Here we goagain!
Whippet Angel wrote: No, I wasn't offended. You just seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder from Bolt not winning an academy award, thus your judgement on this (or any Pixar film for that matter) is clouded. But if you really want to have an intelligent discussion on this, I'm game.
Yeah I just want to repeat that my intention was never to offend anyone. I still disagree with you but I certainly respect your opinion and I will try to provide your arguments with as good answers I can.
Whippet Angel wrote: You want to know why most people prefer TS3 over Bolt? I'd say it's probably because TS3 is a complex film with different themes going on (leaving the viewer with much to think about at the end). The film also takes many risks, while Bolt is a cute, sweet and safe family film, but not much more than that.
That might very well be the case. I can admit that Bolt was a bit bland and certainly not as contrasty as Toy Story 3. But then again, you really have to watch Bolt a few times to understand what’s going on in this film, which completely lends itself to the characters and their personal evolution. Whereas I found Toy Story 3 to be a loud, simplistic and almost vulgar movie, Bolt surprised me as the characters (at least the dog and the cat) really did develop in an utterly believable way. Bolt was my favorite as he was a quiet, few-worded and introvertive character that was almost overpowered by the hyperactive hamster and Mitten’s witty dialogs. But Bolt is still the most touching character from the film, and his personality and how he struggles with his own identity, mental denial and self-confidence.
In the movie, Bolt must first overcome his delusions and pride and expose himself and his vulnerability to Mittens. At first, he treats the poor cat quite brutality but he learns lesson of pain and humiliation on the way and is forced to drop his superhero persona.
There is a brilliant scene about halfway into the movie when Mittens has tied herself to a tree, trying to talk some sense into the dog. At first, Bolt just tries to ignore her, calling her explanations preposterous. But it becomes harder and harder to ignore the cat’s logics when as he starts to realize that she is right. He becomes frustrated and starts barking repeatedly trying to silence both Mittens and the unwelcomed feelings of doubt that is starting to build up in the back of his head.
As a result, Bolt is perhaps not as "explosive" as Toy Story 3, but it’s (in my opinion) my sophisticated in a subtle manner. And if I had children I would certainly want them to see Bolt instead of Toy Story 3. (well, im not planning to have children, I might get a white puppy and paint a lightning bolt on his side, but you get the picture)
It is, however, possible that I missed the themes and character development that you spoke of.
Whippet Angel wrote: On the film not being family friendly: The difference between a "kids flick" and a "family film" is that the latter includes something for everyone, and it's not just the kiddies that are entertained. What exactly was wrong with the gay jokes? I thought they were funny, and they were subtle enough that they'd go over the heads of most kids. Those same kids btw, will watch the movie again years from now when they're older, and will be able to "get" the jokes, thus making the film even more enjoyable than before. It's one thing I love about subtle adult humor. I'll re-watch films that I enjoyed as a kid, and be amused, albeit for different reasons.
I don’t think that the gay jokes is going to do any harm. But I don’t normally like movie that has to use tired stereotypes, like gays, dumb blonds and Spanish dancers, to generate laughs. A low form of entertainment. I think prefer the witty charm of Bolt.
Besides, the characters in Bolt were really being treated with respect. Sure, the audience might get some laughs out of the confused canines attempts to jump over that road construction ditch and trying to melt locks with his eyeballs. But the point of the movie was still to emphasize with the characters. I rather feel that the directors Lee Unkrich and Andrew Stanton didn’t quite treat the characters in Toy Story 3 with respect.
Whippet Angel wrote: On Losto the Bear:
Lotso in a lot of ways represents what Woody could become if he never learned to let go. Lotso was angry and bitter at his owner for replacing him, and didn't want anyone else to be happy either. Like Randall said, the real "villain" in this film is the challenge of moving on in life. Lotso is more of an obstacle if anything. Even after the toys have escaped Sunnyside, Woody is still faced with the issue of letting go of Andy. Seeing what happened to Lotso was probably eye-opening for him.
On the mortality theme: Like I said before, the film takes risks, and the incinerator scene was a rather dark moment for an animated family film. Yes, we knew that the toys weren't going to die, but THEY didn't know that. Their reaction to the event is what made that scene interesting. Imagine going through all they'd just been through, only to have it end that way. They KNEW that there was no way to get out, and that they were going to die. The filmmakers gave that scene a perfect analogy on the DVD commentary. They described it like being on a plane that's going down with your whole entire family. Do you die running around screaming, or quietly hold hands and go down with dignity? The toys had all been through so much together, and it was touching to see them react the way they did.
That's all I've got for now. Your turn!
Yeah, I didn’t like the end scenes that much. Lotso and his evil minions capture the good gang of toys as they try to escape via a garbage dumpster. But after a heartfelt speech by Woody, Lotso’s own companions turn against him – you know like in every other family movie ever created. And as the toys are about to be thrown into the burn pit, Lontso is actually being saved by the noble good guys. And naturally, he doesn’t return the favor, leaving them all to die without pressing the emergency stop button. (Moral message; do not help people, for they will only betray you in the end.)
But just about the poor plastic toys are about to be burnt, a giant claw reaching down and saves them. At this point, I was convinced that it was Lontso having a sudden change of heart, developing as a character and deciding to save the others would be the one operating the crane. It would have been predictable, but at least it would have some sort of deeper meaning to it.
I was wrong again of course. Instead they toys were being saved by those ugly, green, toy aliens. The toy aliens who couldn’t feel less relevant and I don’t even remember seeing them in the movie before. It was as if the directors flipped a coin to see which character would save the toys from the burning fire. The bad guy gets what he deserves in the end, being tied to the front grill of a garbage truck. They always get what they deserve, don’t they?
Anyway, my problem with Lotso is quite simple. This brings me to another point. Pixar relies on evil antagonists much like James Cameron relies on extra effects. There is only some outrageous mean character to push the plot forward, and this is not only a very cheap trick to create drama, but it is an extremely irresponsible way to portray the world for young, responsive minds.
The last thing we want to teach kids is that all the evil attributes in world can just be subscribed to one person who can consequently be blamed for all problems. That the kind of simplistic, unrealistic view of the world modern media is trying to move away from!
In
How To Train Your Dragon, the enemy is ignorance and prejudgment against animals. There is a very important message here about understanding and trying to coexist peacefully with nature. See this is what we wanna teach children.
In Bolt the only actual antagonist is Hollywood and the shallow entertainment industry it represents. As such, Bolt is about the importance of being yourself rather than a character to be consumed through media. In a time when reality shows are raising ethical questions and the media industry is constantly influencing children, telling them to be in a certain way and value shallow, superficial abilities– a movie that centers on the importance of knowing who you are and accepting your limitations couldn’t be more timely and relevant.
In Both of these movies are about battling ideas rather than individuals. That doesn’t only make for more suitable stories for children, but it also makes the movie’s overall themes deeper and more realistic. Anyway, obviously Lotso is the personification of evil. And this isn’t even very well explained! We just get a brief, cheesy flashback showing us how Lotso was abandoned. Directors use flashbacks like putty when it comes to filling plotholes.
