Inside Out

Okay yeah, but the whole idea of taking characters that were designed for one particular story and altering their characters a bit to suit the cliches in college movies isn't the most creative. They didn't go further with cliches from college movies, they just DID THE CLICHES.

I can't say I'm familiar with what you're talking about, mostly because I actually haven't watched a whole lot of college movies beyond Monsters U.

And dare I ask what these cliches are?

Watch any popular college movie. The National Lampoon series, Animal House, etc. Then you'll see. Hell, even cliches from HIGH SCHOOL movies (there appear to be more than college ones).

I suppose those are fair points. The character changes didn't bother me so much because people do change as they grow up, but I haven't really seen any of these college movies you speak of so I didn't recognise the cliches.

@[1] Probably because another Disney animated movie, just several months earlier, had already done a similar if not the same theme of "Accepting who you are, even if it means you're a bad guy/ not a scarer, you don't have to be miserable with your life", but was far far better executed.

edited 30th Jan '14 2:41:45 PM by Mattonymy

I see you didn't bother to name any.

School Tropes

But those are tropes. Tropes are use all the time. Thing that makes them unique is how there presented rather than the trope itself.

Monsters University was good, but it wasn't at the level of Up or Toy Story 3. Those two films (along with Wall-E in a lot of folks' opinions; I wasn't all that enthused by it) were the peak of Pixar filmmaking. None of its more recent stuff has matched up to them.

Up is MASSIVELY overrated and you should give up on Pixar Topping Toy Story 3. I know everyone expects them to TOP every movie epically but you should know that's just not possible.

Also, guy with the Boondocks avi, you are awesome. Keep Rollin'.

Yeah, they shouldn't have tried to top Toy Story 2.

I meant they CANT. Not that they shouldnt try.

True dat. Even though I very much enjoyed Up and can understand why it's so critically acclaimed, to me it just felt like the film after WALL•E and before Toy Story 3.

Despite that, the four line streak of Ratatouille-TS 3 is honestly the golden age of Pixar, hands down.

I absolutely loved Up, it's probably my all-time favourite animated film.

At any rate, it's nice to see Pixar getting creative again.

edited 31st Jan '14 12:04:59 AM by WarriorEowyn

You see that's one problem that Pixar films are facing. Everybody expects the movies to be perfect or outstanding. But if it's below that it's apparently a disappointment. Yes that's mean that even if a Pixar film is good or great it's disappointment the only way a Pixar film could be accepted is if it's a masterpiece or perfect. And I don't follow that logic because it's unfair to expect them to make every movie perfect.

The things is Pixar are victims of there own success, if people have such high expectations for there film when even the film itself is pretty good they'll still consider it a disappointment because it's not a masterpiece. And I just don't follow that mindset.

Also thanks for the compliment, Pretty Coco.

edited 31st Jan '14 6:10:00 AM by AfroWarrior27

Thank you for being the voice of reason over here!

Given that I already found some of their films a tad overrated before Cars 2, I was never as outraged as many people were with the notion of Pixar releasing a film that was just good as opposed to a flawless masterpiece.

edited 31st Jan '14 7:33:02 AM by DrDougsh

Except it's not wrong to criticize or critique the film for that reason either. Cars 1 had a lot of unnecessary hatred (pre-Cars 2 era) and while I didn't think it was their best, I still enjoyed the film. And that's the key, Monsters University was certainly an enjoyable way to munch on popcorn for 90 minutes but that doesn't mean it should be held in a vacuum separate from any other existing PIXAR works. Also, remember, it is a prequel to one of their classic films meaning of course it will be compared to the original. And taking int consideration the opinion of Lasseter, ie, "The only reason to make a sequel, is if the story is as good as or better than the original" then yes it does fall flat.

Additionally on its own MU had a lot of issues in terms of story and pacing. Billy Crystal as young Mike wasn't that funny, comedic or over the top in the film and too much focus was placed on the build up for the Scare Games rather than the actual classes or teachers. Also, it kind of edges close within the "Star Wars Prequel" territory at times- namely just how many MI characters had to go to the same school, the characterization of Randall, or that none of the O Ks are referenced by the time MI hits.

Anyway, if it wasn't clear, I'm glad Pixar is taking a year off to reconfigure and am very very much looking forward to Inside Out, the next Docter film. Up and MI are classics, even if they're not my favorite.

edited 31st Jan '14 9:56:36 AM by Mattonymy

I didn't say anything about the comparison of the orginal movie I was talking about Pixar films in general and what people expect them to always be. Beside that...

What issues in term of story telling and pacing? Examples would be nice.

I don't see Mike not being over top hilarious as a flaw because MU was mainly about fleshing Mike characters out with him being the main focus similar to how in MI it was Sulley. And the focus on Scare Games is the main plot it focus on the interaction between the characters, and how Mike and Sulley have such a strong bond. I don't believe classes and the teachers would really add anything at all.

What was wrong with Randals character? And the only character I recall being in thev school is Mike, Sulley and Randall I don't remember anyone else. OKS not being mention can't be help because it is a prequel and I'm pretty sure not everybody will bring up there buddies in college in the future.

actually, the Scare Games were the point of the storyline, not the classes or lectures. I do not think THAT was what was wrong with the movie.

George was there too. It still doesn't seem unlikely, though.

edited 31st Jan '14 10:32:02 AM by PPPSSC

Yet that still doesn't make for a compelling character. I'm fine with them fleshing out Mike, but by removing something as crucial to his character as his humor suaveness, his over confidence or his congeniality, it doesn't make him that interesting or sympathetic. And I know thats what they were trying to do- that he gets better as time goes on, but it still doesn't make up for a lot of angst or the nasty competetive streak we had to sit through.

Randall's change in character was too much of a Wham Moment for me. It's interesting to see that he was changed from a shy nerd to the vindictive cretin he was in the first film, but I wish more of it was on screen, like ignoring Mike after he was kicked out of the program. The Junior Novelization actually sheds a bit more light, giving Randall a bit more dialogue and saying that he "was embarrassed to be seen by Mike after getting expelled" and I wish the film had kept that in.

Also if the film wasn't going to make the classes that interesting or at least try and fleshing out the teachers or staff, then I really don't see the point in setting the film in a university aside from "It's a major event in everyone's life", effectively becoming more of a plot device and less of a believable setting. I enjoyed what brevity they gave us, esp. Can Design class and the Door Labs, but everything else just seemed very blasé didn't seem that fleshed out which is a real shame. For a school that was essentially a prep school for Monsters Inc and other scare factories, they didn't even mention that "Scare Assistant" was an obtainable occupation.

Anyway in terms of story and pacing issues, I've already stated my issue with the heavy focus on the Scar Games, lack of development with the teachers, and the longevity of the buildup before the climax pay off. I still enjoyed it, but it felt like it needed a rewrite.

They fleshed out the staff of 3 characters. The Dean, the instructor for Scaring 101, and Squish's dad.

Actually 4 if you count the librarian, though she was basically a standard librarian who happened to be an actual monster!

edited 31st Jan '14 12:21:18 PM by kyun

I don't buy being the funny guy is crucial to his character that simply provides comedy for the film. What is crucial to his character was being Sulley best pal and them sticking together. The movie manages to make Mike compelling by taking his training scare in the first movie to him actually wanting to be a scarer he shows great determination only to be crush when it turns out he just isn't scary. That honestly added more depth to Mike than in the first movie where he's mostly a Comedy Relief and I believe that did make him compelling. And I believe it does make up for angst or the nasty competitive streak. Because in the end they grew close together and manage to find a way to accomplish there goals.

And I'll say again the characters being in class or the teacher is not the point of the film it wouldn't add anything to the overall plot. All that is simply extra. And let's not forget the point of them going to the University is being there to accomplish there dreams which is pretty much the point of University in real life.

And most of what you list aren't story and pacing issues. The scare games is the main plot, majority of the teacher aren't important to the plot, and what longevity and buildup before the climax? I don't believe a rewrite is necessary because most of the stuff you wanted are mostly extra which wouldn't add to the main plot.