Animation gets no respect

     When it comes to award shows like the Oscars or Golden Globes, animation gets no respect. Here is the thinking process for choosing which animated movie will be the winner:

1. Is it a Pixar movie? If so, then they win, unless the title is Cars 2, in which case they lose.
2. Is the film arty? If Pixar doesn't win, they do.
3. If there is nothing else, then pick something out of a hat.

The Golden globes named Brave as the winner, much to my surprise (and even the surprise of the winner). My first review was of Brave, because I viewed that film as having so much potential but having it squandered... But as of late my dislike of the film has rather turned to hate. The film is full of pointless slapstick, the main character is wholly unsympathetic, and is Brother Bear recycled with women in Scotland. Am I the only one who still watches movies for their story? Am I the only one still able to accept the reality presented to us? Why do I always feel like I and my close family members are the only ones who care at all about animation?

First, the list of nominations... it's like the golden globes threw every animated movie into the list in order of release, without regard for quality. They put Hotel Transylvania on the list (Adam Sandlar. That should explain enough), but neglected Paranorman. And don't assume it's because the movie is about gross zombies, 'cause Frankenweenie was on the list (technically came after Paranorman, but I have a feeling that the committee chose between them, rather than placing Paranorman in Hotel's place). Beyond those three, Wreck-It Ralph, which is high on my list of best animated movies, and Rise of the Guardians, which is a fantastic Dreamworks film, were also on the list.
This was my order of likely-hood for winning:
1. Wreck-it Ralph
2. Rise of the Guardians
3. Frankenweenie (heard it was good, can assume it's better than the girl who poisoned her mother.)
4. Brave (better than Sandlar at least.)
5. Hotel Transylvania

And, much to my extreme shock, the story in which a girl poisons her mother because she is a rebellious spoiled princess brat wins over the absolutely fantastic Wreck-It Ralph, with some of the best Characters and story-lines I have seen in an animated movie...
They had to not be thinking or caring. Brave did not deserve the golden globe, even if Pixar improved their system so that her hair is more than just a block (they still can't get away from making the characters look ridiculously smooth... If you're going to do that, at least make them stylized like in Rise of the Guardians.)

I don't have just this instance to back me up either... Kung Fu Panda 2 came out the same year as Cars 2 and Rango. Kung Fu panda 2 I absolutely love, and has made me a true fan of Dreamworks. It seemed like a shoo-in for the oscar, since Rango didn't do all that well (and upon watching I realized it was just flat out awful). What's better, Cars 2 didn't even get nominated, much to my joy (it had me believe the people in charge weren't morons). But, surprise surprise... Rango won. Just because it is artsy.

There is a common term in the film-industry, known as "Oscar bait." It refers to movies that are obviously aiming hard for the awards. Granted, they are often good movies, but the term is loaded, since it also means begging to the academy, rather than just making a good movie. It is a bit harder to attribute such a thing to animated films, since they are intended for a younger audience, and a lot of Oscar Bait movies will be rated R, or LYKAH for leave-your-kids-at-home. But, then again, maybe animated movies don't need to be Oscar bait... They just need to be released by Pixar.

*sigh* one of two things will happen come the summer... Either Monster University will get the reviews I'm expecting, and people will realize that Pixar is not the paragon it used to be and will stop kissing their ass and propping them up, or Monster University will prove me entirely wrong and I'll gladly welcome Pixar back into the fold...
Given that Steve Buscemi is returning as Randal, there is a possibility... If Randal is played sympathetically and we see why he grew to hate Sully. If he is played like the villain again, there is zero hope.


Animation gets no respect...

Paranorman

     This movie is a bit like Rio. Not in terms of plot or Characters, or even style... more along the lines of how unexpectedly good it is. It's funny, it's creepy, horrifying, disgusting, tearjerking... It makes fun of horror cliches and introduces some very interesting characters that it has a lot of fun with. However, it is flawed, and could have easily been a whole lot better...

     First off, the good: I absolutely love the witch character. Her story, how she looks when powered up, how she is defeated, the build up for her... Though she only has a few minutes of screen time, she is easily the most sympathetic character.
     Behind the witch is Norman, the boy who can see and talk to ghosts. Unlike a lot of movies about kids with special powers (it is pretty much it's own genre... Next to a pig becoming famous.) Norman is pretty careful about what he says, and tries to confine his ability to when he is alone, only acting upon it under extreme circumstances (such as when he receives a terrifying vision). He also sort of pushes everyone away since he assumes that they all think him to be a freak. He's right, but this is the sort of thing that one's parents would seek therapy for. But, then again, considering his father, it isn't surprising he doesn't get bi-daily therapy...

     While the characters besides Norman are funny and have their own nuances, there isn't much reason to care about them. Only Norman's friend has some sympathy from the audience, but the fact he barely does anything of plot relevance makes it so that he could be removed entirely with very little damage done. Same with the friend's old brother. And Norman's sister. Really, the movie only really needs Norman, the Witch, and a couple of the zombies.

     Actually, speaking of the zombies... There is a problem with them. You see, while normally zombies would be monsters that seek to destroy any living thing and consume it, these zombies still have their minds. They are the regretful judge and witnesses who sentenced the witch to her death. They are the only ones brought back to life. The rest of the dead bodies are left untouched, as it is only the seven brought back that were cursed. But, since they don't seek to harm anyone, what is the problem? Sure the witch is malicing them from the sky, but that's the extent of the damaged caused by the curse. It isn't a zombie apocalypse that is being averted, it's a couple of Puritans who fell asleep for a long time and would really like to move on.

     Related to the zombies... This movie is almost unwatchibly disgusting. And coming form the guy who likes the movie Corpse Bride and Nightmare before Christmas, that is saying  A LOT. Here's a tip: never have the character interact with a dead body. It is unbearable, regardless of the state of decay. In addition, don't have something squishy fall off. If you must have something fall off, let it be hard.
    It seems odd, but allow me to explain: a squishy eye or an ear will elicit a very disturbed reaction, as is the case when the zombies first appear. Now, compare this to The Corpse Bride; that movie is done entirely with puppets, so very little liquid, and nothing squishy... When the bride's eye pops out for a joke, it sounds like a marble hitting the floor.
     Now, I know it seems like a little thing, but understand this: suspension of disbelief is extremely important in animated movies. The reason for this is that the audience pretty much suspends all disbelief about an animated movie, and in their eyes, everything they see on the screen is real within that universe. If you don't want your audience to leave out of disgust, you have to go the extra step to break the suspension of disbelief surrounding the disgusting object, so that the audience ceases to believe the object is real. A hard eye ball is not realistic, and is less disturbing than a squishy ear, which is more realistic and therefore disturbing. Better yet, don't have anything fall off them in general...

     Honestly, the zombies aren't actually all that important either, and actually bring the story down a bit. The best parts of the story are the fantastical ones; the ones involving the witch, not the zombie "attack."

    What I'm thinking would have made a better movie is to basically take the formula for the Lorax and apply it here. I don't mean the thing about buying air or planting trees, I mean the part about a boy being told the story of another's life. Rather than Norman being an outcast who's seen as insane, have him be a "sender," someone who helps the dead pass on. It can still take place in modern day, but have the focus be on the witch and her story. The towns people can tell him the tale of how an evil witch cast a curse upon the town and it's residence (better than just 7 people), and continually hear different stories about her, culminating in actually finding the witch and hearing the tale from her... Or rather have Norman see it like he did in the film (it was very powerful there) and end it the same way, with Norman telling the story. Add in some other fantasy elements, like Norman being able to see all the dead, not just the sent ones (n the movie his ability to see ghosts is dropped rather quickly, and isn't brought up again for a long while. Being able to see all the dead would help fix that) and you have an extremely good movie that would work in any medium.


But, don't let me discourage you from seeing it, It is quite good, and I enjoyed it greatly. I don't plan on adding to my library since I don't really want to watch it again, but it is definitely worth seeing at least once.



This has been Fixer Sue; The Hobbit was too long, cut down to 2 hours, cutting down a lot of the longer scenes, and it would be golden.