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.
No comments:
Post a Comment