, maybe I would’ve had lower expectations. But there you have it, a promise that he made to the viewer, if not in a written contract, at least in a verbal assurance. So when I’m watching the adventures of debonair spy Finn McMissile and reluctant hero Mater, I want danger, excitement, maybe even a little sexual innuendo. I want Goldfinger, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only, License to Kill, Goldeneye, or Casino Royale. Or for non-Bond examples, Body of Lies, Ronin, Spy Games, the Bourne trilogy. Or for non-Bond examples which are not serious dramas, Mr & Mrs Smith, Mission Impossible 1 and 3, or True Lies. Not Austin Powers, Johnny English, I Spy, Carry on Spying or From Beijing With Love.

I want the heroes to bleed, to cry, to know what it feels like to be a real secret agent with few friends and many enemies. Not get squirted by bidets, fall into septic trucks, or eat wasabi thinking it’s ice-cream. Which leads on to…

2) There will be few slapstick jokes and pop-culture references.

Pixar is good with this. Or rather, most of the time. While they are not as blatant with the pop-culture parodies as the majority of Dreamworks’ films, they are not immune to the juvenille scatalogical variety. Just refer to the ‘Butt’ joke from Finding Nemo, or Boo needing to answer the call of nature in Monsters Inc, or Russell needing to answer the call of nature in Up, or Mr Potato Head being surrounded by the products of the call of nature in a sandpit in Toy Story 3 (mercifully told rather than shown).

I have decided not to expect a total absence, since as I have mentioned, we have already seen a few from the trailers. And Pixar, when it does physical humour, can be brilliant, like in Ratatouille or Wall-E. But one of the most cringeworthy aspects of the first Cars movie was the over-the-top references to pop-culture and commercial advertising. Perhaps that was the intention, which I can totally appreciate. But if you want to be serious, tone down on the over-the-top dream sequences and fart jokes.

3) The antagonist will not be a straw villain.

Or worse, any of its sub-variants like Strawman Political, Strawman Hypocrite or Strawman Emotional. Nothing annoys me more than a villain who is evil simply because he’s ‘evil’, or has some weak Freudian motivation for his acts.

One of my biggest disappointments with Pixar’s last movie ‘Toy Story 3’ was with the villain Lotso’ motivations. He enforced the entire totalitarian regime of Sunnyside simply because of some internal conflict which didn’t serve any immediate interests. Why didn’t he just find another owner to spite Daisy, if only in his mind? What purpose will it serve him to walk into a daycare centre, and impose his worldview upon others? What does he stand to gain (besides perpetuating his own paradigm of owner love)? As Rex in the HISHE parody pointed out, “if there were anyone who should be furious, it should be Big Baby or Chuckles. They didn’t get replaced at all!”

I also had a similar problem with Nigel from Rio. Because he was abandoned from his role as a star in a TV show, he decides to take it out on every other bird in Rio simply so that they can become ‘just like him’! This is weak motivation. Meaningful motivations are those which satisfy the lowest rungs on Marslow’s Heirarchy of Needs. Money. Food. Power. Survival.

Lord Shen had a great motivation. He wants to kill pandas because they pose a threat to his existence. Hopper had a great motivation. He wants to keep the status quo of the ants feeding him so he and his swarm would never go hungry. Dr Facilier had a great motivation. He wanted political power over New Orleans as their new ruler. Like another great Disney villain, Scar. And so on.

It would be nice if Professor Z had some childhood backstory of being bullied as a lemon, and his mum hated him, and all that jazz. But it would be great if he wanted to control the world’s oil supply by eliminating his competition, or make a profit by short-selling on Allinol stocks and sinking their share prices through his terrorist attacks. Something like that. A grand scheme need not necessarily have weepy backstories as the reason. Sometimes, it could be just about the money.

One last point. The villain needs to perform something truly despicable that tell us that he means business. On this aspect, I’m confident Pixar will deliver, because I read the opening scene from one of the movie adaptation storybooks, and if it is the same as in the movie, then I’m very proud that Pixar went with that. All I can say is that if the movie storybook is correct, Professor Z does something very nasty to another car that will show how evil he really is…

4) There will not be loads and loads of characters.

Yes, it is indeed a trope. This is another thing that has worried me, especially with the endless character turntables and posters released over the last few months. One problem with sequels is that they feel they need to introduce an inordinate number of new characters to expand the cast. But often, this results in less time being devoted to the original principals and especially the protagonists who will undergo their character arcs.

I have read reviews which say Mater will be the primary protagonist of this film, and it’s a great role-reversal from the first when Lightning was the focus. I have said before that the themes are the exact mirrors of each other; the first was about a city slicker who experiences the slow-paced life of small-town Americana, the second is about a country bumpkin who experiences the bright and wonderful diversity of cultures around the world.

What worries me is that they will not be as focused on developing the protagonist here as they were with the first movie. That amidst all the shennanigans and tomfoolery, Mater will be overshadowed by his new fellow agents Finn and Holley. And while the first had no antagonist (only an annoying rival played by Keaton), this one has a notable villain who will drive a lot of the plot proceedings. A lot of fans have also expressed concern over the screentime of the Radiator Springs’ cast, especially Lightning’s love interest Sally, and this is another cause for concern.

5) There will be heart and soul.

The main reason why so many people around the world love Pixar is because it has utter devotion towards beautiful, poetic, and meaningful storytelling. Its themes are universal and human, even if the characters are not. We are moved by the characters’ journeys, we see ourselves in them, and we want them to succeed and save the world/get the girl or guy/live happily ever after.

A lot of Pixar’s rivals used to not pay much attention to their stories. They thought it would be fine to just throw in stereotypical archetypes, get a bunch of celebrity voices, and chuck in a few pop-culture references and fart jokes to make a good movie. And of course, while they made have made mint, especially with sequels, they weren’t as successful critically. Plus, they were killing their soul for the sake of money.

Now the tables have turned. Long-time rivals Dreamworks and Blue Sky have produced wonderful, all-ages movies that have touched the hearts and resonated with the souls of many animation fans who once doubted them. How to Train Your Dragon, Kung Fu Panda 1 & 2, Rio. Newcomers like Animal Logic and Industrial Light & Magic have also amazed to varying degrees with technical masterpieces like Legend of the Guardians and Rango.

On the other hand, Pixar is losing its grip on the throne it once sat at the top of the Western animation industry. It is starting to rely on sequels and spin-off shorts (Toy Story 3, Toy Story Hawaiian Vacation, Cars 2, Cars Toons, Monsters University), TV shows (to be produced by Pixar Canada) and tie-in merchandising (most notably Toy Story and Cars). It scrapped a much-anticipated project, Newt, only for its CCO to make a remark (whether in mirth or malice) at its rival Rio for being the reason of its cancellation. The studio had a few high-profile departures such as Lou Romano, Jan Pinkava, and Brenda Chapman because of its oligarchic creative committee The Brain Trust’s refusal to trust its director’s version. Meanwhile, noteworthy talents such as Chris Sanders, Nico Marlet, Peter de Sève, Brenda Chapman and Lou Romano (the last three being former Pixarians) are joining its rival studios, while former neurotic leaders such as Katzenberg are adopting a more laissez-faire approach.

Pixar is devolving into the studio its ‘enemies’ once were, and in this blogger’s eyes, Cars 2 is its chance at redemption (although there’s also Brave next year). And it can do this by not just having a fun movie which you just sit through, cut it some slack, go in with a ‘positive mind’, enjoy your popcorn, wipe your backside, and leave with no memories. Pixar must deliver a movie that expands and improves on the first movie, stand up to the harshest criticisms, change the minds of the cynical and doubtful (like Pixar has done many times before), and move a person not just to a mild sense of amusement and entertainment, but to a deeper level of emotional intensity, be it fear, happiness or pathos.

When I walk into that theatre within a few days time, I will be doing so with an amount of trepidation and excitement you can never imagine. This film will be the culmination of not just my love affair with the studio (since Cars was the movie that made me became an outspoken Pixar fan), but with the forums I have been in (since this may be the last year I will actively participate as I will be starting a job soon). It will also be the lowest point I have ever experienced as a fan; I have never felt so disenchanted and disillusioned with the studio’s current state of affairs, and with some of its more intolerant and close-minded fans I have encountered over the past year.

I have never before doubted a Pixar film for five years. This will be the first. When I walk out of that theatre, I want to be proven right on all the points I have mentioned, and proven wrong for ever losing faith in one of the greatest studios in the world.

Wow, we’ve been celebrating a lot of Pixar movies’ birthdays lately!

Well, I can’t believe it’s been five wonderful years since I fell hood-over-wheels in love with Pixar. While Finding Nemo was the primer fuel, Cars was the spark-plug ignition that kickstarted my ‘romance’ with the studio. It combined two of my greatest loves, cars and movies, into one heartfelt tribute to old-town Americana and the open road.

Happy birthday to the greatest car movie of all-time. Hopefully the sequel will enchant me as much as the first.