Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Crack in the Connection

I’ve loved most animation movies that Pixar and Disney produced for us. The ilk of Finding Nemo, Ice Age (all parts), Shrek, The Lion King, Shark Tale, The Incredibles, Monsters Inc, and Ratatouille has always meant more to me than all the Bonds and Joneses put together.
Most of these stories have simple (but not simplistic!) plots with very identifiable characters and great animation. But what makes them really sparkle is the human insight these capture perfectly and effortlessly- be it a father’s endless paranoia about his son; a parent's desperation to be admired by their kids; a kid’s ardent desire to do something different from those around him; the resistance to change; giving a second chance to someone you think is the villain or the eternal dilemma of understanding what success is all about-all these stories connect with us because besides being based on universal themes, they are rooted in thoughts and ideas of real people. That the film makers beautifully weave these into dramatic storylines, magnificent landscapes and likeable characters is an added bonus.
Or so I thought.
The past few weeks have thrown at me animation movies that were ostensibly appealing in the trailers but have turned out to be anything but. I’ve sat through Madagascar 2 and Bolt in the last month and am now even hesitant to say I’m looking forward to Ice Age 3.

When did animation movies become so formulaic and soul-less? When did the special effects guy supersede the script writer? You could almost imagine the check-box approach that these movies & their makers took:
- Goofy but heart of gold character: Check
- Some witty punchlines based on current affairs: Check
- Some cool celebrity voice dubs : Check
- Unlikely characters becoming friends: Check
- One song with populist potential: Check
- Panoramic nature shots: Check
- Journey that leads to self-discovery: Check
- Heart and Soul: With so many checks, this one can be ignored.
- Emotional Connection: What’s that?

There are many things that you can learn to do very effectivly though a manual- there are still others that you can make more efficient through a template. An animation movie is not one of those!
Pixar and Disney- Please do not mix and match modules from what’s worked in the past. Individually beautiful pieces do not a harmonious whole, make! Indulge not in a shallow make-over of old characters and a less than clever rehash of situations. A stale story delivers a still born movie. Infuse fresh breath-Keep the connection raw and alive! It's simple- Tug at the heart and you wont need to tug at the purse strings.
Ice Age 3 will be watched, yes but by a pair of very skeptical eyes.

2 comments:

Mahogany said...

Bummer, I was looking forward to Bolt. Thanks, BTW, for the butterfly award. I quite like the name:-)

raman said...

It should be noted that there is a BIG difference in story quality from the different animation studios:

Pixar (once owned by Disney) but now independent, does not make bad movies. They take 2 years or so toprodu e, and story quality is key. Toy Story 1 & 2, A Bugs Life Monsters Inc, Finding Nemo, the Incredibles, Cars, Wall E

Dreamworks cranks out 3 movies in 2 years and hires lots of celebrities (and markets them like crazy)

Disney's computer animation house seems to be following the same mold of DW.

Basically Pixar makes great (computer animated) films. Everyone else sucks :)