Monsters Inc. on Video an' DVD!!!!

[beaker]

A Bug's Life: My least fave Pixar film...(my faves are Monsters Inc, Toy Story 2, and toy Story 1) Just seemed kind of boring, whereas Antz was a rarity...I thought Antz would be the lesser of the two, yet I was very wrong on that.

Finding Nemo: Oh boy...raise your hand if this looks like something Pixar would have done a decade ago? I thought every four years was spose to be a TOY STORY???(95, 99)

Jimmy Nuetron: Heres where Nick is better than Pixar. While the cartoon of Toy Story(buzz) looks like poo and has no cgi, the cartoon of Jimmy Neutron IS 100% like the cgi film. The film itself...um, I enjoyed it. Not immensely, but I like Nick cartoon films usually.

Shrek: Ok, maybe pastel wasnt the word...perhaps ugly muddied
cgi was better.

Finally, as far as non cgi animation...iit intrigues me how utter poo like Power Puff girls(which has to have the worst animation next to Ripping Friends, and even lamer humour) gets a feature length, but breakthrough envelope pushing stuff like Invader Zim not only doesnt get the feature(Hey Arnold does) but gets canned. Shows how viewers I guess like worse than southpark animation abd brain dead humour.

 

[GWGumby]

Ah, but there's a difference between "stylized" and "utter poo." Sometimes that difference is very, very thin, but it does exist.

Take Simpsons for example. It's hard to remember 15 years ago when they were freakish yellow crude animations. However, as the production values improved, their design remained fairly consistent because that was their style.

Power Puff girls looks pretty cheap and terrible as well on the outside. However, once one understands that it is a stylistic choice of a cross between Anime and a 70s Hanna-Barbara homage it can be better accepted.

Sometimes the animation is a result of someone who just can't draw, like Dilbert, for example. However, the comedy and story and a consistent design (even a consistently terrible design) can make up for lack of artistic prowess.

An odd style can either make a show really stand out as well as alienate viewers. I can't watch any of that Squiggle-vision. I can't watch Wild Thornberries. I'd like to call it crap, but as I haven't been able to watch it, I can't call it that. I'm just put off by the style. Other shows like Powerpuff Girls put me off at first, until I watched a few episodes and understood it better.

I do think that Saturday morning cartoons belong on TV and not in the theaters. I think there's been way too many mediocre TV episodes masquerading as movies these days. (And not just in the animation field.)

And don't blame Pixar too much for the animated Buzz Lightyear. They're much more interested in making great movies than in cashing in on TV spin-offs and Direct-To-Video sequals. Toy Story 2 was supposed to be DTV, but they weren't able to make anything less than feature quality. As for why we're not getting Toy Story 3 -- blame Eisner and Steve Jobs. I'm sure a lot of people want it, but while the heads of these companies hate each other, it's not gonna happen. Personally, I want Pixar to avoid the Disney sequal-itis altogether and keep producing original films. While I'll be the first to admit Toy Story 2 is an amazing sequal, I think it's too easy to get lazy (Disney) by going that route.

 

[beaker]

>>>Ah, but there's a difference between "stylized" and "utter poo." Sometimes that difference is very, very thin, but it does exist.<<<

Oh yeah, VERY thin


Take Simpsons for example. It's hard to remember 15 years ago when they were freakish yellow crude animations. However, as the production values improved, their design remained fairly consistent because that was their style.<<<

Yes, but even back in 1987(yes folks, the Simpsons have been around since the late 80's) with the Tracy Ulman/animation festival shorts...and then the first season in 1989...The Simpsons was very stark, fresh, etc. Only Family Pet(and that til then was just an Amazing Story short) was the other edgy primte time toon(though that didnt air til 1993) I really dig those super old Simpsons style. However, in the last few Simpsons, while the look is better(wish theyd have more cgi like futurama) each season is VERY hit and miss. And Groening knows this. Thats why they have "comic book guy" say "worst episode ever" now and then.
But then you'll have this amazing Simpsons episode, that like a classic Seinfeld episode, is pure gold...just all over the map topical 3am genuis. Futurama gravely lacks that sometimes.

PowerPuff, Ripping Friends, etc is just ADD strobe light babysitting empty fodder.

Power Puff girls looks pretty cheap and terrible as well on the outside. However, once one understands that it is a stylistic choice of a cross between Anime and a 70s Hanna-Barbara homage it can be better accepted<<<

Even the cheapest of the cheap anime like the fox kids stuff has some semblence of better style. I know all the Cartoon Network shows(Dexter, cow/chicken, johnny bravo, powerpuff) is spose to look like cheesey 70's Hanna Barbara style...but it seems very hollow in that Ren and Stimpy kind of way.

Sometimes the animation is a result of someone who just can't draw, like Dilbert, for example. However, the comedy and story and a consistent design (even a consistently terrible design) can make up for lack of artistic prowess.<<<

Yes, Dilbert the short lived cartoon...now that I like.
The Critic, The Tick(animated), and Dilbert are three of the most under rated and cool 'between kids and adult' cartoons of the 90's.

An odd style can either make a show really stand out as well as alienate viewers. I can't watch any of that Squiggle-vision. I can't watch Wild Thornberries.<<<

Ooh, I like the style of Thornberries. Nickelodeon in the last decade has been great. Take away the groundbreaking Invader Zim...look at Rugrats, Adv of Pete and Pete, Action League Now,
the Muppet-esque My Cousin Skeet, etc...live action, stop motion or animated Nick has had some of the most consistently offbeat kids stuff on the air.

>>>And don't blame Pixar too much for the animated Buzz Lightyear. They're much more interested in making great movies than in cashing in on TV spin-offs and Direct-To-Video sequals. <<<

exactly. Pixar cant make subpar stuff. Doesnt Disney and parents know horrific poop when they see it? Look at Little Mermaid 2, Hunchback 2, Tarzan and Jane, Cinderella 2, Beauty and The Beast 2, Country Bears, Peter Pan 2, etc. Unwatchable sludge.
What the heck happened? In the late 90's to early 2000 Disney made GREAT sequels...Aladdin 3, Lion King 2, Fantasia 2000...
I guess they wanted to get into Guiness Book for cheapest looking animated sequels ever.

>>>As for why we're not getting Toy Story 3 -- blame Eisner and Steve Jobs. I'm sure a lot of people want it, but while the heads of these companies hate each other, it's not gonna happen. Personally, I want Pixar to avoid the Disney sequal-itis altogether and keep producing original films. While I'll be the first to admit Toy Story 2 is an amazing sequal, I think it's too easy to get lazy (Disney) by going that route.<<<

And "Finding Nemo" is that new route? Am I the only one less than enthusiastic bou this one? A Toy Story 3 is a no brainer. We probably all thought in 1999: "Oh great...the first one was so brillaint...why have a sequel" Then we all saw it, and man...that blew the original away.

So it seems to me a Toy Story is a financial and artistic no brainer.
But have ya heard Disney's plans for Pixar? If ya think talking fish is bad, the next one after that is about talking cars called "Cars"...like Chevron with Techron the movie. Oy...

 

[Drtooth]

Beaker: While I understand you're a fan of Cartoon designing I can't help but say this:

Jimmy Neutron vs. Buzz: Jimmy Neutron, I reiterate is a movie based on a cartoon that's used sort of as a prieview. Buzz Lightyear is SUPPOSED to be a total cartoon. I remember that the movie Toy Story was supposed to open with a Buzz cartoon, but they decided against it. It's basically a show that let's you into Buzz's Psyci (sp) and gives you reason why he thought he was a super Hero.


Powerpuffs and Ripping Friends: Sure, they aren't as good as Freakzoid was, but they are the only "Funny Superhero Parodies" in the last few years. If you look past the obviously annoying Girls, you'd realize that the villains are the best part, and the reason I watch (that and the Idiot Mayor) As for Ripping Friends and Cow and Chicken, these shows are funny because they're SUPPOSED to be stupid. How serious can you take yourself with those shows?

Invader Zim: STill haevn't seen it. It's not the Powerpuff Girls to blame, but the greedy Nick corp. Look at it this way, they've been sucking up to the Klasky Cspo animation company, churning out crummy shows with really cool design. Basically, if Invader Zim was on Cartoon Network things would be MUCH MUCH different. Presumably, he'd be all over the place, T-shirts, Comic Books, Movies and such. SO don't think of it as "Invader Zim pushes the evelope, and gets nothing." So much as Invader ZIm pushes the envelope, but he doesn't look so good on a Burger King Collector's glass.

Pixar: Well, you just can't be at the top of your game 24/7, now can you?

 

[Drtooth]

As for kiddy fodder strobe lights, I have a little beef with that comment. The shows were NOT made for kids in the first place. Had they been, they would be SOOOOO much worse than you think they are. For example:

Jay JAy the Air Plane

Cubix

As Told by Ginger (don't be fooled by Klasky Cuspo's desings, it's just another clarrissa rip off)

Tarzan the Series

Looney Toons Babies

Pokemon to name a few.

The shows I mentioned were constantly retooled to have the kiddies beg mommy and daddy to fork over their wallets and plunk down horrid merchandising. All Ripping Friends ever got was a T-Shirt. Spumco isn't one of those companies that sells itself out to make dirty kid's money. They are one of the best independant "cartoony" animation firms in America.

 

[beaker]

>>>Invader Zim: STill haevn't seen it. It's not the Powerpuff Girls to blame, but the greedy Nick corp. <<


Basically, if Invader Zim was on Cartoon Network things would be MUCH MUCH different. Presumably, he'd be all over the place, T-shirts, Comic Books, Movies and such. SO don't think of it as "Invader Zim pushes the evelope, and gets nothing." So much as Invader ZIm pushes the envelope, but he doesn't look so good on a Burger King Collector's glass.<<<<

Yeah, Viacom was an idiot not to have Invader Zim on MTV...what were they thinking? I see that piece of dookie Spongebob crap pants everywhere, but only at Hot TOpic will ya find Invader Zim.
I really wish as a cartoon fan, you could seek out or see somehow invader zim(not sure how ya missed episodes, since ya have cable) its really beyond what youve seen on tv.

 

[Drtooth]

I like Spongebob, and all, but if he wasn't so cute, and didn't make so much money, He'd be on the chopping block too!

 

[grail]

Originally posted by beaker
>>>Invader Zim: STill haevn't seen it. It's not the Powerpuff Girls to blame, but the greedy Nick corp. <<


Basically, if Invader Zim was on Cartoon Network things would be MUCH MUCH different. Presumably, he'd be all over the place, T-shirts, Comic Books, Movies and such. SO don't think of it as "Invader Zim pushes the evelope, and gets nothing." So much as Invader ZIm pushes the envelope, but he doesn't look so good on a Burger King Collector's glass.<<<<

Yeah, Viacom was an idiot not to have Invader Zim on MTV...what were they thinking? I see that piece of dookie Spongebob crap pants everywhere, but only at Hot TOpic will ya find Invader Zim.
I really wish as a cartoon fan, you could seek out or see somehow invader zim(not sure how ya missed episodes, since ya have cable) its really beyond what youve seen on tv.

jeez Cory, do you ever have an opinion that you don't have to force people to see as "the right way"? i mean, you're a good guy and all, but what you think is not the end all and be all.

i've seen Zim. i honestly wasn't impressed. now i like JTHM, but like many writers before him, Vasquez has switched mediums with minimum success (think Frank Miller's Robocop 2). this is what honks me off the most. his rabid "Johnny" fans do nothing but sing the praises of a show that...just isn't that funny.

this seems to be a constant thing that no one seems to ever call you on. you push and push and push, and only you are allowed to be right. please, stop and think about what you are posting before you post it. ask yourself, "am i about to make myself sound like a d***?" because i hate to break it to you, but as your friend, i have to tell you...a lot of the time, you do.

 

[frogboy4]

I do love Monsters inc...

Just got Monsters Inc on DVD yesterday as a treat to myself. Had to take it right home and watch it! I first went to the behind the scenes stuff - very impressive.

Now one complaint about the nature of DVDs in general - no automatic demo button. I really get tired of clicking my way through the menus after about ten minutes, but still want to see the material. Would be nice if some additional programming could produce a feature that plays all the sections in a continual sequence so people don't have to click every couple of minutes. Wasn't this why they got rid of Laser Discs? I like having the option for control, but also don't like to baby-sit the DVD player for every decision. Just an idea.

On to the other stuff. I loved both Shrek and Monsters Inc, but always liked Shrek better and that feeling was reinforced. I fell asleep! Okay - I have been recuperating from graduation, but still - the movie doesn't pack the consistent comedic punch that Shrek does, but the quality of animation is far superior! And the animation on Boo is the most underrated performance in the film! She stole the movie!

I think some of the commentary explains the difference between the two pictures as well. Though I love the 2-D animated titles, they were put in place to make sure audiences knew that this is purely a silly movie. I would have enjoyed a little more darkness (like in Labyrinth for example). The kids were spoon-fed this movie and I feel that the teen-adult audience was left out a little. I do love this film, but it still gains a B+ from the frogboy.

The teaser for Nemo looked fun. I don't understand the criticism - you can't tell from this piece what the rest of the film will be like. And hey - Albert Brooks and Ellen DeGeneres! Wow! Now that's a film for someone like me to get excited about.

I know some of y'all will disagree with my opinions on the film and I can understand your point. There is a good reason Shrek won the Oscar - it communicated to the voters more than Monsters Inc did for whatever reason. It certainly wasn't due to the animation - Pixar is the king in that department and will be for years to come.

 

[GWGumby]

Jaime-
There is a DVD tour on the Monster's Disc in the Human World. It's the one choice that isn't on a Doorway. In fact your complaint has prompted Disney to include a tour feature in almost all of their "upper-class" DVDs including Snow White, Emporer's New Groove, and I'm sure several others.

Monkey's are funny.

Beaker-
Okay, now you've gone too far in dissing Spongebob. Any and every criticism or opinion you've had to this point has gone completely out the drain. I was willing to suck up your complaints about Powerpuff Girls and Ripping Friends, but that one went too far. I never saw Invader Zim which may be part of why it got pulled. If you can't see a show, how can it become popular? But now I know it must be a terrible awful yucky stinky doo-doo show because you like it so much.
Try to differentiate your personal opinion from stated fact. It doesn't bother me if someone doesn't like something I do, but it does bother me when someone insults something that is genuinely enjoyed, respected, and/or admired by many others for no reason other than to vent their own personal agenda.

Naturally this is the Internet and an open forum and everyone is allowed to have their say however they want to say it, so you can rant if you want to, but at least try not to be so vicious about it.