The top 10 best movies of 2007...

[Aaron Haynes]

Originally Posted by Andres

i'm not entirely sure why you typed that or why it matters at all.

It's not part of the debate we're having, he's just contributing his two cents to the original topic.

[Raz]

I've had little desire to see any new computered animated family film because they all seem to follow the same kind of formula. They're never bad they're just moderately entertaining but forgettable. I haven't seen this Ratatouille but I doubt I'd be too interested in it.

Like everyone popped a boner about Finding Nemo when it came out and saw it on tv a couple of months ago and it was just...standard. Sure the animation is great but everything is just so shallow(excuse the pun). I've heard The Incredibles is good but I'm not going to go out of the way to see it. Now Toy Story. There's a film.

[Andres]

Originally Posted by Aaron Haynes

It's not part of the debate we're having, he's just contributing his two cents to the original topic.

i'm not sure what the fact that a film is animated instead of acted has anything to do with the script.

[Aaron Haynes]

Originally Posted by Andres

the only reason i brought up the live action movie comment is because if people are going to praise this movie like it deserves to be right up there with 'there will be blood' and 'no country for old men' at the oscars when its script is tremendously weak in comparison.

there's this idea that because animated films are animated they get a bad rap, or that because they're animated people don't take them seriously. but then what, if i take it seriously and say 'this script's pretty damn simplistic', the argument 'well that's how cartoon scripts are' doesn't cut it.

as i said, i saw an article about how ratatouille was ripped off by the oscars because it wasn't in the nominees for best picture. well why should it be? script wasn't terribly hot. not just character motivation, but conflict. the conflict of how he's the guy's son was resolved poorly and undramatically. the conflict of whether he'd get the girl or not hardly existed. the conflict of whether he'd make it in the end didn't even exist. hell, he gets fired at the end and the movie immediately cuts to him having his own restaurant. what the FUCK.

and as i said, animation wasn't too hot. i haven't seen pixar movies in a while, but i'm assuming finding nemo did amazing shit with the ocean. from what i hear cars did amazing shit with the landscapes. etc etc. this one doesn't really do that with paris. hell, there's hardly any paris. honestly this is like a low-budget cartoon. most of the action is in the kitchen, which isn't remotely interesting visually, or in the dude's apartment. the rat colony barely appears, and there's no point of comparison betwee that, and, say, the ant colony in ANTZ or some shit.

again, this makes it sound horrible and like i hated it. i enjoyed watching the movie and whatever, but it was pretty much pixar treading ground.

In the context of whether it deserves to be up for Best Picture, against the giants of 2007, your complaints make more sense. You didn't mention the article in the comment I saw, or really that people were considering it to be on the same level as No Country for Old Men or There Will be Blood. Animation as a medium has different strengths and different goals, so to me it's like apples and oranges anyway, even leaving out the screenwriting and characterization argument. The Oscars in particular are more interested in what film can do, so Ratatouille is probably ancillary to the original complaint, which is animation fans feel that their medium is being snubbed. It's not; the bias is understandable, and it would take an animated film with storytelling goals more in line with the great live-action films to get a Best Picture nomination.

I don't know if Ratatouille's simplistic story is lazy or bad screenwriting as much as it is a function of the formula animated movies have used for decades, which works really well for the medium. You make some fair points, I just don't think simplistic stories and broad characterization are inherent flaws, and historically tend to be choices that play to animation's strengths.

[Aaron Haynes]

Originally Posted by Andres

i'm not sure what the fact that a film is animated instead of acted has anything to do with the script.

Animation is better suited to exaggerations of space, facial expressions, body language, motion and impact. They're in the business of world-building and visual motifs. For a good animated film, the script would be written to reinforce what the animators are doing with form, space, and motion. It usually means exaggerating the characters' emotions and motivations, as well as the situations they get into, especially for a family-friendly comedy.

Being "family entertainment" and being not so well-written are other factors in why Ratatouille's script might not have worked for you. But animation inherently necessitates scripts that play to its strengths (and not all of them are necessarily to amplify silliness and reinforce the exaggerated character designs, just 99% of the mainstream ones).

[Aaron Haynes]

Originally Posted by Gilzenan

Now Toy Story. There's a film.

And that doesn't follow the same formula?

That said, I also recommend you check out The Incredibles. It breaks the pattern enough to appeal to non-Pixar fans, I think. Especially if you've ever liked comic books.

[Raz]

Originally Posted by Aaron Haynes

And that doesn't follow the same formula?

It set the trend well which others have failed to emulate.

[The Chinese Jew]

Originally Posted by Gilzenan

Like everyone popped a boner about Finding Nemo when it came out and saw it on tv a couple of months ago and it was just...standard. Sure the animation is great but everything is just so shallow(excuse the pun).

I cannot disagree with you more. I think Finding Nemo is one of the best animated films of all time, and this is a film that deserved a best picture nomination. Let's ignore the gorgeous animations and the very good comedy, and go straight to its ideas.

On the surface, Finding Nemo is a simple hero's journey movie about a father trying to find his son. However that's an overly simplistic explanation. I think Finding Nemo is a coming of age story which richly develops both the characters of the father (Marlon) and the son (Nemo). I think it's a beautiful story about a grieving father who's never fully recovered from the death of his wife and about a son who may never grow up due to his father's paranoid over-protection.

Nemo gets lost, and the father goes on a long journey to find his son. He meets Dorey, who seems like an inconvenience at first, but her heart is in the right place. This long journey of Marlon finding his son is filled with plenty of action, and chase scenes, but through spending time with Dorey, Marlon for the first time since the death of his wife learns how to actually have fun and enjoy his life.

It's through different characters he interacts with, including the sea turtles where he slowly realizes how over protective he'd been of his son, and slowly learns how to become a better parent.

The son on the other hand gets trapped in this fish tank and he matures and develops with the help of the other fish in the tank. This is neccessary for the son, as if he had stayed with his over-protective father all his life, he'd probably be awfully dependant.

What I thought was amazing storytelling is the way that Marlon tells the story of his kidnapped son, then the sea turtles tell the story to another fish, and different animals spread the story all over the ocean. When the bird finally finds Nemo and tells him stories about all the battles the father has overcome to find him, it's truly a very touching moment.

Besides the coming of age of both characters, I thought the relationships between Marlon and Nemo and even the relationships between Marlon and Dorey are very touching.

I felt like I genuinely cared a lot about all these characters and cared more about these fish than I did for many human characters in live action films.

yes, Nemo follows the hero's journey formula, but does it with such creativity and very well developed characters.

[Mr Mong]

lol

[McJuicy]

something tells me jeff ching watched finding nemo more times then he has seen an actual vagina.

[Rabid Dinosaur]

MY OPINION: The Incredibles is such a good movie. Finding Nemo's pretty good too, but I liked The Incredibles a lot more. I have not seen Ratatouille, but this discussion is very entertaining. I'll watch it one of these days.

[HMC]

The Incredibles is the best Pixar movie by far. Ratatouille was all right. I actually thought Cars was pretty good. Finding Nemo maybe a little overrated, but still good. Monsters Inc. was pretty great. Toy Story 1 & 2 were good. I don't give a shit about A Bug's Life.

[Pizza The Hut]

Toy Story is by far the best. I agree with Jay. Finding Nemo was good but I did detect the same kind of thing as Jay did..it wasn't overpowering, but just a slight mediocrity and tiresomeness to the whole thing. But by no means a bad movie.

[Aaron Haynes]

I watched Bug's Life again recently. It was much better than I remembered.

[Pizza The Hut]

I remember it being pretty damn good...haven't seen it in a long time though.

[Salter]

I agree that The Incredibles is their best effort so far. That has some good plot and character development. It takes the approach of family and relationship struggles, self-worth, and the like and ties it together with some great animation and superheroes. It's really the deepest they've done so far.
I like all of them, but The Incredibles stands out to me.

[Phil Williamson]

A Bug's Life is easily my favorite other than Toy Story, although I haven't seen The Incredibles or Ratatouille

[Tristan]

you need to see the incredibles.

[Salter]

Yes. You're missing out on both of Brad Bird's movies.

[Raz]

Originally Posted by The Chinese Jew

I cannot disagree with you more. I think Finding Nemo is one of the best animated films of all time, and this is a film that deserved a best picture nomination. Let's ignore the gorgeous animations and the very good comedy, and go straight to its ideas.

On the surface, Finding Nemo is a simple hero's journey movie about a father trying to find his son. However that's an overly simplistic explanation. I think Finding Nemo is a coming of age story which richly develops both the characters of the father (Marlon) and the son (Nemo). I think it's a beautiful story about a grieving father who's never fully recovered from the death of his wife and about a son who may never grow up due to his father's paranoid over-protection.

Nemo gets lost, and the father goes on a long journey to find his son. He meets Dorey, who seems like an inconvenience at first, but her heart is in the right place. This long journey of Marlon finding his son is filled with plenty of action, and chase scenes, but through spending time with Dorey, Marlon for the first time since the death of his wife learns how to actually have fun and enjoy his life.

It's through different characters he interacts with, including the sea turtles where he slowly realizes how over protective he'd been of his son, and slowly learns how to become a better parent.

The son on the other hand gets trapped in this fish tank and he matures and develops with the help of the other fish in the tank. This is neccessary for the son, as if he had stayed with his over-protective father all his life, he'd probably be awfully dependant.

What I thought was amazing storytelling is the way that Marlon tells the story of his kidnapped son, then the sea turtles tell the story to another fish, and different animals spread the story all over the ocean. When the bird finally finds Nemo and tells him stories about all the battles the father has overcome to find him, it's truly a very touching moment.

Besides the coming of age of both characters, I thought the relationships between Marlon and Nemo and even the relationships between Marlon and Dorey are very touching.

I felt like I genuinely cared a lot about all these characters and cared more about these fish than I did for many human characters in live action films.

yes, Nemo follows the hero's journey formula, but does it with such creativity and very well developed characters.

I'm sorry but we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

Pretty much every film like this has the same old cliche of characters that learn to become better people with "the coming of age". You could write at length about any Pixar film and how the charatcres develop (usually a clean transition from A to B). I dunno I've already resigned myself to the fact that there isn't going to be a remotely surprising bit of character development in any of these movies. There's never going to be a moment that shocks me or makes me think. And that makes the films so...obvious. It's incredibly prevalent in those none Pixar movies like Madagascar and Ice Age where basically the predators decide to do a 180 and be friends instead of eating people (what a surprise). Oh and let's not forget the obligated comic relief characters who are usually just a "who's out of work". haha okay, maybe that last bit's a bit over the top.

Honestly though, I don't think they're doing anything particularly wrong. They can't change it. It's a winning formula. It's just starting to get tired now.

[Adam Clough]

Originally Posted by Salter

Yes. You're missing out on both of Brad Bird's movies.

Dude, Iron Giant!

Originally Posted by Aaron Haynes

You asked what Ratatouille does that Mouse Hunt didn't do. I gave you my answer, and rather than debate the points I brought up, you actually refused to accept my argument as legitimate. Instead, you characterized me as being defensive and biased and dismissed everything I said, because that was easier for you to attack than to actually debate my point that animation can do things live-action can't. How fucking mature is that?

The burden of proof is on you now, dumbass. I already laid out in detail why I think animation is better suited for the kind of stuff that Mouse Hunt and Ratatouille do with chases and physical comedy. You've yet to do anything but repeatedly restate your point without providing any reasoning for it, and then hilariously accuse me of being biased and dodging the question. You can't argue worth dog shit.

I'm not arguing anything. I was putting out food for thought and you went on an ego rant trying to own me. "I don't like this in movies, I don't like that in movies, my movie is superior to yours in every way". And you wonder why I'm not elaborating. Well that and you can't remember the movie well enough to separate it from Home Alone & Baby's Day Out. If I could pull the 'making of' out of my ass and post it I would, but clearly it's not what you're interested in.

[Bown]

Jesus christ are you really using Mousehunt as your example? That movie was completely awful. Also I don't know where you're getting this shit about Haynes from he's been nothing but fair in this and you're the one flying off the handle, accusing him of going on ego trips and such rather than actually trying to continue the debate.

[Raz]

Shut up Bown.

Anyway Adam, jesus christ are you really using Mousehunt as your example? That movie was completely awful. Also I don't know where you're getting this shit about Haynes from he's been nothing but fair in this and you're the one flying off the handle, accusing him of going on ego trips and such rather than actually trying to continue the debate.

[Klown]

I liked Ratatouille. The animation was fluid and the food looked pretty realistic + good that's hard with cgi stuff. It was very much a case of refining the pixar formula and making a relatively simple movie without super laser explosions and 1000 characters on at once all the time. I like that.

[Phil Williamson]

Originally Posted by Klown

I liked Ratatouille. The animation was fluid and the food looked pretty realistic + good

...travis?