E.C. Henry at 2009-07-12 20:45:26:

Luzid,

I wasn't a big fan of Pixar before. I remember a few years ago "Screenwrting Expo" pimped Pixar up like crazy, and I kinda blew all that off.

I grew up in an era when cartoons LOOKED different. I'm not a fan of the ANIMATION behind Pixar's work. It doesn't amaze me. I don't see it as improvement the of cartoons I grew up with, RATHER I have a mental block that it's actually worse, artistically. Because of this bias I've thrown out most of Pixar's work.

BUT I'm slowly coming arround. Hopefully the animation quality will look more like the stuff from my youth: "Spiderman," "Starblazers," "Scobie Doo."

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

P.S. I think Starblazers would make a good feature length movie.

Dr Gonzo at 2009-07-13 06:45:20:

I still think "Up" doesn't even come close to the writing on Nemo. I'd say "Up" was one of Pixar's poorest films to date in terms of story, right up there with "Wall-E." Both films start out with a great concept but then fall victim to convention about 25 minutes in. I'd also question your logic here, Scott. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was one of the fastest earning films ever, but no one would argue that's because the story is so great. So two thumbs down from me even though I'm usually a fan of what you write.

Scott at 2009-07-13 11:44:25:

Dr Gonzo, it seems pretty clear that the success of TRTF is due to heavy awareness due to success of the first Transformers' movie, cool factor, summer movie, great slot in schedule (no head-to-head competition), and a kick-ass trailer campaign that highlighted the massive amount of VFX eye candy. In other words, I don't think most of the moviegoers who bought tix for TRTF had "story" anywhere near the top determining factor why they went to see the movie. It is what it is: A big honking CGI destructo-fest.

Re Nemo: You'll get no argument from me there. That's probably my favorite Pixar story.

Re Wall*E: The first act is sublime. Once they leave Earth and go to the spaceship, the movie loses some steam for me.

Re Up: If by "falls victim to convention" you mean the Protagonist leaves the Ordinary World around Minute 25 and enters the Extraordinary World (airborne / South America), I'm not sure what to say. Is it conventional that the P (Carl) goes on a journey? Is it conventional that they have to overcome obstacles along the way? That there's a Nemesis (Charles Muntz)? An Attractor (Ellie and Russell)? A Mentor (Dug)? A Trickster (primarily Kevin)? That Carl has a goal? That Muntz opposes Carl in achieving that goal?

All of those narrative elements are "conventional" and yet, don't they represent the constituent parts of a story?

My personal experience where I might critique a movie as falling victim to conventions is (A) the movie does fall victim to conventions, but if it doesn't (B) key narrative elements feel too familiar or (C) I don't care enough about the Protagonist, their goal, and the other primary characters, so the movie ends up feeling flat.

So maybe my question to you would be did you find Carl an engaging character, his life-story a compelling one, his goal something you cared about? If not, then that may be more of your issue with the movie as opposed to what's conventional or not.

Ironically enough, Up got slammed by Wall Street (before it became such a success) for not being conventional enough! A geriatric Protagonist, paired with a youngster, the death of Carl's wife (a downer), the absence of any female lead characters, the whole idea of a floating house, a Nemesis who doesn't really enter the story (with any direct impact on Carl) until nearly midway through the story, etc.

I'd encourage you go see the movie one more time (if you don't want to spend the dough, when it comes out on cable next summer) because I found it to be a wonderful story with multiple layers of charm and meaning.

But obviously if Up doesn't work for you, you are absolutely entitled to that opinion.

Now the big question: Don't you think somebody somewhere is working on a script called Down?