Sunday, April 12, 2015
Colorscripts
While I was doing research for my final essay, I came across this really cool book called “The Art of Pixar: The Complete Colorscripts and Select Art from 25 Years of Animation” by Amid Amidi. The book contains no commentary, it simply presents the colorscripts (drawings that set the color, lighting, emotion, and overall design of a movie) of all 12 Pixar films. It was interesting to see how the art styles in each of the movies differed. The Incredibles, my movie for the essays, was especially different, with sharp, blocky images that resembled a comic book. I'll put an image of the colorscripts below but I'd definitely recommend picking up the book at the library and taking a look for yourself.
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Disney Success
I saw this article linked to some advertisement on Facebook during the week. It seemed quite applicable to our discussion of Disney's success and gives some insight towards just how successful the company has been and a few reasons why it's been on top for so long. Also, as someone interested in the business side of things, I enjoyed how this provides a cool economic perspective.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/28/3-reasons-why-the-walt-disney-company-is-brilliant.aspx
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/28/3-reasons-why-the-walt-disney-company-is-brilliant.aspx
The Rock Meets Disney
Not only did the Rock kill it on SNL this past weekend but he also starred in a funny trailer for a new Disney movie. Enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJz2IMUeDE&feature=youtu.be
Dennis Tyler Response
Dennis Tyler's "Home Is Where The Heart Is" touches on a number of subjects about Pixar's critically acclaimed Up, such the film's success, the animation of the characters, and important themes of gender, race, and body image. Given this wide range of topics that spanned just over 10 pages, there were obviously some hits but more generally there were areas that didn't work in the essay.
I found that the most effective part of the essay was generally the discussion on the workings of the animation. From on outside perspective, this is something that very rarely gets as discussed as other things, such as the themes and messages associated with a movie, but something that can be just as important. Plus it's just really cool. Tyler did a good of touching on the cuteness aspect that Pixar created through soft, round characters.
However, at the end of the day, Tyler promised to discuss the idea of home in Up and this was ultimately a failure. For one, very little of the piece had to do with this idea. The majority dealt with how Tyler believed Carl's marginalization of Ellie and her desires advocated for a patriarchy or how he felt that the inclusion of black characters in meaningless roles advocated for Disney's conservative, white views. Not only did these things not follow the thesis of the paper, but they were just flat out wrong. Additionally, the conclusion was about as ineffective as a conclusion can be.
By alienating the audience through making these bold, evidence-less claims and by not delivering on what he promised, Tyler's article did not prove very successful.
I found that the most effective part of the essay was generally the discussion on the workings of the animation. From on outside perspective, this is something that very rarely gets as discussed as other things, such as the themes and messages associated with a movie, but something that can be just as important. Plus it's just really cool. Tyler did a good of touching on the cuteness aspect that Pixar created through soft, round characters.
However, at the end of the day, Tyler promised to discuss the idea of home in Up and this was ultimately a failure. For one, very little of the piece had to do with this idea. The majority dealt with how Tyler believed Carl's marginalization of Ellie and her desires advocated for a patriarchy or how he felt that the inclusion of black characters in meaningless roles advocated for Disney's conservative, white views. Not only did these things not follow the thesis of the paper, but they were just flat out wrong. Additionally, the conclusion was about as ineffective as a conclusion can be.
By alienating the audience through making these bold, evidence-less claims and by not delivering on what he promised, Tyler's article did not prove very successful.
Kate Flynn Response
At first glance, I wouldn't think there would be much of a relationship between the land and the perceptions about weight that are present in a movie. After reading Kate Flynn's piece "Fat and the Land: Size Stereotyping in Pixar's Up," this sentiment is unfortunately still true. Due to a lack of logical reasoning and connecting points with good evidence by Flynn, her argument of linking the two simply did not make sense. For lack of a better word, it was, well, weird.
This isn't to say that Flynn's article didn't have some redeeming qualities. The references to Wall-E, for example, were apropos, as Wall-E quite obviously provides a commentary on over-consumption and weight. However, just because one Disney movie has this theme doesn't mean that another must, and I found myself not fully seeing Flynn's connection between the two. This was one flaw in her argument.
Additionally, I found myself disagreeing with Flynn on a number of points. For one, she often draws attention to Russell's ironic lack of competence in the wilderness (after all, he is a Wilderness Explorer) and blames it on his portly body type. By doing this, Flynn affirms that Disney suggests being overweight is a hindrance to important activities, and, therefore uses the movie to discourage obesity. However, with this point, Flynn doesn't take into account that Russell's lack of "outdoorsiness" is almost certainly because he is nine years old, which would completely contradict her argument.
In addition to this, the whole idea of the rugid South American landscape contrasting with the soft, round nature of the characters, while technically true, wasn't that convincing. When quoting Immanuel Kant in a work about Up, there better be an obvious point to be made. Unfortunately, there was no such point here.
In short, everything in this text was off, from the strange points to the stating that fat is a connotation-less word, and Flynn wasn't convincing as a result.
This isn't to say that Flynn's article didn't have some redeeming qualities. The references to Wall-E, for example, were apropos, as Wall-E quite obviously provides a commentary on over-consumption and weight. However, just because one Disney movie has this theme doesn't mean that another must, and I found myself not fully seeing Flynn's connection between the two. This was one flaw in her argument.
Additionally, I found myself disagreeing with Flynn on a number of points. For one, she often draws attention to Russell's ironic lack of competence in the wilderness (after all, he is a Wilderness Explorer) and blames it on his portly body type. By doing this, Flynn affirms that Disney suggests being overweight is a hindrance to important activities, and, therefore uses the movie to discourage obesity. However, with this point, Flynn doesn't take into account that Russell's lack of "outdoorsiness" is almost certainly because he is nine years old, which would completely contradict her argument.
In addition to this, the whole idea of the rugid South American landscape contrasting with the soft, round nature of the characters, while technically true, wasn't that convincing. When quoting Immanuel Kant in a work about Up, there better be an obvious point to be made. Unfortunately, there was no such point here.
In short, everything in this text was off, from the strange points to the stating that fat is a connotation-less word, and Flynn wasn't convincing as a result.
Up
Yup. Watching Up again confirmed what I expected. I do still have a heart and Up has quite the affinity for tugging at said heart. Obviously everyone will draw attention to the deeply saddening opening five minutes or so but the entire movie continues to prove heart-warming in a uniquely somber way. Carl Fredricksen's (the protagonist) commitment to upheld his promise of moving to Paradise Falls that he made with his deceased wife is what makes the movie so relatable and, therefore, so good. Whether we're old or not, everyone can appreciate the true love that these two share. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of why Up is such a fan favorite.
Really everything is on point. Visually, stunning seems to be the only word that can accurately describe the film. With a floating house, multicolored balloons that reflect light like prisms, and great, rugid landscape, I couldn't look away for fear of missing another moment of Pixar's awesome animation. This much was apparent to me upon my first viewing of Up some 5+ years ago, but upon watching it again, I also gained way more respect for the symbolism in the movie. As Carl speaks to the house, it comes to symbolize his always-present connection to his wife just as the adventure book represents his commitment to her. Additionally, Charles Muntz (Carl's eventual counterpart) offers great insight into how a failure to move on from the past can lead to an unfulfilling life.
This combination of imagery, symbolism, and message is undoubtably the reason for Up's success. Boasting a box office of $300 million, a well-deserved Oscar, and fantastic ratings, Up truly has become the epitome of what animated film should be.
Friday, March 20, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)