Ups and Downs

As the year draws to a close in a few days, I thought I'd look back on the good and the bad of this year in animation…

Coming off of a pretty strong 2012, was this year a good year for animation? If you ask me, it was very up and down. Heavy emphasis on very…

Mainstream American feature animation had quite an underwhelming year for the most part, either in the critical or box office department… Sometimes both. What's very notable about this year's batch of films is that it showed that adherence to a formula doesn't always produce good results.

2013's most successful animated films also happened to be the best-received: Monsters University, Despicable Me 2 and Frozen. The Croods, which got decent reviews, was also a hit in North America but did even better worldwide. Sony's Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 was a modest success at best, and it didn't cost too much to begin with. Epic also broke even, but overall it underperformed. Disney Animation, Pixar and Illumination won this year. Sony and Blue Sky did okay, DreamWorks had a big win with The Croods, but also had a good-sized loss with Turbo.

Frozen was another hit for Walt Disney Animation Studios' current winning streak, and it also was preceded by Mickey Mouse's first proper short subject 1995's Runaway Brain, the excellent Get A Horse! While I didn't gush over Frozen, its mix of Broadway songs, great character work on the two leads, sad moments, comedy, modern attitude and little doses of action really worked with many. Then again, I think The Lion King has quite a few flaws but people love it, and they loved this too. Props to Disney for making a film that really resonated with audiences, like they've been doing for, in my opinion, the past six years.

Monsters University, for me, was a fine film and much more consistent than Cars 2 and Brave, had a fine screenplay that balanced everything well and had very little flaws. Sure it was a lot more conventional than Pixar's usual films, but what mattered to me was Mike's character arc, the new faces and the storytelling. Lots of people liked it just fine, while others didn't. It's definitely on the more divisive side. But maybe once this "Pixar is on the decline" dust settles, this film and the one before it may get a fair re-evaluation.

I have not seen Despicable Me 2, so I can't say. Apparently, its crazy Minion hijinks and comedy worked with audiences of all ages. The critical reception was good, and I did think the first one was more than just enjoyable. Apparently Illumination succeeds in this department for now, because let me tell you, The Lorax was as bland and forgettable as they come!

There were no other real winners this year.

It seems like the family-friendly wacky comedy formula is finally beginning to wear thin. Audiences only went to see sequels/prequels to films they liked or loved (Monsters University, Despicable Me 2, Cloudy 2) or things that seemed interesting at the least. The Croods most likely caught on because of how weird it looked in the visual department, plus the aggressive marketing did make it look like fun. Frozen's last-minute good marketing emphasized story, characters and music, which got audiences of all ages into the theater on opening weekend.

Turbo's ads didn't do much for audiences, as it looked like a derivative "for kids only" film. Most reviews seemed to sing that tune as well, thus it had trouble when it opened. The Smurfs 2 only proves that the first film was something of a fad, and the first film also had all of summer to itself to make the amount of money it made. Free Birds was held back by very poor marketing, and the film itself got bad reviews and was soon overshadowed by Frozen. Unlike Turbo, it made its money back. Escape from Planet Earth wasn't going to be big to begin with, so it performed as expected. Planes did okay, but since it was for kids first, most adults and fans stayed at home.

This may be a turning point for American feature animation. Directors such as Chris Sanders, Kirk Wise and Henry Selick spoke about the problems of the American animation industry and the redundancy of many of the films. Meanwhile, our ever-so-understanding press bent over backwards and instead asked stupid questions like "Are there too many animated features?", "Is there an animation curse?"

Of course, people who don't give a damn about animation to begin with (they're still calling it a "genre"!) would ask such things, instead of considering the quality of the various animated features. All of them are computer animated, usually cost over $70 million to make, are family-friendly and happen to be comedic in tone. However, the best films do well because they happen to have substance or something that really ticks with the audience. It's something that can't emulated so easily, why did wacky caveman comedy The Croods do so well yet wacky turkey flick Free Birds didn't? It's really simple.

The films that underperformed consisted of Epic (made its budget back, but still did unimpressive business), Turbo and The Smurfs 2. Escape from Planet Earth and Free Birds were the sort of middle-of-the-road animated films of the year, a bit like Gnomeo & Juliet or Alpha and Omega. Low budget, not expected to be blockbusters, films that didn't make any mark but turned a profit.

This year, we didn't have anything that was really unique or against the norm. Monsters University, good as it was, was one of Pixar's quieter and less ambitious films. (They're saving the ambition for Inside Out, Good Dinosaur and the "Day of the Dead" film.) Frozen might've focused on two sisters and their relationship, but it was dressed in Disney conventions that we're familiar with, unlike last year's Wreck-It Ralph. Despicable Me 2 was… Well… Despicable Me 2. Fun? Probably. (I still haven't seen it.) But anything else? Was it Rango? Was it LAIKA-esque? Nope.

If last year could give us a small variety of animated films that didn't suggest "sameness", this year was the opposite. Everything else was either familiar or a sequel/prequel/spin-off. A year that included the likes of The Smurfs 2 and Planes no less. You know what would've been great? A wide release of a foreign feature, but let's face it, that rarely happens in North America. No big release for something like The Congress, or Metegol, or something from Japan. We're getting The Wind Rises next year thanks to Touchstone, GKIDS will give Ernest & Celestine a pretty decent-sized release. 2013 originally had the feature-length Phineas and Ferb movie and Henry Selick's The Shadow King. I think the year would've been a bit better had those two never been moved/postponed.

2013 was also a downer year in many respects, from the VFX industry woes to the constant layoffs. DreamWorks gave up to 350 employees the pink slip after Rise of the Guardians underperformed (by their expectations), many visual effects houses went bankrupt, protests ensued (remember the "green screen"), the Academy Awards even showed great disrespect to the people who did the effects for Life of Pi when they were on stage. Walt Disney Animation Studios had to lay off ten veteran animators because CEO Bob Iger was having the company's divisions lay people off.

Other woes included Pixar's decision to remove director Bob Peterson from The Good Dinosaur, resulting in some layoffs at the studio. They also shut down Pixar Canada, showing nearly 100 people the door because they wanted to move all of their resources under one roof. A shame, because Pixar Canada could've been what Disney Animation's Orlando unit was to the Burbank studio. The announcement of Finding Dory made more people upset than happy, and Brave winning the Oscar for Best Animated Feature over Wreck-It Ralph led to a massive backlash. While the support for Disney Animation's triumphant video game adventure was nice and all, Brave perhaps got a little too much bashing, methinks. Booting Peterson off of his film - this is the fourth time in a row this director removal thing has happened at the studio - was met with anger and skepticism. Pixar has been a whipping post since the announcements of sequels and the release of Cars 2. This just made matters worse. 2013 really wasn't their year…

On the home media front, there has been disappointment. Disney foolishly believes that people will abandon physical media very soon, thus they have put out lazy Blu-rays of their animated classics, which either lacked bonus features or came with questionable, sometimes bad transfers. Warner Bros. (or more appropriately, their legal department) angered animation fans left and right with their censorship of the second volume of the Tom and Jerry Golden Collection (after years of releasing sets with potentially offensive content to general consumers, albeit with warnings), justifying it and driving WHV to postpone it indefinitely.

With this rush to go digital, what does it all mean for non-feature length animation? What does it mean for more obscure stuff?

But despite the doom and gloom, optimism prevails. You know why? Because it always does!

Walt Disney Animation Studios, despite the recent lay offs, is ready to go full steam ahead with a slate of films that'll open people up to what a Disney animated film can be. Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph were successful enough to support this ambitious new slate (which goes from now to 2018), and now Frozen is a bona-fide blockbuster! The sky's the limit, and honestly, this is something to get really excited about. Of course, the debbie-downers sniped at Disney for simply not telling us what was coming out on the various release dates, or were angry that none of the films are apparently not going to be done in hand-drawn animation. I say it was a wise choice to not reveal the titles.

Pixar is no different, they have films (a good number of which are entitled) scheduled for 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. Debbie-downers will argue, "Their recent films are weak! They're not the same!" How do you know how the next batch of films will turn out? Why is a studio all of a sudden going to cease making good films just because of some inevitable trip ups? People seem to forget that great artists are still human beings. Also, the oh-so-bad Pixar happened to delight many with its first-ever television special this year: Toy Story of TERROR! It got acclaim, it did extremely well in ratings and it's a great way to keep Disney happy without having to make another film. (Well I sure hope that'll be case! I'll take tons of specials and a show or two over a fourth movie.)

Fox loaded their guns, claiming release dates for DreamWorks, Blue Sky and Fox Animation Studios productions. What's the latest date they have? December 20, 2018. Thinking ahead for sure, and also showing that animation is here to stay. Sony Animation even went ahead and announced that the September 2016 and September 2017 spots were theirs. Illumination also seems to have matured, canceling projects that weren't working and moving some around. What a shocker, since DreamWorks and Sony have these slates that are loaded with in-development projects. Illumination surprisingly removed a few from the line-up, knowing that they wouldn't go through any time soon!

The studios are ramping up their slates, but like I said before, they better start upping the quality and trying new things. Or at least differentiate their work for the time being, before any experimentation kicks in.

We have other studios making the leap into the mainstream world, Dallas-based Reel FX being one of them. Hopefully what they're doing kicks off a trend: A bunch of small-scale studios enter the field and help change mainstream animation as we know it by taking crazy, wild risks. Aardman and LAIKA try as they might, but we might need more studios to help… And a bigger push from someone else. Columbia/Sony Animation hasn't done well with Aardman, Focus Features can only do so much for LAIKA being a small distributor. No one looks into foreign animation, we never get films like Rio 2096 or The Fake in wide release form. It's also hard when you're not being backed by a corporate empire or marketing machine as big as Disney's. Just look at DreamWorks, they've been having trouble because their films cost a lot and they rely on the revenues from feature films to stay afloat.

But the higher ups at DreamWorks are also shrewd, as they are now finding other ways to keep themselves going. They lucked into Netflix, planning to release hours and hours of original programming that's intended to bolster franchises and also move merchandise. It could also make up for losses, Turbo F.A.S.T. is a fine example. That could very well put the film and franchise in the black, though to be fair, DreamWorks announced the show a good while before the film came out.

As for the whole smaller scale animation thing? Well, now is the time for distributors to seriously consider the options out there and not screw around. They can slowly build momentum, and get foreign animation into "modest success" territory at the box office. We can't just have the Academy Awards' token "Best Animated Feature" category giving foreign animation a scrap of recognition. Change needs to take place soon, because audiences this year have spoken with their wallets.

Plus, this year, Kickstarter began launching many interesting animated films, Glen Keane started up his own studio and a small company like Reel FX secured distribution deals with Relativity Media and 20th Century Fox. This is pointing to a promising future for animation, one that should inevitably happen. The big budget world can't always be the bearer of big hits; many blockbuster live action films did poorly or outright tanked at the box office this year while a good number of small films did quite well, great even. Even Steven Spielberg himself talked of the ramifications of everything being big budget.

It's time to go small. Leave the biggies to the ones who can afford to make them. (i.e. Pixar, Disney, DreamWorks…)

Look at Free Birds, the computer animation in it was competent and it was produced for $35 million. That's around half of what the relatively cheap Despicable Me 2 cost to make! France's A Monster in Paris, from 2011, looks good despite the budget it was made on, but no matter, audiences can enjoy that just the same if the story is good. Audiences do like hand-drawn animation, contrary to what the oh-so-wise executives would like to think. Any animation is good with audiences, as long as it is good or marketing makes it look good.

This year saw the announcements of several projects that have a lot of promise. Reel FX is gearing up for The Book of Life, which looks to be a game-changer like Rango. Beasts of Burden and W.I.S.H. Police are next, and going by what's been revealed, they both have potential. Paul McCartney will enter the world feature animation with High in the Clouds, which should also be a game-changer. Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg are going for animated food with the raunchy Sausage Party, which could popularize feature-length adult-oriented animation or set adult-oriented animation ten years back. Sony is looking to adapt Ratchet & Clank into a movie, which could signal a new frontier for both animation and video game movie adaptations.

The big studios still have good stuff coming. Disney Animation's Big Hero 6 looks to expand on the out-of-the-box settings of Wreck-It Ralph, being a manga-tinged superhero story with many cool little elements. DreamWorks has some exciting stuff cooking, from the How To Train Your Dragon sequel to projects like Home, B.O.O., Mumbai Musical among several other neat-sound projects that are in development. We got news about films like Flawed Dogs and Larrikins moving forward (Noah Baumbach is directing the former!), showing that DreamWorks has a lot brewing under their roof. Blue Sky even has some interesting stuff coming, from Anubis to Ferdinand. Hopefully those will be well-made and well-written. Sony Animation shows some promise too, with projects like original story Kazorn & the Unicorn and Genndy Tartakovsky's Popeye. Illumination seems to have matured a bit, clearing their crowded slate of re-imaginings up a bit and actually being gung ho about original projects.

Away of the big screens came some good stuff. Television animation is doing alright (despite some annoyances, like Cartoon Network's bigwigs canceling a show because more female viewers were tuning in. Imagine that?), and we've got some cool new stuff airing. Kickstarter, again, has been working wonders for smaller animation that wouldn't normally get picked up. More and more experimental and off-the-wall stuff makes the waves online, and many sites highlight them, which is good. Also, Disney released the excellent Disney Animated app for iPad, which you should definitely get.

On a bittersweet note, Hayao Miyazaki returned with the controversial but critically acclaimed The Wind Rises, which will get a wide release in February thanks to Disney, but it's his swan song. Judging by the reviews, he ended his feature film directing career with a bang!

All in all, we got a lot of exciting announcements and leaked details… But also a lot of bad news, a lot of disheartening happenings and whatnot. It doesn't suggest end times for American mainstream animation, to me it suggests that change needs to take place, and soon…

Maybe this coming year, things will look up. 2012 was a fine year in animation, right? One not-so-great year can't hurt, plus 2014 offers excitement. The big studios, for the most part, seem to be giving us the good, interesting stuff this year. Hopefully many of the films turn out to be good, and not derivative or "been there done that". Maybe studios will start investing in smaller scale stuff. 2014 may be bring good things, given the lesson learned this year. Maybe… Maybe...

More Lessons To Be Taught

… and more instances of me sounding like a broken mp3. Anyways...

Walking with Dinosaurs opened in theaters this past weekend.

*crickets*

When the trailers for this film first came out, I was not too keen on the animation itself but I did like what I was seeing. The international trailer promised a silent adventure story, though the American trailer added some cheesy narration. But still, it seemed like this film - based on the highly acclaimed BBC miniseries of the same name - would be something special. A big epic adventure about dinosaurs with no dialogue, no script. Something for everyone really, adults could enjoy the adventure and spectacle (well again, the animation was questionable in the trailers - not sure if it looks better in the film itself)

As the film was on its way to theaters, something happened…

Some higher-up bozo decided that the film must have dialogue in it, and not just dialogue… Terrible dialogue that's on the level of something you'd see in a cartoon aimed at little kids. Because… Animation is for little kids first, right? Right?

Gee, doesn't that horror story sound familiar?

Yes indeed, this is the same thing that happened with Disney's Dinosaur. It was Disney Animation's first predominantly computer animated film (technically, a lot of sequences were live action with CG dinos), and the company set up a computer animation unit to make it happen: The ill-fated Secret Lab. That's a good $300 million+ they invested into this big project! It had "ambitious" written all over it, and it was planned to be a silent film.

But Disney at the time was ran by executives who didn't see animation as an art form, but rather a kids' medium meant to sell merchandise. Their ignorance essentially murdered what the filmmakers had in mind, Michael Eisner demanded that there would be talking in the film because he felt a silent dino film would be unmarketable.

Okay, the dinosaurs can talk. Fair enough. The Land Before Time was first conceived as a silent film until it was decided that there would be talking in it. But whereas Bluth and co. came up with okay dialogue and acting for the film's prehistoric protagonists, Disney killed Dinosaur with awful, embarrassing "hip" dialogue and slang. The film is bar none one of Disney Animation's worst and insulting films, minus the completely silent opening sequence. The opening shows how awesome the film could've been.

The film was lucky, however. It was released in 2000, when CGI was getting eaten up like candy by audiences. It was Disney, it was about dinosaurs, it was aggressively marketed, it made $137 million at the domestic box office and over $300 million worldwide.

Walking with Dinosaurs probably would've done okay in 2000, when audiences were able to look past terrible juvenile dialogue and just enjoy films for the spectacle. Today, however, they aren't so forgiving. What was the studio rewarded with?

A terrible $7 million opening. This is one of the worst openings for an animated feature. It's deserved, sadly… The animators don't deserve it, they worked hard on this. The idiot executives who had voice-overs added deserve the punishment. At least in Dinosaur, the talking decision was made before production really took off, so the dinosaurs at least act and the lines match their mouth movements. Here, the voice-overs flimsily sync up with the dinos' mouth movements.

When your scripts aims at the under 10 crowd, you get a flop like this.

When will people learn that the most successful animated films do well because of adult audiences? When will people learn that if you just target a movie to little kids, it'll fail? It's important, people. You need adults in the audience, too. Frozen is not crossing $250 million just because of kids, it's because their parents wanted to see it and so did adults who don't have children. Scott Mendelson of Forbes praised Frozen's kid-centric marketing, saying "kids dragging their parents to the cinema" is what made the film successful. WRONG.

Kids may want to see what's playing at the local cinema, but the parents are the ones making the ticket buying decisions. They work, drive and have money to get movie tickets. Kids don't. A parent can say what his/her kid will see in the theaters or not. If little Johnny says "Mommy, I wanna see Smurfs 2!", maybe mom will say, "No sweetie. We'll wait till the DVD comes out." A lot parents don't like subjecting themselves to something that'll bore them to sleep or make them cringe. They wait till the DVD or whenever it hits On Demand, so they can put it on in the other room and not have to watch it.

My aunt always tells me the humorous story of when she was doing childcare in the 1980s, and she whoever she was taking care of at the time to see The Care Bears Movie. She always joking tells me how awful that experience was…

Parents took their kids to see Frozen because it did not look like torture. Parents probably liked what they saw in the trailers, and so did many non-parents. It is not 1983 anymore, many teenagers and adults are beginning to go see animated films by themselves. Because guess what? Being "cool" is a joke, people will see what they want to see! Plus, animation is also no longer the bubonic plague of the film and pop culture world. Has been since the Second Golden Age.

Look at something like Alpha and Omega. It was for kids only, really. It only grossed $25 million at the box office in 2010, a huge contrast from How To Train Your Dragon, Shrek Forever After, Toy Story 3 and Tangled, which all grossed over $200 million domestically. You mean to tell me that Frozen did well mostly because of kids? You mean to tell me that kids are an animated family film's target audience?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. (Proceeds to lightly boop your head with a newspaper.)

When will everyone learn? Probably never, unless a revolutionary change takes place sometime in the future…

Sorry Fox, but kids, parents and childless adults are going to get their animated fix this holiday season with a far superior film, Frozen. To the people who pushed for unnecessary dialogue in this film, I hope you're happy…

Let this be a lesson to all of you…

Treat animation like it's just for kids, you lose.
Pander heavily to kids, you lose.
Shut out adults, you lose.
Take the young audience for granted, you lose.
Assume that just because kids will like it, it'll do well, you lose.



Mhm.

Waiting… Waiting...

In March, three Disney animated classics arrived on Blu-ray alongside new release Wreck-It Ralph and non-canon film Who Framed Roger Rabbit. You could say it was "Disney Blu-ray Month", because we got a boatload of titles within a few weeks. Disney Blu-ray was release-happy again in June, giving us three more Disney animated classics. In August, four more!

So, it seemed like Disney would do the same this coming March, right? Apparently they aren't.

Two titles are scheduled for release in March, both are direct-to-video films: The Jungle Book 2 (since the first one's Diamond Edition comes out in February) and Springtime with Roo. Ermmm… Ummmmm… Okay? Disney, any animated feature-length films? Apparently they'll save those films for the summer.

For a while, I had predicted that Disney would repeat what they did this past March and finally give us Hercules and Tarzan on Blu-ray (the former hit Blu in Europe two months ago, the latter in May 2012) this coming March. Maybe even throw The Black Cauldron in there, because that's the only other non-package feature that they need to release on the format. I figured they'd bang those out in March, and then release all six of the package features in the summer. They'd get it all done right away, but that doesn't seem like that's in the cards.

If anything, the earliest we'll get Hercules and Tarzan is in the summer, mid-June to be exact. Disney may surprise us and release them in a spot that we wouldn't have expected them to pick, but who knows at this rate.

What do you think?

Eyes on the Prize

DreamWorks has quite a lot of confidence in their upcoming Netflix series Turbo F.A.S.T., which is based on their unfortunate underperformer from this past summer, Turbo. The traditionally-animated series - a DreamWorks and Titmouse co-production - is set to arrive on Christmas Eve; now DreamWorks has a Netflix-based Croods series in the works as well, according to a Variety report on DreamWorks' latest ventures into television animation. It makes sense that this would be the next one in line, since the film was a huge hit for the studio. It's the second highest grossing non-sequel animated film behind Kung Fu Panda, with an impressive $587 million.

Teaming up with Netflix was a very smart move, because those 300 hours of programming will function as something of a little safety net for the studio since the high costs of their films proved to be quite detrimental to them recently. Again, the $145 million Rise of the Guardians lead to a schedule reshuffling and massive layoffs, Turbo created some more trouble after it failed to recoup its $135 million budget. Also, the company felt that making a show for Netflix was a good idea because it wouldn't impose the limitations that cable networks bring, thus the creators have some room to breathe - plus they want to have more ownership of their franchises.

This is very vital for their expansion. DreamWorks is trying to become something of an empire, looking into a television channel, theme parks and other things. Roughly $130 million films can't just keep them afloat, the aftermath of Rise of the Guardians certainly proved this. What they do, business-wise, is truly a big risk, and they're the only non-Disney animation studio making films that cost more than $120 million to produce. Blue Sky, Illumination, Sony Animation and Reel FX are wisely conservative with their budgets because they don't have a mega-corporation like Disney to back them up if a film fails.

Anyways, DreamWorks intends to build franchises with these shows and help sell more merchandise from apps to toys, which - in addition to video sales - could end up fueling theatrical sequels. Jeffrey Katzenberg also stated that home media sales and other things are factored in and that Turbo will be profitable, so it's possible that Turbo could become a full-fledged franchise thanks to the television show. Now the bigger question: Is Rise of the Guardians profitable now? I heard Blu-ray and DVD sales were pretty good, not sure about merchandise sales though. If they can make Rise of the Guardians a part of this new franchise extension strategy, that would be great. The film actually outgrossed Turbo both domestically and worldwide, plus it begs for a theatrical sequel more so than The Croods or Turbo, methinks.

The trailer for Turbo F.A.S.T. shows that it has potential, perhaps it'll do something really cool with the film's bizarre premise. The film shackled such a weird idea to the same underdog story we've seen before, perhaps the show will go all out with the idea of racing snails. That would be nice, plus the animation doesn't look too bad. After all, Titmouse produced it. Maybe this is what Turbo should've been to begin with, a TV series with a strange premise. It seems like you have more creativity with television animation these days, hence fare like Adventure Time, Regular Show, Wander Over Yander and other off-the-wall and surreal shows.


I don't know, I think it looks impressive for what it is. Perhaps DreamWorks can add more to the worlds they have created with these new shows.

Maybe this kind of thing will open up new doors for television animation.

What do you think?

Not So Golden

It's old news by now, but yes… The Golden Globe nominations are out… And I'll put it bluntly, I'm not pleased with the animation results.

Only three nominees this year. A paltry three, instead of five. Who made the cut? The Croods, Despicable Me 2 and Frozen. Aside from Frozen's nomination - which I'm totally fine with - my reaction is a resounding, "Are you kidding me?"

No offense to anyone who enjoyed or loved The Croods or Despicable Me 2, but where is The Wind Rises? Oh wait, that's nominated for Best Foreign Film. Sheesh, these people like to put animation in its own category, yet don't nominate what is arguably the year's greatest animated film as Best Animated Feature. Who would've thought?

Where's Ernest & Celestine? Apparently that wasn't good enough, or they didn't even see it. Then again, we are talking about the same people who completely snubbed ParaNorman last year yet allowed the much inferior Hotel Transylvania to make the cut. Apparently box office plays a major role in this ceremony too, sorry, I don't follow it enough. I should know…

Anyways, if box office performances are taken in account, then… (and this is the biggest question…)

Where is Monsters University???

Did the voters truly not care for this year's Pixar offering? Or was it a clear case of them thinking, "It's a sequel/prequel, and Pixar totally fails at making those!" Probably the latter, but maybe the former. Monsters University garnered better critical reception than The Croods and Despicable Me 2, I certainly felt that it was way better than The Croods. I didn't see Despicable Me 2, but I for the life of me don't understand the appeal of The Croods. Good as the animation and art direction was, I couldn't get into it. All I saw was a good-looking movie with a bland story, one-dimensional characters and major tonal imbalances. Was it trying to be a good for-the-whole-family adventure? Or a slap-happy gabfest for little kids?

Basically, meh to this line-up. It should've been five slots, that way we get both Monsters University and The Wind Rises in. If they can't nominate The Wind Rises, then they need to rethink their ways a bit. I don't care if The Wind Rises was made in Japan, it's still an animated feature-length film. It should have been nominated for Best Animated Feature, simple as that. By leaving that out, they also leave out the praised Ernest & Celestine. Had it been five slots, those two could've gotten in and could've sat alongside the three American films.

Oh well, we'll see who wins… I'm guessing it'll most likely be Frozen, since that got the best reception of the bunch, is well-liked and touted as a new Disney masterpiece, and it is the safest choice. After all, Brave took the grand prize last year. Predictable, but damn… The results this year are disappointing as all hell. Hopefully the Oscar nominations for Best Animated Feature are a little more balanced…

What's your take? Do you think the choices for the nominees are just fine? Or do you think certain films got snubbed? Who do you think will win? Sound off below!

December Animation Tidbits

Bits… From awards to Disney Animation news to Minions...

A few days ago, the Annie Awards have revealed the nominees for the 41st ceremony!

Earlier, I had predicted that Ernest & Celestine, Frozen, A Letter to Momo, Monsters University and The Wind Rises would be the five nominees for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature… Well, those five have also been nominated for the Best Animated Feature Annie! Looks like my predictions may all come true…

The other two nominees are The Croods and Despicable Me 2, kind of a short list… But let's face it, this was a very weak year for animation. How come other foreign films didn't make the cut if the American output was lacking?

I have a feeling that the award is either going to go to The Wind Rises or Frozen, though I think The Wind Rises has the advantage since Disney cleaned house (deservedly so) with Wreck-It Ralph last year. I liked Frozen, thought it was solid, but not great nor the masterpiece others say it is. To be honest, I'm not really rooting for it at the Oscars. Sorry folks…

By contrast, the Best Animated TV Show lists is impressive. On the "for children" front, Disney Television Animation's Gravity Falls is one of the nominees, since its first season concluded this year, I say give it to Disney. Either that, or The Legend of Korra. The rest of the competition? Well, it's mostly shows that have been around for a while (Adventure Time, Regular Show) or okay-ish newer entries. Teen Titans Go!, for example, is at times funny and quirky - but it leaves me wanting a real new Teen Titans show. You know… A serious one that's not a parody.

The "general audience" television show line-up has TRON: Uprising sitting alongside adult-oriented fare like Archer and Bob's Burgers. Another win for Uprising would sure serve Disney right for moving it to midnights - why they aren't kicking themselves over that, I don't know. Futurama could also win since it concluded on a high note this year, MotorCity could also get some love - another show that Disney mishandled greatly.

Either way, this is kind of "meh" all around. The individual animation and effects categories all have strong nominees, so it'll be fun to see which ones win. Again, I think that this was a weak year for animation and that the offerings we had here in the states mostly aren't up to snuff.

~

Walt Disney Animation Studios' Moana - presumably not due out until spring 2018 - has gotten its composer!

Mark Mancina confirmed on his website that he'll be handling the music. Mancina also scored Tarzan and Brother Bear, arranged the songs for The Lion King and also handled some DisneyToon fodder. We'll see what he brings to the table for this film, since his scores for Tarzan and Brother Bear are quite memorable, the former's in particular.

Since the picture is said to be a musical, it's possible that he'll arrange the songs for whomever is writing them - that is, if he isn't writing the songs. Who will write the songs is the bigger question? Will it be Alan Menken? Or will it be someone that hasn't taken a crack at writing Disney songs before? I'm leaning on the latter, because Robert and Kristen-Anderson Lopez scored a huge hit with Frozen's soundtrack and everyone's praising the individual songs. Heck, they might be the ones to do it, though I suspect they won't because I just can't see Frozen's musical style fitting in with this kind of story. Perhaps they won't go the Broadway route, which is what I'm hoping for. How about a different kind of musical?

I've been backing this idea for a while, as it will be nice to see fresh new talent handle future Disney songs. What do you think?

~

The Minions are finally heading to China…

Various reported issues held Despicable Me 2 back from opening in mainland China, but as confirmed by The Hollywood Reporter a couple days ago, it'll hit the country in January. To date, Despicable Me 2 has grossed $918 million at the worldwide box office off of a robust $367 million domestic gross. It's possible that the film will be the second ever animated film to cross the $1 billion mark, the first one being Toy Story 3.

Do you think it could do it?

~

What do you think of the Annie nominations overall? Does the idea of Mark Mancina providing Moana's score excite you? Do you think Despicable Me 2 will score a huge gross in China? Sound off below!

Frozen Frenzy

Frozen is most likely going to score the biggest opening weekend gross for a Disney animated film, beating out the previous record-holder held by last year's Wreck-It Ralph (which took in a solid $49 million) while also possibly being one of the rare non-Pixar films to cross the $250 million mark at the domestic box office. That's what good marketing does for you!

On Wednesday, it took in a very good $15 million, which is higher than Tangled's $11 million first day gross. Already great, then on Thursday, it took in $11 million. Also good… Yesterday, however…

$26 million…

You read that right… $26 million on Friday alone. I heard reports of the movie selling out all over the country, of all things! It's in second place behind The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, which didn't outgross it by much! $26 million… That beat out the likes of Brave and Cars 2, both of which opened with $66 million domestically. It also outdid several other recent animated films, and it legitimately has a shot at grossing over $70 million this weekend. Maybe even a lot more since it's the holiday season! There is talk of it topping the Thanksgiving 5-day record held by Toy Story 2 ($80 million), and possibly making more than $90 million by Sunday… It's very doable!

See Disney, that's what happens you advertise a film the way it should be advertised. That final trailer must've done the trick, while the more pandering marketing (meaning, everything up until the third "Elsa" trailer came out) helped a little bit. Now please, market all of your future films correctly, please walk away with a valuable lesson from this film's success! (And no, not an "audiences only want 90s-style Disney fairy tales!" lesson, more like a "we need to make movies look good to the audiences!" lesson.)

Now if only The Princess and the Frog was that successful… Tangled would've opened with this much had the marketing not made it look like a Shrek-era DreamWorks film… But, that's what crappy marketing does to your films, it limits them from doing better. If Disney were smart, they'd market their future Disney animated films the way they marketed Frozen. They need to fully convince their audiences that Big Hero 6, Zootopia, Giants and Moana are events, not throwaway animation hit-of-the-week films. Films worth seeing over and over in theaters! I know they can do it, the question is… Will they? That's another story...

An Ice Movie and Mickey's Return

Sorry, I could not resist that ice pun.

*Warning: The following review contains spoilers*

Walt Disney Animation Studios' latest is good, and since a certain holiday is around the corner, I can say… I'm thankful for that! I'm thankful for Walt Disney Animation Studios in general because of how good they are now that the shackles have been off since the big change in 2006. Frozen continues to show that animated films are good or great when you let the artists and creatives handle the ship, not suits, not focus groups, not consumer products people…

Frozen is classic Disney fairy tale goodness in pretty much every sense, but it doesn't fully go the Renaissance route. It doesn't reheat elements, there is no major love story where the leads share a ballad together… Oh wait, Anna and suitor Hans fall in love just moments after they have met, but the film is merely riffing on the short-term romances that tended to define some Disney classics (note: Some of the Renaissance ones where they develop a great relationship in a matter of 2-3 days, nothing wrong with those, though). I mean, she declares she wants to marry the man in a single night's worth of hanging out. Elsa writes it off, and by extension, so does the film. Kristoff hammers it in a little more… That was definitely a nice touch!

But at the same time, it does try on some Disney Renaissance-era favorites, mainly… Broadway songs! Penned by Robert and Kristen-Marie Lopez (Avenue Q, The Book of Mormon), the songs are surprisingly kind of a mixed bag. First of all, "First Time in Forever" and "Let It Go" are awesome. Definitely instant Disney classic songs right there, "Frozen Heart" also kicks things off to a nice start, but "Let's Build a Snowman" is simply good, "Love is an Open Door" is also just alright. "In Summer", I honestly did not care for. "Fixer Upper"? The one song that I actually disliked…

"Fixer Upper", to me, recalls those unnecessary goofball songs from the 90s films, mainly "A Guy Like You" and "Trashin' the Camp". The song just butts itself into the story, a scene where Kristoff needs to explain to his weird troll family that Anna is in dire need of help… But no, a silly song! Complete with lyrics about tinkling in the woods! Talk about a tonal imbalance, in fact this film had a quite a few. Something I had a problem with. Luckily, most of that jarring stuff is in the film's middle part. It is at times cringeworthy, but definitely not detrimental to the film as a whole.

Frozen's main strengths lie within the story and the characters, the story is very well-crafted but its our two leads that really make it shine. Anna and Elsa's relationship is very strong, it ends up carrying the film and producing all of the heartfelt moments. Every moment where they are onscreen together is just fantastic, Elsa is a very complex character and someone who is very scared. It's a nice change of pace, as always. I give the current Disney team props for trying new things with each story, Frozen is definitely no Tangled.

The story throws a core romance out the window, just when you think that there is going to be one, with build-up to boot! I was a little let down at one point, when it's implied that Anna's curse that Elsa accidentally gives her can only be cured by a true love's kiss. I thought to myself, "Oh no… That's kind of typical!" But no, she gets back to Arendelle only to find out that Hans is a two-faced jerk who would just let her die and would also kill Elsa so he can rule Arendelle. That's right there on the level of Wreck-It Ralph's great third act reveal. The audience reaction was also very audible. It all makes for an incredibly great third act that makes up for what I did not like in the second act.

The second act isn't bad by any means, it's just that it has a bigger dose of that overly-modern slang dialogue that I'm just not a fan of. I didn't care for it in Tangled, nor did I care for it in the 90s films. Olaf's number, "In Summer", while not terrible, doesn't really add much. There's also too many modern touches and details, this is a fairy tale setting! Also, comedy is inserted where it shouldn't be and thus it does feel cheap at times. The comic relief is handled much better in the first act and the third act. That being said, the second act does give us a few good scenes with Anna and Kristoff, a fun scene in a summer shack shop and best of all… Anna seeing Elsa for the first time since her exit from Arendelle.

Most importantly though, Frozen packs an emotional punch and has a very rock-solid story. I just wish that the screenplay's dialogue was a little better, and that the comedy and drama were balanced a lot better in the second act. When the comedy works, it really works. Most of the songs suit the film, while some are a little disposable and then there's that one I don't care for, but it's mostly a good soundtrack with a good score by Christophe Beck. The piece "Vuelie", which opens the film, immediately plunges you into the setting… They even played it over the Disney and Walt Disney Animation Studios logos instead of the typical soundtracks for those! Please do that with more films, Disney, please?

Do I even need to praise the animation? From the art direction to Elsa's powers to the character animation, it all shines. From snowy mountains to Elsa's elaborate new home to kingdoms with a Norwegian flair, it's all nice to look at, as usual for a Disney animated film. Some shots are just strikingly beautiful. Color is used to the film's advantage as well, with some striking use saved for the more dramatic moments. Also, the film's snowier color palette during the third act kicks all those teal-and-orange "gritty" live action films in their collective faces; that's how you do scenes that are a little bit on the darker side!

It ends well, with an excellent resolution to everything that had gone down in the film. Its heart is right there on the surface, and overall… It's another Disney animated classic. It has some bigger flaws, but as a whole? It's very enjoyable.

The hyperbole surrounding it, however… Well, I can't say I'm happy with that. That's another story for another post for another day, but the time is not right.

Now… To say nothing of Get A Horse!

My oh my… This is how a modern Mickey Mouse cartoon should be done! This is more than a great return for the character - he hadn't graced the silver screen in a roughly 6-minute short since 1995's Runaway Brain - it's just a blast and it does something different for a change. It begins like a Golden Age-era Mickey short, as it was an unearthed scrapped Mickey short from 1929, but then our characters go in and out of the movie theater screen. The film throws one fun inventive thing on top of the other, with the characters turning into computer animated versions of themselves when they come out of the screen!

But the best thing is, it's really funny. This is the real Mickey Mouse, not the politically correct preschool show version that's aggressively shoved down your throat. This is the old Mickey, with the energy and personality that made him so instantly likable. The cartoon was full of raucous slapstick and lots of inventiveness… It's a whole lot of fun and it's definitely worth the price of admission!

GKIDS: Distributor with a Plan?

Ernest & Celestine, a hand-drawn animated feature produced in France and Belgium from last year, will be getting a general release in North America this coming spring.

The film is qualifying for a nomination for this year, and it most likely will get a nomination at this rate given distributor GKIDS' track record, the Academy's tendency to sometimes nominate a foreign feature, the film's critical reception and the fact that it's a very bright spot in a rather weak year.

We'll be getting a dubbed version, though… On March 14, 2014. The release will expand from there, GKIDS may be on to something here. Disney is releasing Hayao Miyazaki's swan song The Wind Rises in American theaters after the Oscars, hoping that the Oscar buzz helps it do well at the domestic box office and actually be a modest hit. For once. The highest grossing Japanese animated film here in the states is the first Pokemon movie… That says quite a lot, doesn't it? Wouldn't it be nice if a Studio Ghibli film could gross north of $50 million here?

GKIDS may be attempting to do the same for this film, maybe they hope that a more experimental or foreign animated film could catch on and start a new trend. If so, then it's high time we see a slow rise in these films here in the states. A good chunk of this year's family-friendly computer animated stuff underperforming might be signaling a chance; audiences may want more diversity in animation now. Pixar-lites and family-friendly comedies obviously aren't enough, and maybe audiences may be thinking the same thing...

What do you think?

(via Cartoon Brew)

Thor's Second Outing Offers Fun

Thor: The Dark World is a solid addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, one that's better structured than the first Thor, which I still loved. Thor at times tended to feel like it was a bridge to The Avengers, rather than a full-fledged Thor film with its own identity. That being said, director Kenneth Branagh had a lot to juggle with that film. The story-centric stuff works, the characters are good and the tone is handled well enough, it's just that the story does tend to hit some bumps on the road but it all ends nicely and is overall hugely entertaining.

The sequel, directed by Game of Thrones episode director Alan Taylor, fares better in the consistency department as the film does feel like a Thor film, and not an Avengers link. Asgard looks even better this time around, much more vibrant and elaborate. We saw a little bit of Svartalfheim, which looked interesting but we could've seen a little more. The designs of the Dark Elves' ships are great, Malektih's design is also very good (Christopher Eccleston nails the role). The action is better shot and much more exciting, and there are nice little twists along the way. The earthbound scenes are surprisingly delightful too, and the other human characters make a nice welcome return and supply a majority of the comic relief although it does get a little too goofy at times.

What I was also happy to see was that the color scheme was actually nice on the eyes, the trailers and posters (the marketing for this film was pretty bland and by-the-books) mostly implied that this was going to be another boring, desaturated, teal-and-orange spectacle. I especially didn't want another one of those after Man of Steel's washed out quasi-depressing color palette. Thankfully I was wrong, Asgard pops and the action shines. Asgard is a lot more inviting this time, along with other scenes. Give Marvel props for making movies that don't try to be needlessly gritty and "grounded".

Unfortunately, its first hour tends to drag a little too much and the second half is way too fast. The final battle is inconsistent, especially with the technology Jane, Darcy and Selvig are using. Selvig also comes into the picture out of left hand and not much is really done with him, which is a shame considering how good of a character he was in the first film. Even Jane feels a bit underused at times, and Malekith - despite his great menacing looks - is kind of a dull villain. He's basically an obstacle seeking to fulfill a goal that Asgardians prevented him from getting. Not bad, but I expected a little more. On the other hand, Loki steals the show and plays the usual tricks.

The only problem with this film is that it feels rushed, they didn't flesh too many of its ideas out: Thor's relationship with Odin, Loki being something of a good guy, Thor and Jane's relationship, Selvig going nuts after the events of The Avengers, even the death of Frigga. The Warriors Three were underused, too - I loved them in the first film, they made a great team with Thor during the fight with the Destroyer. It just seemed too lean and too fast, maybe it should've been a bit longer (112 minutes is surprisingly short for a Marvel film like this, 130 minutes would've sufficed) and more developed, because there are great ideas in this film. Surprisingly, not much was shown of the dark world itself…

Now the mid-credits scene is great (the credits themselves are lovely to look at), where we get a weird-but-good taste of the craziness that'll be Guardians of the Galaxy. The post-credits scene is an okay stinger, nothing too special. It's about on par with Iron Man 3's final seconds; amusing and brings a good laugh. Speaking of which, it was cool to see a Jotunheim beast appear as well! Also, Marvel Studios' new logo is neat.

If you see the film in 3D or IMAX 3D, you'll get a five-minute sneak peek of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. The trailer for this film was great to begin with, this blows it away. The piece promises us that this next Phase 2 chapter will bring intense action, a great plot and high stakes thrills. To be honest, I was really looking more forward to this than this film.

That all being said, Thor: The Dark World delivers a good dose of Asgardian action, humor and fun. It doesn't quite rock the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but it's an entertaining ride and it at least feels like its own film. Again, I would've liked a much more fleshed out film that wasn't racing its way to the pretty short finale, but it's enjoyable in its own right and a worthy addition to the growing shared cinematic universe. Recommended...

Regrading "Monsters University"

Monsters University was perhaps a film that didn't really need to be made, or even thought up… But you could say the same about the Toy Story sequels. We often look at sequels or prequels as unnecessary, especially to things that aren't broke, Pixar's films being prime examples. Far too often, sequels only exist to cash in on the success of the original and thus don't function as good companion pieces to the originals.

There are some fine exceptions. Pixar happened to make two, Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3…

It's also worth noting that both were films that they pretty much had to make. The former was commissioned as a direct-to-video production by the higher ups at Disney, during their DTV sequel binge. It ran into the wall, and John Lasseter and crew had to literally retool it in less than year as it went from video-only release to big budget theatrical production. It's a miracle that Toy Story 2 turned out to be as good as it was, even under such circumstances.

Toy Story 3 on the other hand started life as blackmail, Disney was going to make it along with a Monsters, Inc. and Finding Nemo sequel, and afterwards, sequels to other Pixar's films without Pixar's involvement. Pixar and Disney were close to splitting in 2004, Pixar was definitely planning to break away from the Mouse House given how the power really had gone to then-CEO Michael Eisner's head. The Circle 7 fiasco it was, but luckily Eisner resigned in late 2005 and Bob Iger took the reigns. Knowing how badly Eisner had messed up the company, he sought to get Pixar back and he did. With the studio under Disney, Toy Story 3 was redone and Pixar made the Toy Story 3 that they wanted to make. (Yes, Pixar had ideas for a third Toy Story as far back as 2002.)

But why did Pixar resume production on a third Toy Story after the acquisition took place? They had to…

Toy Story 3 and two more sequels - Monsters, Inc. 2 where Sulley and Mike get lost in the human world looking for Boo, and a Finding Nemo 2 - were far along by 2005. Scripts were prepared and copyrighted, now Pixar had to overwrite all three. This explains the sequel trio of Toy Story 3, Monsters University and Finding Dory. These films had to be made, no matter what… Plus, with such a huge empire owning Pixar, nudging did happen. Andrew Stanton himself even said this when interviewed about Finding Dory.

As for that other sequel? Disney cattle-prodded Pixar into making that one, obviously. $5 billion worth of merchandise sales speaks volumes…

A Monsters, Inc. follow-up could've gone many ways… Many, many ways. Pixar could've possibly blemished the original and its perfect ending by continuing Mike and Sulley's adventures. They also could've taken a very risky path and introduced a whole new cast for the sequel that was set in a different part of the monster world (this would've been great, if you ask me) with a story that had nothing to do with Mike and Sulley. Then there's the prequel route…

You could say it was a pretty safe bet, considering that it gave them a reason to bring Mike and Sulley back to the big screen. One upside was that they weren't going to taint that ending, the downside is that we know the outcome and we know several things. One fine example being the belief that humans are toxic is false… We'll get there!

Monsters University goes for a classic story that is simple and can easily resonate. We love Mike and Sulley in the first film, so a story of how they met makes perfect sense. We know they'll become the best of friends… But how? Why were Mike and Sulley at odd ends with each other in the past?

Mike is ambitious, Mike is a dreamer, Mike is dedicated. When he was a child on a field trip to Monsters, Inc., he followed a scarer into a kid's bedroom and watched him do his work - his fearlessness and desire to be a scarer is all laid out in the first five minutes. He wants to be a master scarer, but he's simply not scary. By contrast, Sulley comes from a long line of scarers and is scary much like his ancestry, terrifying even. He makes others around him jump, from Waternoose in the first film to the students on the first day of class. Unlike Mike, Sulley has no ambition and prefers to coast, thinking that his natural scariness will do everything. Because of this, Sulley is something of a jerk and is incredibly cocky. It's a good dynamic they build up, and it's never handled badly. The emotions and beats are all there from the minute they first meet up until the final seconds. Sulley also wants to get into the Roar Omega Roar fraternity, all the rich, respected and frightening monsters who are also jock-like. Problem is, his grades are shoddy and they don't let those kinds of students in - scary or not.

However, Monsters University's first act (roughly the first half hour) is a bit sloppy in its execution. Sure we meet the leads again, but the film didn't really give us enough time to sink into the college setting. It goes by very quick, much like the majority of Brave. Reportedly, there *was* a director change but very early on in development, Dan Scanlon apparently replaced Doug Sweetland. (Which could explain his departure from the studio in 2010, when Scanlon was announced as director.) Maybe Sweetland had a longer first act in his version that really explored Monsters University itself and even injected more college elements into the script.

I'm not saying the first act is weak, it just feels like it goes by a little too fast. I didn't quite get all of the college atmosphere, we zip through multiple things from orientation to a brief scene showing the rivalry between the titular university and rival Fear Tech. How about more scenes of Mike and Sulley on campus? Once class begins, we get very little between the first day and the exam. It's true that a good story is lean, and it cuts all of the superfluous stuff… But I think this portion of Monsters University is perhaps a little too lean. Not that it greatly derails it the film, more content just would've added to it and made for an excellent, near-perfect film. I think a longer running time would've been fine, it does inch past the 100-minute mark. Perhaps it should have been somewhere closer to two hours long.

What works in our first act? The characters all get proper introductions, especially Dean Hardscrabble. At least in rushed form, Pixar's crew can still develop characters and bring them into the picture suitably. Mike's dream and his rivalry with Sulley is also very well set up, especially during the thankfully quiet first act's capper where the two inadvertently get themselves shut out of the scare program.

Monsters University begins to click once the second act slowly rolls in, slowly being the key word. The film now takes its time a bit, and it brings out the Oozma Kappa fraternity. This rather ho-hum bunch of non-frightening scarers is socially unsafe to be a part of, but the members are welcoming and mean well. Their disadvantages and how they are perceived do launch the film into Revenge of the Nerds territory, as many have criticized the film for being that film and Animal House rather than a fresh new take on those stories. I felt that they took on the tried-and-true quiet well, much like how they did the story that was told over and over before Cars, or A Bug's Life's new spin on The Magnificent Seven.

Anyways, the Oozma Kappa members are all very likable and brimming with personality. Art would have to be one of my favorites, being the most enigmatic ("I can't go back to jail!") and certainly the weirdest of the bunch. The animators have loads of fun with this character because of what he can do, one of my favorite bits being when he makes himself into a fuzzy purple ring to avoid the fierce and monstrous librarian. Terri and Terry make for a fun two-headed monster with different personalities, Scott "Squishy" Squibbles is fun too - his method of scaring caught me by surprise. (Just staring? You got to admit, that's cool!) Don Carlton boasts a mishmash design (plump body, tentacles and bat beard) but a cool mature student demeanor - of course you have to a student his age in this story! Another fun gag is the fact that Squibbles lives with his mother, who is constantly embarrassing him - she makes for some very funny jokes.

For me, the best new characters would have to be them and Dean Hardscrabble. I love how she's intimidating without actually raising her voice or trying to frighten someone, particularly in the sequence where Mike and Sulley destroy her souvenir of a once-in-a-lifetime record-breaking scare. ("You're taking this remarkably well…") She could snap, but she doesn't. She's authoritative in a quiet but effective way, and she cuts you to the quick. When she tells Mike that he's simply not scary, it's quite a punch in the gut. She's stoic, but not without a personality. Other new additions such as Professor Knight and the two Greek council members are also fun and add to the atmosphere.

The Scare Games sequences make up for it if you ask me. They are inventive, fun and thrilling. The game concerning a roughly 50-foot gargantuan librarian makes for an incredibly fun sequence, the toxicity challenge also brings out the laughs and crazy distortions of the characters' designs. A visit to Monsters, Inc. itself is also a nice, slow and uplifting moment where we see Mike and Sulley starting to bond - then they begin to prepare themselves for the last couple of challenges, despite the odds. (i.e. the ROR members humiliating them and the other OK members by pulling a Carrie-esque plan on them.) The writers do a fine job with developing the Oozma Kappa characters and having their abilities under Mike's stewardship surprise everyone around them and us. Who would've thought they were good and impressed Dean Hardscrabble during the finale of the Scare Games? Meanwhile, the unfortunate reality still looms… Mike is not scary.

It's this reality that strengthens everything around what's going on, as we have a feeling that Mike will get the rug pulled out from under him in a very upsetting way. Since it is a prequel, we do know that he's not going to be a scarer, but it's done well because the emotional punch is expectedly strong. This is all thanks to great build-up, Mike's spirits are raised very high. The other Oozmas doing pretty well in the games also adds to it greatly; a lot is riding on Mike for his scare… And then we find out that Sulley rigged the scare simulator for Mike's turn. Mike is hit with a double-whammy of disappointment; finding out that he's not fearsome and that his friend did not really believe in him. Ouch…

This sets up a brilliant third act, which really rockets the film into high gear. Though no one would be afraid of Mike, the cyclops is fearless. He breaks into the door lab and attempts to scare an actual human child, only to realize that he has failed once again and he's now stuck in a cabin in a camp full of kids. The Dean, of course, won't reactivate the door until the CDA shows up. (Nice to see them return for a brief sequence! Plus, a nice Roz cameo!)

Sulley then goes after his friend that he let down, and the two have a brief, quiet and heartwarming conversation. Here, the master scarer reveals how frightened he is deep down inside and how he has a lot to live up to being a Sullivan. But then they find themselves on the run once again…

In fact, this entire third act could've been something of a disaster because we all know that human beings aren't toxic to these monsters, which would greatly lower the stakes. If it was Mike versus one child, then it would be a major letdown because we know he isn't in grave danger, nor is the monster world as a whole. Having him get into a camp full of kids who don't find him to be frightening at all makes things more interesting, plus adults aren't supposed to know of the monsters or the monster world. Add the police getting involved, Pixar successfully raised the stakes. Big time.

Not only are Mike and Sulley in jeopardy, but the monster world could be as well. Pixar pulls a Toy Story on us, having Mike and Sulley work together to scare the adults so that they could power the door themselves - again, all Mike's brilliant idea - and literally get out of the mess. Consequently, they scarred a bunch of human world police officers for life… But they could've made off like Sid, because Toy Story 3 shows that he's apparently A-OK as a garbageman, who seemingly isn't freaking about toys coming to life or telling people about what he experienced without getting the stamp of insanity thrown at him.

Mike's scheme does the impossible (and no, not saving him and Sulley), it impresses the Dean. Unfortunately, Mike and Sulley are expelled because they broke the rules. The seemingly cold Dean bids them a friendly goodbye and wishes them the best of luck; Mike and Sulley restart their adult life in Monsters, Inc.'s mailing room and… Well… You know the rest.

Monsters University's ultimate message was the subject of praise, one of the elements that a lot of its more critical observers had approved of. Like Disney Animation's Wreck-It Ralph before it, it slams the door on the "you can do it if you dream it" mentality that is applied to family films and kids-only films. (Planes and Turbo being good, recent examples.) Mike is repeatedly told that he can't be what he wants to be, regardless of his sheer dedication… And guess what? He doesn't become a scarer!

But what makes Monsters University's ending even better than it is is that Mike ended up succeeding elsewhere, greatly. Mike finds a forte in making children laugh at the end of Monsters, Inc., because laugh is much more powerful than scream - thus effectively ending a crisis and finding out something along with his good friend that no one else in the monster world from elites to scarers did not even know or had the guts to find out about. Monsters University's ending completes Monsters, Inc.

I will say it again… Monsters University's ending completes Monsters, Inc., a film that was already complete… And it does it with a bang, with a strong message to boot that's never hammered onto the audience.

That being said, it's not a high work of excellence like Pixar's best, and that's not a bad thing. Like I've stressed millions of times over, Pixar can't just make masterpiece after masterpiece.

Like I said earlier, Monsters University's first act is too quick and thus it doesn't really immerse one into the college setting. Much more could've been done with the campus itself since it's so massive and sprawling; the first film really set up the factory and the monster world as a whole and didn't rush. This one rushes a bit, and you can't rush art as a fictional chess player-turned-toy cleaner once said fourteen years ago. In fact, the Blu-ray contains a tour of the university… Some of the buildings I didn't even really see or notice in the film!

Since the first act doesn't really give us the full MU experience, the film feels a bit safe. There's nothing wrong with Pixar going for something conventional or a little safe once in a blue moon (not everything has to be some extravaganza), but I think they could've gone a little more "all out" with the college setting and the monster world in general, but what they do here is alright. More college-related shenanigans would've brought some PG humor to the table too. Not saying that the film needs PG or adult-level humor to be good or mature, it's just that given this film's college setting, it would've been nice to see some of that on display.

Early versions of the film had Mike meeting Sulley briefly in the fourth grade (expanding on that line from the original, before Scanlon essentially said that Mike was exaggerating) before moving, which would've been interesting as well, but that kind of slowed the beginning down a bit. There was also an interesting deleted scene showing flying insect-like monsters going into rooms and getting information on the children that the monsters scare (i.e. what they fear), which explained a few things in the first film and this film as well. Why did they cut that scene? They should've kept it! I'm sure there are other scenes like that where you saw more of the campus and MU's campus life.

Other than the first act, Monsters University has everything else down pat. It may not have all of the inventiveness or cohesiveness of the original, but it's a very worthy follow-up. Its heart is there, it's just not as potent as the other Pixar films. It's a more quiet, subdued emotional badge than anything, one that doesn't make for too many misty-eyed moments, but it does draw reaction from time to time. There's no center like Boo, but the film isn't weak without something like that. Monsters, Inc. was mostly about Sullivan to begin with, this is about Mike and his story arc is the glue that holds most of this together.

The new faces are welcome, too. All of them are fun, funny and well-developed over the course of the second act. Many found fault with the way they handled Randall, but I personally felt that he was handled well enough. Randall was nothing more than a bitter rival at the beginning of Monsters, Inc. before he became diabolical, so simply having him start off as Wazoswki's friend then shedding his geeky sheen in order to be in the "in" crowd to being an actual jerk to getting a deserved comeuppance from Sulley was all good to me. Again, if the first act had been longer, Randall could've gotten more screen time and a little more development. Even though Sulley was the one who ruined his big scare, he was a jerk to Mike… Hence why he is bitter towards both in Monsters, Inc. I was okay with how they used Randall in this film.

Monsters University succeeds on a technical level, being the first Pixar film done using the Global Illumination lighting system. This, to me, took computer animation to a new height. I'm often skeptical of photo-realism in computer animation, as I think that having a film look too real defeats of the purpose of telling a story in the animation medium. Gore Verbinski's Rango was also hyper-realistic, but yet you still knew you were watching an animated film and it didn't feel like it was shot with real cameras; initially some shots threw me off - I was thinking, "Okay… That's a little too realistic!"

Pixar once faced that problem over a decade ago when starting work on Finding Nemo, their initial water renderings were way too realistic and that it had to be toned down to where it felt real but you knew it was a work of art you were looking at. It's why I'm not fond of things like performance capture being used for everything in certain animated films (The Polar Express or other Zemeckis mo-cap films) or animation that tries to be realistic. Might as well make a painting that's essentially a painted photograph. Walt Disney found the right blend of realism and naturalism in his films, of course when we watch something like Bambi or Lady and the Tramp, we know it's an animated movie, but… We feel and connect with those drawings and paintings. In computer animated films, we feel for what is essentially something created on a machine. The power of animation at its finest!

Monsters University is very real-looking, but it never feels like a live action film or something that's actually happening on a set; it's not supposed to of course… But the realism is staggering, jaw-dropping even. This was also pushed in the accompanying short film, The Blue Umbrella, a masterwork of visual artistry that only suffers from having a simplistic storyline. That film has shots that look a little too real. But there are some standout shots in Monsters University, Mike and Sulley at the campsite lake is one, some of the full shots of the university are also amazing. Again, I don't feel like I'm looking at a photograph when I pause it.

Fortunately, this system's look isn't trying to make something look as if it were actual. It's just a leap for computer animation in general, it hits the right spot between photorealism and naturalism. You could say Pixar found what Walt had found back in the 1940s and 1950s with his films. Visually, Monsters University is like their Lady and the Tramp. Now it makes me even more excited for their future films… Inside Out, The Good Dinosaur and Finding Dory in particular are going to look stunning in many new ways that Pixar has not stunned before.

Meanwhile, Walt Disney Animation Studios is taking computer animation in a different direction. They seek to continue improving the painterly look that was first introduced in Bolt and is currently being used in their computer animated films, and though it has recently been said that Paperman's tech is not quite ready to carry a feature-length film (Moana will be an extension of the painterly CGI that Disney uses), it will be one day and we'll see where Disney brings CGI. Both studios are differentiating their films in the visual department, and from the competition as well. That's good…

As long as Pixar doesn't make what is essentially an animated live action film, I'll be fine. Monsters University isn't anything of the sort, The Blue Umbrella almost is. Other than the realistic coating, Monsters University is pure eye candy like every other Pixar film: Clever architecture, monster world variations of real world things, the character design, Dice Tsutsumi's extraordinary color work… Peerless. Randy Newman's score? It's typical Newman at times, but at other times its appropriately bombastic and energetic. A very good score with hummable parts, that's for sure. The cast also gives it their all, typical for Pixar films. They find the right people, and that talent immerses themselves into the story.

Monsters University doesn't quite sit on the top peak that the best Pixar films occupy, but it's on one that's just a few feet lower. Storytelling and character development win the day here, as Pixar proves, story is king. I know some would rather prefer experimentation and just going for quirkiness, feeling that story restrains too much... But experimenting only gets you so far. Monsters University is not bland, but it isn't anything new since we're revisiting a world that we once had the opportunity to take a trip to. This isn't WALL-E or Up, and it does not have to be. It wasn't trying to be weird or different or unexpected to begin with, so why knock it for not "scaling the heights" of the other Pixar films? A Bug's Life is no WALL-E, and I still think it's an excellent film.

The new saw amongst some is now that story is overrated and whatnot, meanwhile they go praise something like The Croods while knocking this film. The Croods might've been all-out wacky and at times weird, but where was the story? Where was the core? All I saw was a bland tale with bland stereotype characters taking a backseat to constant sight gags and noise, thus I found it forgettable. Story is king, methinks. Many filmmakers would tell you so, story and characters… I think Monsters University nails it in those departments.

It's great to see the new generation at Pixar finally going through with a film they can call their own, though it does have the first generation's stamp. While John Lasseter, Pete Docter, Andrew Stanton and all of them certainly aren't Nine "Old Men", they are passing the baton to younger Pixarians who are hungry for challenges and ambition. A more simple tale like this was the perfect place for them to start, as it seems like Pixar is now comfortable with letting new people take shots at directing films. Hopefully the recent director change (Bob Peterson with The Good Dinosaur) is the last one for a long while…

For me, Monsters University was more than a fun little companion piece to Monsters, Inc. It's a well-made and strong effort, with a fine mix of Pixar's brand of heart, humor and thrills. It adds to the monster world quite a bit and it does expand on our characters in a great way...

Another Year, Another Race

It's that time again, people. The studios have submitted their animated features to the Academy Awards… 19 to be exact...

The players, and they chances they have at being nominated:

The Apostle - No, not the world's very first animated feature film ever made (it's lost forever) that happened to be unearthed, but rather a Spanish stop-motion (!) animated film from last year, a visually interesting one to boot. But it being an awesome film does not guarantee a nomination that easy. 30% chance…

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 - While it wasn't as warmly received as the first film, it still got good reception thus it has a chance to get a nomination. The first didn't get one, though - 2009 was a very, very strong year for animation. 40% chance...

The Croods - Reviews were generally positive but mixed for this film, audiences and animation fans on the other hand really seemed to love it. (The acclaim it's getting from those circles truly baffles me.) It has a good chance at getting a nomination, since competition isn't that strong this year. Rise of the Guardians and Madagascar 3 had a lot to go up against last year. This year, one of those two definitely would've gotten in. 40% chance...

Despicable Me 2 - The first film was shut out of the 2010 race because of the amount of nominations, I'm not sure if this will make the cut either. It could make it, because it did get good reviews and was a really big success. 40% chance...

Epic - One animated film of quite a few that got middling reception this year. Blue Sky only had one nominee in their history, Ice Age. I don't think this will make the cut. 20% chance...

Ernest and Celestine - This will be the Cat in Paris/Chico & Rita of 2013. It's gotten a lot of acclaim, but there is one thing… The Academy didn't nominate a single non-US/UK film last year, despite some strong entries like The Rabbi's Cat and The Painting… But the offerings on the American front are mostly underwhelming, so this does have a very, very good shot. 85% chance...

The Fake - A South Korean-produced drama (hand-drawn, obviously), but the Academy is picky when it comes to foreign films. 35% chance...

Free Birds - Fat chance, given the film's poor critical reception. 0% chance...

Frozen - Very high chance, given Disney's recent streak of good films (Tangled would have definitely been nominated in 2010 had their been five slots) and the very positive early reception. Pretty much a guarantee at this point. This may be the one to take it home, if it's better received than Monsters University, the best-received American animated film of the year. 100% chance...

Khumba - The studio behind Zambezia made this film (that was a runner last year), it's actually their second film. Again, given the Academy's picky ways of choosing foreign films if choosing any at all, this probably won't make it in. I will say, the character design is nice. 10% chance...

The Legend of Sarila - A Canadian-produced computer animated film about Inuits trying to find a new home so they don't starve… The story seems okay, but the animation looks very dated. I got an Ice Age vibe from seeing the human characters. 10% chance...

A Letter to Momo - The second feature-length film from Hiroyuki Okiura, who worked on many well-known anime films from Ghost in the Shell to Paprika to Metropolis. But no Japanese animated film outside of Miyazaki/Studio Ghibli has a chance at getting nominated, but with the rule changes, it could sneak its way in. 40% chance...

Monsters University - It's Pixar and it got positive reception (the best of an any American animated film released this year so far), enough said. Winning chances are also very high. 100% chance…

Planes - Definite no. The polar opposite of this year's Disney and Pixar offerings. Received as a mediocre film, and it's a film that was meant to be a direct-to-video release. 0% chance...

Puella Magi Madoka Magica The Movie Part III: The Rebellion Story - That title is a mouthful, but this is an anime film based on a magical girl series. 10% chance...

Rio 2096: A Story of Love and Fury - This adult-oriented offering expectedly comes from Brazil. Visually interesting, that's for sure. 25% chance...

The Smurfs 2 - As the old saying goes, "When pigs fly…" 0% chance...

Turbo - It got okay critical reception, but I think the Academy would prefer The Croods if they wanted to pick one DreamWorks film. 20% chance...

The Wind Rises - Being Hayao Miyazaki's swan song, a definite yes. It may even just win given the rather underwhelming critical reception given to most of the American animation released this year, but it's not certain just yet because Frozen may be the best-received American animated film of the year. Anyways, this was a weak year in general so this is definitely landing itself in the nomination pool. 100% chance...

In all, I think this is what will end up happening…

Ernest and Celestine

Frozen

Monsters University

The Wind Rises

A Letter to Momo

The winner? Right now, I think it's down to two films: Frozen and The Wind Rises. Monsters University, if you ask me, won't easily win because the rules have changed. It's possible that the voters will have actually watched the non-Pixar films before the ceremony; if that were the case last year, Brave would not have won.

Ernest and Celestine could possibly get it, but when's the last time the Academy gave the little gold statue to an animated film released outside of the US and UK? Spirited Away got it for 2002, and that's it. But with them actually watching it, it could… It could…

A Letter to Momo is the least likely to win, it's there because a lot of the American competition was weak. I can see them choosing that over other 40% chance nominees like The Croods and Cloudy 2.

What do you think? What are your animated Oscar predictions? Sound off below and cast your vote in the poll!