Monsters Inc.

     Do you wonder why one earth Pixar made Cars 2? Well, the an$wer is obviou$, but why make it?

Because Disney.

     By becoming Disney's main animation studio, Pixar was required to create sequels to their highest grossing films. That's where Toy Story 3 came from, and Cars 2... Except, the deal called for three. And the third sequel is... Monster University, the prequel to Monsters Inc.

............

I'll get to my problems with that in a bit, first to go over the film itself...

Monsters Incorporated

     Monster's Inc stars Sully, a blue and purple furry mini-godzilla, and top scarer at a electrical company that makes energy from children's screams for a world full of monsters. In the first plot point of the film, Sully accidentally releases an abomination on the monster world. That abomination?

MAN.

Actually it is just a toddler. We never learn her name, so we just call her Boo. A bit like how ogres name their young after the first thing they try to eat or a sound they make when born...

     Anyway, the movie follows Sully's attempts to get Boo home, and how he is growing attached to her.

Oh, and the movie also stars Mike Wazoski, but the audience is supposed to identify with Sully and think that Sully's decisions are the right ones 100% of the time because he likes Boo. More on that later...

     In trying to get Boo home, they uncover a kidnapping conspiracy within the company, and plans to use a machine to harvest children's screams.

     So Sully (and Mike) reveal the plot to the police/FBI/CIA, Boo is sent home, and the Monsters start making children laugh because laughter creates more energy than screams. And everyone lives happily ever after...

Sorry for sounding cynical. This honestly is a great movie, definitely recommended for everyone of all ages. The cynicalness about it is coming from the knowledge that there will be a sequel. But not just any sequel, a prequel! 'Cause that has worked many times before!

... Okay it definitely won't be as bad as The Phantom Menace, but still. A prequel is a TERRIBLE idea... And I will explain.

First, what we know about the movie:

• It features Mike and Sully going to college
• Mike and Sully are rivals in college
• Mike and Sully will be friends at the end. (Basic knowledge that even the youngest viewer of the first movie would get.)

Three bullet points, and with that I can pretty much tell you pretty much exactly how the movie will go...

     Sully and Mike are forced to work together on a project, either by sheer chance or their rivalry escalates to the point where the professors force it. They continually try to sabotage the other (and attempted hilarity ensues) until they run up close to the deadline, and have nothing. Thus they fake their entire project, and manage to get an A, building a grudging respect for each other. Oh, and Randal is the villain in their somewhere, because I really doubt Pixar is willing to give him any sympathy and make him a fallen villain in the original movie...

     In the end, Sully is offered a job at Monsters Inc because of how mega-super-awesome he is, but says he can't accept unless Mike comes with him...

     

     Mixed in there, Mike meets his love Celia, and Sully sabotages his date with her, and that's the point where Sully tries to make it up to Mike and become his friend.

Bam. Three bullet points, and the movie is predictable. The only thing that could possibly throw me for a loop, is if they make Randal a nice guy who is trying to do well, but is being driven crazy by how Sully is always beating him... Or if they made Randal and Sully friends. I doubt either of those two would pop up, though it would improve Monster University, if only because I'd be focusing on Randal and his descent.

But now, I mentioned Earlier about how we are supposed to identify with Sully...

Sully is a Jerk Jock in this movie, and Mike returns as the Butt Monkey.

     Now, Mike getting hurt comedically in the first film was fine because it served a purpose: make Boo laugh. It helped with the plot, and was for a good purpose. But in Monster University? Mike is being bullied, and we're supposed to take Sully's side!

     Protagonist centered morality... If the protagonist is okay with it, the audience is too (within reason). This means that we are supposed to think that mike being bullied is funny because it is Sully doing it. I'm sorry, but no, I don't find it funny. Mike as a discoball is a little clever, and is somewhat funny, but that is tossed out when it is forced on him by another, and not by his own choice or random chance (think falling into something sticky then into a lot of feathers. Slapsticky, but at least it doesn't have to be bullying).

But, my biggest problem with the sequel to monsters inc is this: The wasted opportunity.

The Wasted Opportunity

     Ask yourself this: What is Boo like now? Does she remember the monster world? If so, what is she doing in relation to it? Is she writing stories about it? is she acting as a diplomat between Monsters and Humans? Is she in a mental ward because she keeps going on about a giant blue kitty and a world full of doors? Any of these questions could lead to a better sequel.

     What is Boo was a teenager, having adopted the name Boo as a nickname or a pen name, writing stories about Mike and Sully and the monster world... Hell, you could probably work in that backstory featured on the second DVD about and Mons and the Mans as her writing about how Monsters were made. 

     But, what if we decide that we don't want a sequel about the characters? Monsters Inc could have a sequel that expands their world instead! Think about it, Monsters have the technology to go between worlds, and turn emotional outbursts of noise into energy! What if they brought that technology to our world? What if humans and monsters united in the pursuit of common goals? It'd be an amazing Sci-fi/fantasy story! Something never seen before in animation!

     But that is the problem I found with Pixar... Almost nothing Pixar has made would make a good live action film. Every one of their films has some element of cartoonyness in it; For Up it is the colorful bird, for WALLE it is the humans, for Brave... Brave contains elements of Brother Bear, an animated Disney movie. Their only movie that could be done in live action is The Incredibles, but that is mostly thanks to it's roots as a super hero movie.

     Now, I'm not saying Live action is better than animation... Hardly, I could write a senior thesis on how animation can do things live action can't. But I am saying that Live action tends of have better writing. Imagine if Pixar had done the Avengers. If you think that would be very bad, you are starting to see my problem.

     Pixar almost never writes anything that we could possibly see as real. We can almost never believe that their world exists... We believe it while we are there, but later...

     Now compare this to How to Train your Dragon by Dreamworks. It is animated, it is obviously for kids... Yet, it would work with live action, and it would still work just as well, because the story was written realistically. The same holds true for Megamind, a movie I'm slated to review next. It could work in Live action, because it was written realistically.

     So, what is the problem exactly?

     It is this: Pixar isn't writing movies. They are writing Animated movies. Their movies have zero chance of ever being considered for being made in live action.

     Animation can do a lot that Live action can't; but that doesn't mean either should be excluded. 

Animation VS Live Action should be a stylistic choice... not a requirement.

This has been Fixer Sue... Hoping that Rise of the Guardians is as good as it looks.

Sliding Scale of Comedy

     I think most people can agree that comedians are funny. They tell some good jokes, and while opinions will vary on comedians, someone does find them funny. But, comedy isn't just jokes. There are gags, situational humor, puns... Many, many things go into comedy.
     Most people are also aware of the idea of a bad joke. A joke that falls flat, either because it wasn't funny, or  required explanation. Most people are also aware that jokes grow tiring the more you repeat them. Your first reaction to "knock knock" is probably to say "Use the doorbell" now after hearing way too many of them. Many people will also agree that some things aren't funny, but are comedic... So how on earth do we differentiate?

     Well, like most things, we rate them. There isn't really a formal way to rate comedy as it is different for many people, but I do have a standardized way for checking to see if the comedy in a movie is good.
     It is called "The Sliding Scale of Comedy."


     There are more or less four levels for the sliding scale: Not funny, Humorous, Funny, and  Hilarious.
     Not funny is basically when there is nothing funny. Think a soap opera in it's dramatic moments. Unless something about the delivery of the lines is odd, it isn't funny. This section also applies to jokes that fall flat.
     Humorous is the section for filler comedy. You'll find more humor than jokes in most movies, as it's job is to maintain the mood of comedy. They aren't really jokes, because they don't really make you laugh. They are just there to keep a light mood. It is also used to slowly transition into comedy, to prevent mood whiplash, and serve as the warm up for the jokes.
     Funny is the main target of most jokes. It is the one that makes you laugh when you see/hear it. The downside to this section is that things that are funny can become humorous, and eventually unfunny as they are told more and more. For instance, toilet humor is funny to very young children, but is groan worthy for people who are older than them.
     Hilarious... this is the golden joke. It makes you laugh a lot, and makes you laugh when it is referenced again later.
For instance, this video:

     Not to offend republicans who read this (if there are any at all) but the delivery of the line "President Obama wants everyone to go to college... What a snob." alone was funny, mixed in with some irony to make it hilarious. Even the Republicans who agreed with him laughed before they applauded him. It can be repeated with ease so that retelling it doesn't make it lose its comedic value, and the same goes for re-watching the video itself. A joke that remains funny throughout re-tellings falls under Hilarious as a category.


Now, I shall show examples of how this work in comparing scenes from two movies.

     The clip is from Megamind, where the eponymous character is fighting Titan. The joke itself is easily humorous, and is definitely funny. But, the biggest test is whether it is funny without actually knowing the setup. Even if you know nothing about the two featured, it can still make you laugh, and thus is funny.
Now, compare it to this:

     The clip is from Despicable me. I'll admit, it is funny... When you have the setup. Without it, it is just generic kids movie comedy, and is only humorous. But, even with the setup the comedy degrades, and it can start to annoy you as you realize that it is just generic comedy (shaking a soda bottle, vibrating chairs are comfy, playing with a TV...). So this falls under Humorous.
Now finally, this clip:

     This falls rather squarely under hilarious, and at least humorous if you don't really like Jim Carrey. You don't need the setup, this could be a commercial for scotch tape and it would still be funny. That is why it falls under hilarious.





This scale is my primary method for determining whether a comedy or a movie with some comedy in it, is good. I for instance hate the comedy in Brave because it consists of fumbling around, which is at best humorous, while I love the comedy in Megamind because the jokes and gags are varied.

As for the best usage of comedy in a movie... well, that's another topic. I'll get to it eventually, But first I'm going to have to cover Megamind, Despicable Me, and Yes Man.


This has been Fixer Sue, giving a bit of Story Theory.

The Sword in the Stone

     Walt Disney's last film... The Sword in the Stone... A movie from my childhood and many other childhoods... And it is terrible.

     I complained about the pacing of The Secret of NiHM, but at least that story had a plot to get to. This? This had no plot, it was all just padding. You could cut out over 60 minutes of film, and nothing would be different! The main character is taught lessons that have no barring on the story, and are completely forgotten by the end!

     But beyond the story, or lack there of, the characters are also terrible. Arthur "Wart" Pendragon is as dull as Kristen Stewart with zero ambitions. Archimedes, the wise owl, is a jerk. Wart's foster father is quite mean and unforgiving. And Merlin, the most recognizable character from this movie, who has a massive fan base thanks to the Kingdom Hearts series of games, is a ditz trying to play at being a teacher. It is pretty sad when the audience ends up identifying more with a squirrel who doesn't speak a word of English in the entire film, than with the main characters.

      But, I'm not here to tell people this movie is bad and people were bad for making it... I'm here to help improve it.

Improving the story

      The first step to improving it: give it a plot. The plot I choose to give it is thus: Arthur and Merlin go on a quest to Camelot, so that Arthur may pull the sword form the stone, and become king (At least Merlin knows that, Arthur is going along because he doesn't have a home). Along the way, they encounter obstacles, and Merlin uses the opportunity to teach Arthur how to be a good king, teaching him wisdom, compassion, and bravery.

     The second step is characters.

Characters

     Arthur needs to actually take the lessons to heart, and utilize them in his quest as well as grow form his experiences. In the beginning he could sort of complain that he is a weak nobody, but by the end he shouldn't be complaining, or afraid, or an idiot... By the end, the audience should be able to see Arthur as the King. Think Ned Stark, but with more emphasis on wisdom than Honor.

     Merlin should be an extremely wise old man. He knows the future, and everything about it. He knows the answer to every question, and should act that way. He should also limit his anachronisms, make reference to the future but not say something that, should Arthur repeat it, get him branded as an insane Heretic to the church. Like he could refer to his bag containing his stuff as "A Bag of Holding." That would somewhat make sense since the reference is to Dungeons and Dragons, which is set in medieval times. All other anachronisms should be subtle, like humming a pop tune or representing things with the modern way of drawing as opposed to the medieval way (almost perfect representation VS simplistic). He shouldn't be referring to Helicopters, Bermuda, planes and trains... As the movie actually points out, referring to them only causes confusion.

     Now, there is one other character to add to the group. Do you remember Abu from Aladdin? Imagine if he wasn't annoying, and wasn't a monkey, and you get the idea for the next Character, Hazel. Hazel is the fan-name for the Squirrel girl in Arthur's second lesson, who falls in love with Arthur, and is broken hearted when she discovers that he isn't a squirrel (Or, since she can't understand English, more likely she thinks her mate is dead). After the conclusion of the second lesson Merlin teaches Arthur, Arthur shows compassion toward the Squirrel, in trying to calm her down, and requests that she join them. Thus she becomes the sidekick character, helping Arthur and Merlin out on their quest. Whether Arthur asks Merlin to turn her into a human or not depends on how the love works in the story. If it ends up as Platonic, she'd stay a squirrel. Otherwise, she'd become a human. 

(Why all this for a squirrel? Because gosh darn it Arthur was inconsiderate in the movie itself. He didn't thank her, nor even try to for saving his life. He just wanted her off his back, and barely cared that he broke her heart.)

That is pretty much all the movie really needs. A plot, and better characters.

Though This movie was made back in the fifties... standards for animated movie were much lower... But Sword in the Stone is so dated that it is not much of a classic anymore. If they were to update it, and make the necessary repairs... Then it might actually be a classic.

(Oh, and I am aware that Sword in the Stone was a book. Disney may have followed it to the letter for all I know, but I do doubt it. Besides, the real story of king Arthur tells how he was crowned by a woman in a lake that tossed a sword at him. At least the sword in the stone has some actual meaning behind it.)

This has been Fixer Sue, caring more about squirrels than kings since 2000!

Rio

     Holy hell Blue Sky Productions! Stop making Ice Age! Your one-off, original idea movies are WAY better!
     Robots, despite it's dark double meanings, is a great movie! Horton Hears a who, while I have problems with, is good too! Hell, the first Ice Age was good as well before you started churning out sequels like Disney with gemstones in their eyes! And now Rio, a movie with good story, a good pace, and memorable characters...

     The story follows Blu, a Blue Macaw who was smuggled out of the Brazilian Rainforest when he was but a chick, who goes with his owner Linda, to Rio to meet a female Blue Macaw to hopefully save their species. Some different smugglers with the same type of old plane steal the two macaws and intend to sell them to the highest bidder. They manage to escape, and hijinks ensue.

     The characters... The characters are quite a bit of fun. Blu himself, while a bit awkward, is very intelligent, and somewhat compassionate, something surprisingly rare in non-Pixar films. Jewel (The female Blue Macaw) is pretty smart herself, and fairly independent without coming off as... Well, there isn't really a common term, so I'll explain in an aside:

     Jewel is independent, but isn't actively avoiding the company of a man who seems interested in her. I say this because it is a somewhat common trope that popped up in some nineties movies with a "quirky but lovable" male protagonist. While Jewel is annoyed by him, she isn't outright hostile (at least, after she finds out he's the same species. Before that she tried to claw his face off). So when she begins to like him, it is more believable. The word people from TVtropes use to describe her, is Tsundere, which is harsh-sweet. The key marking of a Tsundere is of course being harsh, but also the capacity to be sweet, and switching between them at believable points in time. The girls from the nineties movies with the "quirky but lovable" male love interest... They fall under "defrosting ice queen" which is someone who is harsh, but becomes nicer as they warm up.
     I chose to explain this in an aside because it is the "Defrosting Ice Queen" trope that Jewel thankfully avoids. You see, while an Icy character that warms up over time is a good character, it doesn't work very well in the span of one movie. It tends to feel like a snap when the Ice Queen defrosts in a single movie, making it seem unnatural. The reason for this is because they go from harsh-harsh-harsh-MEAN! to being sweet-loving-submissive-go-make-me-a-sandwich-woman in a matter of minutes. If they show sweetness throughout the film alongside their harshness, then they are a tsundere, and them eventually being only sweet to the love interest makes sense. If they are constantly mean to the love interest, suddenly warming up to them doesn't seem plausible.
      End of the aside, we may now resume praising this sapphire in the rough.

     It is very refreshing for characters one would assume to be annoying (pretty much every single bird besides the villain and Jewel) actually turn out to be good characters. I was fully expecting to be annoyed by the two singing birds, but they have some good lines in addition to some good songs. Actually, all the comedy relief characters tend to not overstay their welcome, and give some good lines as well.

     I actually don't have any problems with this movie. Strange, I know... I can find problems with The Secret of NiHM (here's a hint: the secret is a terrible pace) but I can't find problems with a movie that fell through the cracks. Sure the film isn't perfect, no film is, but it did exactly what it needed to in order to be a good film. I liked it, and I will likely add it to my list of animated movies to save for when I have children.


... Well, if I must nitpick, I suppose the songs, while they hold your attention, aren't really memorable. But, not only is this the studio's first musical, but effort was put into the songs to make them good (unlike some Disney sequels... and sequels to Don Bluth movies. Poor voice acting kid...) so I am willing to give them a free pass on it. Plus I'm not a fan of the style of music, so it is possible that I don't find them catchy, but another person might. I do find german pop music catchy, so I'm probably not the person to talk about Samba. ^^'


This has been Fixer Sue, telling Blue Sky to become mainstream with movies besides Ice Age! I don't want to be a stereotypical internet Hipster, saying that I liked you guys before you were mainstream! I want to like you at the same time!

WarioWare: Smooth Moves

... First off, this game is weird. But fun. But really weird.
Just watch this short video to get an idea of what I mean:

     And those are just the cutscenes! From one level!
     And the gameplay... I can't put it into words! It is completely nuts! But here is the basics: You hold the wii remote in a certain way, and play mini-games at a fast pace. I have no better way to describe the rest of it than to show you: (skip to 0:44)

     And there are ones that are even weirder than the ones shown. It is one giant mindscrew, and it is incredibly fun.

     Each level has it's own "story." Something the character is trying to accomplish, and the only way to do that is to play a bunch of crazy minigames. Nothing much deeper than that, but it doesn't really need to be.

     If you have a Wii, and have never played this game... Go out and buy it now. It's been out for years, so no doubt it is pretty cheap now. You'll have quite a bit of fun playing it.

     But, if there is one problem I have with the game, it'd be this: The Wii can't read some movements correctly. So certain games are made very difficult when they should be really easy in reality. One example is a game where you hold the Wii Remote vertically, and try to straighten papers... You may get lucky, but it is a really hard game.

     But otherwise, the game is hilarious. Go buy it, and buy "Game and Wario" when it comes out with the Wii U.