Tangled

Better Late Than Never...
We apologize for the later than usual update to the blog this week. Circumstances beyond our control meant we couldn't seem to be online at the same time in order to chat. We got there eventually though, and here are the results...


matt: hey, are you there?

yello...?

talk ta me, ya silly little freak!


... I'll be back in a bit...

Josh: ah. sorry. okay just saw this things is so crazy!

matt: Are you there NOW?

Josh: YES!

matt: FINALLY!

Ok let's discuss what we thought of Tangled

Josh: it had me in knots. nyuk nyuk nyuk

matt: Ha ha... This one had an interesting genesis, in that it was going to be the first Disney feature that Glen Keane would direct. Particularly noteworthy then that it was a CG film, not a traditional 2D film, don't you think?
Of course, Keane left the project as director during production, but you can still see his thumbprint, don't you think?
I just said "don't you think" twice... bad form...

Josh: Yeah, there had been talk of it for a long time. I had a lot of curiosity about how Keane would be as a director, considering a lot of the heart from the films he worked on came from the characters he supervised. I totally think his influence is felt throughout the film. The animation is some of the best CG I've ever seen and I think that's probably due to his supervision.

The subtleties in the acting were amazing at parts. and it didn't feel too real. It felt like a cartoon and had the real"ism" of modern day animation

matt: Yeah, totally. The character designs are totally in his style. I heard an interview with him from the early days of the production, and he talked about how he was trying to advance a look for the film that would suggest a moving painting, rather than a "plastic" look. At times, you can see that the film does achieve that effect.

I agree with you about the subtle animation. For a while I think Disney's CG features were running in third place next to Pixar and Dreamworks in terms of animation acting, and in my opinion this was a noticeable step up in the acting quality.

Josh: Yeah, I can't remember the name of the painting that he took inspiration from, but they would show it in articles and such...

Jean-Honoré Fragonard's "The Swing"

matt: Hmm... yeah, you can definitely see the influence in the film, particularly in the use of lighting

Josh: The horse was real Loony Tunes-esque. He was great! From the commercials I thought it was going to be too silly, but the relationship with the guy - Flynn - and the horse was great. Real Abbot and Costello...

matt: Again, it all comes back to the acting. That was a character that would succeed or fail totally on the strength of the animation, since there was no dialogue

With added difficulty being a non-human

Josh: It is an old gag to see a horse act like a dog, but it worked so well and it was funny so I didn't care, I just enjoyed it

matt: I think one of the real strengths of this film was the way they gave all three main characters - Rapunzel, Flynn and Gothel - very strong motivations.

Josh: Yeah, none of them felt secondary

matt: I liked the fact that they seemed to be exploring slightly different territory for a Disney film, making the hero a roguish, Han Solo-type character. They've done the "plucky heroine" quite a few times to break out of the damsel mold, but they've tended to keep the male love interest pretty bland until now... am I forgetting a previous film they did this kind of character in?

Josh: I don't think Disney has made too many roguish male leads. side characters maybe. That was always Dreamworks' thing

matt: Right, there was Gaston, but he was a villain in Beauty and the Beast

Josh:Lumiere, but he was a side character. I think it's the best love story in any Disney film to date, and someone described the love story here as "the most earned" and I think that's a great description. They weren't even thinking of being together at first, the Flynn character tried to "smoulder" her (a great bit) but that was only so he could get out of there. When they separated, they actually missed each other, and you missed them being together - no "hey look at them, I'm in love! Woo hoo"

matt: Yeah, it made the payoff at the end more involving for the audience, because there was a genuine moment of "oh, he's really leaving!"

Gothel made for a really interesting villain. I really loved how there were shades of gray to her character - she wasn't the typical "baddie in black". You could almost sympathize with her. You could tell that while she was using Rapunzel, she also did care for her in her own twisted, co-dependent way.

In a way that made her even creepier.

Josh: Yeah, although I didn't feel like she really cared for her, it was totally creepy like you said, but it felt more like she was emotionally dependent on what Rapunzel did for her.

She just knew how to manipulate her

She liked having someone to be in control of, and that's where her "love" came from.

matt: Yeah, I think you're right, actually

Josh: It was a little too close to real life there

Social Services definitely needed to be called

But Rapunzel, too, didn't just wake up and say she was going to stand up for herself, she grew into it

matt: Yeah, you're right, she had a long and difficult arc to get to the point where she broke free from Gothel's influence

Josh: The earlier scene when she first gets away and is going back and forth about her mother and how great it is to be free was hysterical

Total co-dependent mind f*&k.

matt: Yeah that was really well done.

The way they staged Gothel's song, "Mother Knows Best" was great - it really felt like a stage musical. They seemed to be making no apologies for where the movie musical has its roots - this was reinforced by the way the animators had her do that big flourish with her hand on the final verse. I loved that!

Josh: Yeah, the musical aspect was really on par with the classics

Not quite Howard Ashman-worthy, but real close

It did feel like an actual show, I really liked that

matt: Alan Menken did the music and Glenn Slater did the lyrics

Joshua: I saw it in 3D in the theatre, thinking I wasn't going to like that, but it really brought a cool dimension to it

Although it took my eyes about 15 min or so to get used to it, and I think being in a movie should be instantaneous

Not something you have to physically adjust to

matt: I saw it in 3D also, but it wasn't one that I thought needed that treatment

I'm kind of over the 3D thing

Josh: Back to the art: I think the characters really felt like Glen Keane drawings

There are certain nuances he always used that were present in the characters

matt: Yeah, I agree. And I figure they must have developed a new way of handling hair for this movie, because the length of Rapunzel's tresses always had a nice artistic shape to it.

Josh: Yeah, there's probably something on the DVD about it, I haven't watched everything yet

matt: It moved and animated as a shape, the way an animator would draw it on paper, rather than strands

Josh: At this point, they always say "we had to invent a new way of doing - blah blah blah - for this film."

matt: Yeah, it's an evolving medium

Josh: I'm impressed by the product, but not by the fact that they had to do it, because they always have to do it

Wet hair in The Incredibles

matt: right

Josh: Major articulation for Kung Fu Panda

and on How to Train Your Dragon

Fur for Monsters Inc

matt: You are an animation encyclopaedia!

Josh: Paper and pencil pal! PAPER AND PENCIL did it all back in the day!

Watch THE OLD MILL

I was just in San Francisco this weekend and I went to The Walt Disney Family Museum

matt: Oh wow, what was that like?

Josh: It was a great, comprehensive collection of everything

matt: I didn't know that even existed

Josh: Art, family history, the films, the studio, the artists, the animation, the story, the parks,

we were there for a couple of hours and had to rush the last parts to catch our plane, we want to go back to really see the rest

matt: Sounds like something I'd like to see!

Ok I really have to go now... Chat to ya soon

Josh: Thanks! Later!

Cars 2

josh: morning, didn't see cars
saw 1st 2 eps of true blood ssn 4

matt: Good morning! So did you want me to tell you what I thought of it, or just talk about X-Men First Class

josh: might as well tell me what you thought without any spoilers

we could also talk about xmen

i did just watch the trailer for brave

matt: OK... Well, talking in a general way... I thought Cars 2 was the first Pixar movie that was not up to their usual standards.

josh: not even up to cars 1?

matt: Well, I wasn't a big fan of Cars 1 either, but this really suffers from sequel-itis.

Why don't I talk about what I DID like, and then try to describe what I didn't like, without spoiling anything?

josh: very good

i wasn't a cars fan either

matt: Well, once again, the film looks great. The designs for everything are amazing. I was spending so much time admiring the details in the visuals - and there are TONS of Easter Eggs in there - that I actually lost track of the plot at one point.

josh: that's funny, but i guess your average movie-goer won't be geeking out on a lot of that stuff, but still, if the plot was engaging enough, you wouldn't be distracted

matt: It's not that the plot wasn't engaging, it was more a matter of not directing the viewer's attention, I think. You're following along, and then there's a scene change, and you go "Ooooh, look at that.... wait, what just happened?"

josh: right, hm

matt: Ok... well the other thing I liked was the opening sequence, where we are introduced to Michael Caine's spy character.

It's a really fun action sequence, lots of explosions, gunfire... very cool. Like James Bond but done with cars.

josh: that sounds cool

matt: In fact, I might have liked this film better if it was JUST that - leave McQueen and Mater and the rest, and just start fresh with the new spy characters. They're still cars, so the title still fits. The established characters from the first film kind of get in the way...

josh: yeah, the main characters of cars I always thought were kind of basic

matt: Which brings me to what I thought didn't work in the film...

How much detail do you want me to go into?

josh: hang on.....

ok, go on please

matt: Well, I thought the plot was a mess, which was a bit of a disappointment for a Pixar film, which usually have some of the tightest stories in modern film making.

josh: sorry, i'm also having a conversation here...

matt: No probs, I'm still trying to figure out a way to say what I want to without spoiling anything for you

josh: heheheh

matt: One thing I will say: too much Mater. Waaay too much, for my liking. This is actually a story about Mater, Lightning McQueen is a minor character in this story

josh: hm, i can see that

he's the character that kids laugh at most.

i think the cars series might suffer from pet project syndrome. Lasseter may get too much of a kick out of the premise alone

matt: Yeah, the whole film seemed like a bit of a merchandise commercial. And I just tired of his "Hey, I'm dumb! Lookit me, ain't I dumb?" humor

There was another cool character, a Formula One car voiced by Jon Turturro, who was great, but also kind of shortchanged by the Mater plotline.

Oh, and the actual plot of the spy caper part of the story makes NO sense. They throw in a line right at the end which basically negates the motivation of the film's villain. I was left thinking "Soooo.... none of this actually had to happen" - it's hard to talk about it without going into specifics

The script was not up to Pixar's usual standards... the characters would contradict themselves, sometimes within the same line. Michael Caine's character has a line towards the end where he basically says "Mater, I thought you were an idiot, but you're actually one of the smartest cars I've ever known". REALLY? Mater - one of the smartest cars ever? It just comes off as a kind of unearned moment of transformation, like "the sky is now green because I say it is"

"I thought you were a fuck-up, but since the good guys won, it must be okay to be a fuck-up"

josh: lol

matt: Also, I just have a problem with the Cars world, which seems inconsistent in its conceptual design - why are there human-sized items like payphones in a world without humans? But that could apply to the first movie as well.

josh: man, i guess if pixar has to have a vehicle (no pun intended) to pander down to, let it be this one and don't spread it around

i kinda don't know what to say, I wasn't really planning on seeing it, then I thought I would for the blog, now you've sold me on not

matt: ok, so then can I talk about the plot problem?

josh: sure, just try to avoid major stuff that would make me not enjoy it at all

matt: Ahh, okay... the film has a "mysterious villain" (who is pretty easy to figure out)

The villain is trying to discredit a new gasoline-alternative fuel that McQueen and the other cars are using in the movie's races

Once the villain's identity is revealed, the cracks in the plot start to appear... you start wondering, "but if he's behind it all, why did he do this-and-that?"

And if that's not bad enough, the female secret agent has a line at the end which is something like "Oh and by the way, that alternative fuel was really gasoline".... WTF?

josh: wow. that really sounds all over the place

at this point i think that series is just a kids, money making, marketing scheme

matt: Yeah the whole experience felt very commercial - three or four Cars-related endorsements for different companies before the movie, then the short film before the movie was even a sequel of sorts - the Toy Story characters are back! A bit of a disappointment after such creative efforts as Presto, Lifted, Day and Night

josh: i think they're getting a bit too big for their britches

matt: I think your "pet project" theory may have some weight

josh: then again, even in the heyday of disney, they had all this ancillary stuff that was iffy

it seems that pixar is just growing, and in doing so some things can't get the attention they may need

a good review sir, sorry you didn't enjoy it more

kinda sux tho. i was hoping this one would bring me into the cars realm

matt: Yeah... sorry.... I didn't enjoy it

Kung Fu Panda 2

josh: Aaannd begin

matt: Ah, there you are. So, you saw Kung Fu Panda 2?

josh: Yes.

matt: So what did you think?

josh: I loved it

matt: Yeah, I liked it too

josh: I had a bit of a time at first, because someone decided that bringing a crying infant to the movie was a good idea

matt: Oh, yeah... well, it is animated - kind of crying baby territory...

josh: i missed a couple slower scenes in the beginning with the father, and some of the one on the boat, but I saw enough to know what was going on.

matt: I thought the quality of the character animation was amazing... so subtle

josh: amazing, I agree.

the acting on the peacock was outstanding, especially when he became enraged

it matched Gary Oldman's voice performance perfectly, and enhanced it

matt: It's like they've taken what used to be a problem with CG - that you can't have a character stop moving or it'll look weird - and turned that into another tool. There was so much subtle, micro-expression type stuff going on, and the peacock was one of the characters where that stood out to me especially.

josh: the subtlety they can get with CG is amazing

matt: There was a scene towards the end, where the peacock had a moment of realization, and Oldman had read the line with a pause in the middle. The animator used that pause to put in just the most understated head tilt, with a shift of gaze, and you really got the sense of what he was thinking in that moment.

josh: I know, it was like watching something alive. just as alive as an actual person.

i need to see it again to properly geek out about it. It all ran by so fast, and i was distracted in the beginning.

matt: And the movie was full of that level of acting. I really think the Dreamworks animators are at the top of their game. They were already doing some of the most subtle hand-drawn stuff back when they still made 2D films at the studio, and since they shifted to 3D they've just built and built on that already amazing foundation...

josh: yeah. i'm glad they are as consistent as they are.

their traditional stuff was really on the money back then, i'm glad to see them carry that through

i'd like to look at the credits to see which animators are still around from then

i also liked how the furious five characters had more of a presence in this movie
maybe not all of them across the board, but they didn't feel superfluous, it was a good mixmatt: There was also a really cool scene with Po at the beginning, when he was about to go with the Furious Five to kick some ass, where he was hopping from foot to foot, going "come on, I'm ready!", which was just amazing. Hopping from foot to foot, pounding his fist, shaking his head back and forth, like a boxer before the bell.... I was watching it thinking, "Oh my God!" It was one of those snap-your-pencil-and-throw-it-away moments..

josh:lol.

matt: That was actually one of the things that I thought was a bit weird... Tigress and Mantis had much bigger roles in this one, and I couldn't help but wonder if there was some Hollywood stuff going on, like "Unless they get more lines, they're not going to do it"

I mean Lucy Liu had what, two lines?

josh: yeah, but she still did it

its a paycheck

i'm glad they didn't put stuff in for them that was unnecessary, just because they had to incorporate them

there were a lot of characters, but i think they were all essential to the storytelling

matt: Well, I guess what I'm saying is I felt there were almost too many characters in this one - especially with the addition of THREE new Kung Fu Masters (all of whom were cool and I wanted more of)

josh: even the Ox and the Croc

yeah, i did want more of them, but you always want to leave them wanting more.

if you look at what was done w/ the characters, it all made the story play out in the right places

matt: I really thought the lighting in this was WAAY cool. Unlike anything I've seen in a CG film to date.

Very expressionistic in places, using color in a way I've not seen since... Aladdin maybe?

josh: yeah, i thought the 1st movie was a breakthrough in animated CG films cinematically as well

this definitely kept the bar raised

matt: Yeah, true

josh: by the end with the boats and the city and the crowds i was like "wow.... wouldn't want to draw that."

that being said. as amazing as the CG animation was, when the traditional stuff came up, I felt it was so magical to look at. something CG just doesn't capture for me.

as in the 1st movie, i thought the animation on the father was beyond outstanding

matt: Actually, I didn't feel that with this one. The first movie, yes, but maybe there wasn't enough in this one? I don't know, I wasn't as impressed with the 2D stuff here

josh: the CG rig, the acting, everything

really, i guess i'm just a sucker for it.

matt: Yeah my last comment was about the 2D, not the Dad. He was great

josh: i didn't think it was as polished as the CG stuff....

matt: JAMES HONG IS DA BOMB!

josh: but it has this essence about it that mesmerizes me

JAMES HONG is definitely the bomb

i wonder if it was also the same supervising animator on that character as in the 1st one

matt: I thought the fight scenes were a bit cutty. Something that afflicts a lot of live action stuff these days too

josh: yeah, it was a bit hard to follow the fights

rudolph guenoden was the supervisor on that stuff again, tho

i think a lot of it has to do with the lighting,

matt: Well, he did the choreography, I don't think he chose the cuts, that was the director

josh: true

a woman director i was glad to see

matt: It was the same old "camera too close, shots cutting away too soon" thing

josh: the poses may have been there, but it may not play as well graphically

matt: I wanted to see MORE of the moves

josh: yeah, that's something i think you may be more aware of when you come from a traditional background.

matt: I'm just an old fuddy-duddy

At least the humor was well-staged

josh: the humor was good, nothing too silly and some very smart stuff

the comedic timing was great

i LOVED the part where Po was on top of the building in this heroic moment and no one could hear him

that was probably my favorite comedic bit

matt: Yeah, that was awesome. Also loved the way that the animals that couldn't be just a guy in a suit (e.g.the snake as opposed to Po) did their kung fu. Very creative animation there...

josh: and the references to female mantas eating their mate's heads

matt: yeah that was funny..

josh:

I was afraid i wasn't going to be emotionally engaged enough because I missed those scenes where they hook you in emotionally, but there was enough spread out to where I was hooked in when the time was right. That's the sign of a good movie, when you can miss things and still be engaged. one of the things I liked most about the 1st movie was how emotionally poignant it was, I was glad, even though, this was more action oriented, it still had those life lessons and family schmaltzy pathos.

matt: Yeah, I admit I teared up at the end... A good one for Father's Day.

josh:

i was worried i wasn't going to get choked up, but i'm glad i did

ok, i have a few more minutes, we could finish more later too

matt: One last thing .. I thought the final scene was a bit unnecessary. Kind of obvious sequel-bait

josh: which

w/ the father?

matt: Yeah, his real father

josh: oh the pandas yeah,

it's a setup for the 3rd movie

KUNG FU PANDAS

I bet

matt: It sort of suggests we'll be revisiting the same issues in the next movie, when they just resolved it.

Not a good sign

josh: yeah, but who knows, i didn't think they could pull this one off

i was expecting shrek sequel quality

if KFP1 was a home run, I'd say KFP2 was a triple

matt: I don't know what that means. Is that better or worse?

josh: third base

matt: Oh, so not quite as good. I agree.

josh: almost a home run

matt: Yep.

josh: for those reading, matt is an australian

my only "complaint" was, there was A LOT to take in. so much going on, but that's something with a lot of CG movies, they can put all this in and do so much, so they do. it's a movie, not a video game

matt: Yeah it was a bit a crammed

josh: and i think it's a waste when they have a celebrity do a couple lines for no reason. it takes work away from a regular voice actor

jean-claude van damme

victor garber

matt: I wanted more of those guys, but as you alluded to, how long can you make it?

josh: yeah, i think they used them enough, for the story and the jokes

they were really cool in a few bits, and that's all that was needed

the peacock was really great and he was the antagonist so i never minded going back to him

all and all it's a win, and I'm looking forward to seeing it again and picking it up when it's out on DVD.

matt: Me too!

Aaaaaand Scene!