Inside Out

Well, that lends more credence to the "Riley is Bonnie's cousin" theory...

@MrMaestro: I thought Randall was the villain of Monsters Inc.

edited 26th Jun '15 5:06:21 AM by Spinosegnosaurus77

Well, if you believe psychologists, Randall is actually a tortured, lonely soul trying to get Waternoose to embrace him as a son, and the real villain is actually Mike.

Well, I don't remember Mike ever willingly abducting children and strapping them to terrifying and hazardous machinery, so...

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=YMMV.InsideOut

Does Bing Bong count as a Heel? O_o

No... I have no clue why the troper thought that... There has to be a better trope....

He was; my mistake. I had forgotten Randall was the mastermind behind the scream extractor. But Randall's even less sympathetic than Waternoose (at least the way he's presented in the first film), so that just proves my point further.

Randall and Waternoose are both rotten in Monsters Inc. Whoever came up with the plan, both were in on it and fully aware of what the other was doing. About the only time Waternoose ever expressed regret was with Sully getting caught in the middle - and in no way did he ever show regret over the worst parts of their plan, the reason Sully got caught in the middle in the first place.

The whole "Mike is a psychopath" theory is incredibly stupid anyways. Mike believed human children were deadly to monsters (No idea why monster-society thinks that, but they do), so in that light, all his actions were justified and he was under an incredible amount of stress. The only reason Sully didn't get killed by human-disease like an idiot is because apparently it's an elaborate lie the government feeds their society or something.

so, Mattonymy, what about the third part of your review? while I have seen the movie yesterday (and thought it was great), reading the review is a bit like a second viewing so I would like to see it complete :)

it's an elaborate lie the government feeds their society or something.

I suppose it was spun so monsters wouldn't ever get too attached to the children they were supposed to scare.

So I finally saw the movie with my mom and sister.

My mom thought it'd be a lot funnier and show more of the emotions of other people and not just Riley (basically she thought the whole movie would be like what they did in the credits.) She still liked it.

My sister isn't too keen about coming of age stories and the like because...reasons, but she still liked it.

And I quite liked it myself. I really didn't know how it would turn out since people hated on Cars 2 (which I didn't mind), was "could've been better" with Brave and was...something with Monsters University (which I liked), so it's nice to see that Pixar hasn't lost its touch. If anything, it just had a case of burnout or something.

edited 27th Jun '15 7:03:46 PM by TargetmasterJoe

I honestly need to wonder how often this kind of thing happens in other theaters without making the news like this.

I think it's only newsworthy if the intended film was family friendly—if you were going to see Insidious and got Inside Out, it wouldn't make headlines.

They gotta stop with the similar movie titles! Why did Max have to come out so soon after Mad Max?

I doubt they could have seen a lot of the movie before somebody noticed. I have seen "inside out" in Israel and they accidently started screening the dubbed version. Somebody notify them and they switched to the subtitled version before "lava" even ended. Since that horror movie wasn't animated, it couldn't have taken any longer than that before one of the parents figured out what was happening.

edited 28th Jun '15 10:15:23 AM by nnokwoodeye1

I think the worse part is getting the wrong set of previews, because those will skip to the "good" parts of the movie before you can protest.

Saw the movie earlier today. Liked it a whole lot.

Okay, just saw it. Thoughts!

I was pleasantly surprised. Pixar has underwhelmed me lately, but this was quite a solid movie. The story was engaging and sweet, and I really felt for the characters. Despite the tremendous tear-jerker scenes Pixar has managed to pull together, Riley breaking down at the end hit me as hard as the worst of them. I also really enjoyed the ending bits of everyone's emotions. Those were quite funny, especially the teenage boy and the cat.

One thing I really liked about it was the message of the movie. It reminded me a lot of some of their old work, in that it wasn't really in your face (e.g. the moral of Toy Story was subtler than, say, Ratatouille), and it wasn't super obvious either (e.g. the unusual moral of Up vs. something more standard like WALL-E).

Some criticisms!

A quick comparison to Pixar of yore: this one felt very geared towards kids as opposed to being a more well-rounded family movie. I guess that's not so much of a criticism, because the movie's perfectly fine either way, but I think it's worth mentioning.

Okay, enough of that comparison crap. The movie presented a really interesting idea in that a new character would get introduced as Riley experienced an emotion for the first time. This could have really been explored in background scenes and provided a lot of rich detail. For instance, in the heads of other characters, particularly adults, it would have been cool to see a whole horde of emotions sitting around a panel chatting. It would've provided some fun background jokes as well, as the audience tries to guess which one is what based on their comments, or if the "disgust" emotion for the dog didn't exist, etc.

As I'm sure others have mentioned, Riley's emotions have way more diversity visually than everyone else's. That sort of takes me out of the movie a bit. I also found it weird that no one was trying to help Joy and Sadness. Like, do they not care that their world is crumbling? Literally?

Oh, I forgot! Serious props for killing a character. I mean, I know it's not new territory for a kid's movie but still. Damn.

Anyway, I liked it. I enjoyed it a lot and I laughed.

I agree that there should've been more emotions. I mean, it's not like real life people only ever feel five emotions in their lives. And, heck, if I was going to pick only five to use in a movie, I wouldn't choose "disgust" of all things. That's more of a bodily reaction than an emotion. If anything, with the role she seemed to play in Riley's mind, Disgust would've been more accurately named "Vanity" or something.

This is why my headcanon is that each colored emotional avatar represents a broad spectrum of emotions. That just makes way more sense to me.

edited 28th Jun '15 5:38:29 PM by spashthebandragon

I add this handy emotions chart◊ by Scott McCloud, about the basic emotions, their spectrums, and mixes.

The point of the film is that these emotions need to evolve beyond their basic trait, after all.

edited 28th Jun '15 5:42:52 PM by Tuckerscreator

I wonder what Surprise would've been like if Pixar added it into the film. They said they dropped Surprise because it ended up being too similar to Fear.

They could've done Fear and Surprise as a duo, Shaggy-and-Scooby style.

edited 28th Jun '15 7:01:06 PM by spashthebandragon

Geared towards kids, eh? I'd say it's a film about growing up with some scientific concepts and themes that a lot of younger children will not get.

According to the neuro-scientist doctors Docter (heh) consulted with, and a lot of actual reports, there are believed to be 6 actual emotions with the last one being Surprise, but Docter felt it was too similar to Fear, so they basically combined the two into one.

edited 28th Jun '15 7:09:57 PM by kyun