Originally Posted By ecdc His logic seems so tortured, as if he's determined to split hairs. I really, truly don't mind dissenting film opinions. (Hey, I think the Incredibles is one of the least of Pixar's offerings, and I know that places me squarely in the minority.) But make a compelling argument. Offer a perspective I hadn't thought of. Give us a new way of looking at old things. Barrier hasn't done anything to even come close to making me think, "Hmmm...I don't feel that way, but it's an interesting perspective." Perhaps that's because his entire premise is flawed. He's not taking a minority view on a beloved film; he's whining about an entire genre and a company. Perhaps that's why it smacks of contrarianism.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>"So?"<< Works for me. The married sequence packs 50 years into a couple of minutes of time to give us a particular impression. I'm not sure how else they'd pull that off without showing what they did. (At the risk of sounding like an exec, they made it "relatable".) Of course, Hitchcock never used music or images instead of character to manipulate. No sir. And finally, Barrier's argument's so poor that you have to explain it for him; I'm still not convinced that's what he's trying to say. I really don't know what he's trying to say, other than Pixar and CGI don't really work well....
Originally Posted By Manfried I dismiss his opinion on this because they are so trite, simplistic and idiotic. He calls himself a critic, and maybe he was, but this stuff makes me think he's turning into me, an ornery old man. (Okay, a queen in my case.)
Originally Posted By DlandDug Just read the original piece, and found my biggest ire at the following: >>"If you look back, we've had computer animated features for 16 years going back to 'Toy Story,' and we've had computer animated characters before that, I have not seen the kind of evolution of those characters anything like the extremely compressed and dramatic evolution of the hand drawn characters in the 30s," Barrier observed. "When you think about how Disney went from 'Steamboat Willie' in 1928 to 'Snow White' less than ten years later, I think that's an extremely compressed [growth] that I dont think computer animation has nearly approached. What you have instead in computer animation is a continuing elaboration on texture and surfaces and three dimensional space without anything comparable for characters.<< What? Is this supposed to be accepted at face value? Computer animation didn't begin with Toy Story. (There is that passing reference to "computer animated characters before that.") Specifically, look at the trajectory from Adventures of Andre and Wally B (1984) to Knick Knack (1989) and we see the very "compressed and dramatic evolution" that Barrier claims is missing from computer animation. Then (to complete the analogy), go from Knick Knack to Toy Story (1995). Finally, there is this completely stupid statement: >>Largely, Woody and Buzz and company looked the same last summer as they did in 1995...<< Well of course, they did. They're the same characters, for pete's sake. If Mr. Barrier was really doing his homework, he would have also been aware that Pixar spent a great deal of time ensuring the consistency of the characters, while using the marvelous, and fully "evolved" character design technology at their disposal.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <That Pixar's artists were able to elicit such emotion, wordlessly mind you, is no more "manipulative" nor less sincere than the artists at Disney doing the same thing with Dumbo and countless other animated moments. > Not to mention, a live-action film could have done a similar "Married Life"-type montage... in fact, HAVE done. Think of the montage showing Citizen Kane's dissolving marriage, showing the couple (mostly wordlessly) over the years, growing apart. It shows the dissolution of a marriage rather than the strength of it, as in Up, but it's no less calculated or "manipulative." <Of course, Hitchcock never used music or images instead of character to manipulate. No sir.> Right. And that made me think of an interview I saw with Janet Leigh, discussing Psycho. She said that the cast saw a rough cut of the movie and thought they had made a good film. Then she said "Then we saw it with the music, and we realized we had made a great film." I love that quote.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>They are congratulating their audience for feeling these synthetic emotions and, to me, that's offensive.<< I don't even understand what this phrase means, "synthetic emotions." Are audience members pretending to cry or laugh? He may be a smart guy, but on this subject, he makes one dumb, unsupportable comment after another. I think his disgust with the new-fangled world of animation is a synthetic emotion.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Well of course, they did. They're the same characters, for pete's sake. If Mr. Barrier was really doing his homework, he would have also been aware that Pixar spent a great deal of time ensuring the consistency of the characters, while using the marvelous, and fully "evolved" character design technology at their disposal.<< Exactly!
Originally Posted By Tony C <<I don't even understand what this phrase means, "synthetic emotions." Are audience members pretending to cry or laugh?>> Like Nelson Muntz audience are giving a HA HA.
Originally Posted By basil fan I think what's happening here is that the gentleman knows he doesn't like CGI, but now he has to try to explain why. It's the same place so many people fail, even here on Laughin' Place. Easier to know you dislike something sometimes than to know why. Just MHO.
