disney

Snarcasm: Disney is Eating Pixar’s Lunch

disney pixar

Snark + Sarcasm = what you’re about to read.

This week’s Snarcasm will be a tad different and (dare I say it) a little more serious than usual. Rather than take down one of the worst articles on the Internet (which have been nothing but fan theories lately), I’m addressing some fear, uncertainty, and doubt crisscrossing the world of animation.

And it really needs to stop.

See, I’m all for criticizing Pixar when they deserve it (see Cars 2 and the third act of Brave). They’re not perfect, and we can all agree that mistakes were made in how they executed their latest feature, The Good Dinosaur.

But the groupthink has been reaching a bizarre consensus lately that ignores the triumph of Inside Out and yes, the underrated value offered by The Good Dinosaur. It seems that some people want  Pixar to be taken down a notch in the public eye because Disney Animation has been killing it lately with computer animated hits like Tangled, Frozen, and Big Hero 6.

disney pixar

Is that fair? Let’s dig in.

Germain Lussier at io9 writes:

Walt Disney Animation is Officially as Good as Pixar Now

Look, I know that the tagline for io9 is “Welcome to the Future,” but that doesn’t mean we can just skip ahead to a time period that doesn’t exist.

And I know that the last few movies made by Disney’s own animation studio have been big hits, but has anyone actually considered Big Hero 6 or Frozen to be better than Inside Out? Let’s read what Lussier has to say.

For several years, Pixar’s animated films made Pixar’s parent company, Disney, look good. And meanwhile, Disney’s own in-house animation studio was going through a rough patch—the company wasn’t making the kind of films people expected from Walt Disney’s namesake.

Lussier goes on to explain how most people don’t even realize that Pixar and Disney are separate entities. But a key thing he points out is that Pixar has long made their own movies outside of Disney’s control (even after Disney bought them).

just as Disney was releasing all those Pixar hits, Disney Animation—a branch of the company with one of the most amazing resumes in film history—was still releasing its own films. Films that usually, and unfortunately, were much less memorable.

These movies include decent but forgettable flicks, such as Meet the Robinsons, Bolt, The Princess and the Frog, and other “nice tries.”

disney pixar

It took lots of time, effort, blood, sweat and tears—but with films like Frozen, Big Hero 6 and next month’s new film Zootopia, Walt Disney Animation Studios has finally done the impossible: It’s regained its former glory and can easily share the animation throne with Pixar.

First off, Zootopia hasn’t even come out yet. Lussier caught a screening and gave it high praise later in this article, but we have to just assume that his opinion will match everyone else’s. We’ll revisit this later.

But fine, let’s “welcome the future” and assume that Zootopia will be as good as the trailers make it look. Are Frozen, Big Hero 6, and Zootopia enough to take this “animation throne?” And “easily” as he claims?

Lussier is at least half correct from a box office standpoint. Obviously, Frozen made tons of money well out of the reach of Pixar movies. But I hesitate to consider cold, hard cash other people have earned to be a reason for liking a movie.

And to be honest, I don’t even want to compare these movies because they’re so incredibly different. For one thing, Pixar movies are original, unique concept movies that make you fall in love with seemingly mundane yet lovable characters. Disney works to be more accessible with glossy characters and environments that are beautiful from the onset because they’re often derived from pre-existing stories. As a result they usually feel more like pretty art instead of affecting art.

I’m here to tell you things are just getting better. Last week, I was lucky enough to catch an early screening of Disney Animation’s latest film, Zootopia.It’s the best film Disney Animation has made in 20 years.

Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely hope that Lussier is right about this because that’s great news for everyone. But watch what happens next.

Not only is it a film worthy of Pixar, it’s light years ahead of Pixar’s most recent movie, The Good Dinosaur.

Frequent readers know that I completely, absolutely disagree, considering The Good Dinosaur was my second favorite film of 2015 and one of the few films I gave an A+ last year. And while plenty of people agree with Lussier’s sentiment, many also find The Good Dinosaur to be an underrated gem like I do.

disney pixar

And then he says this about Zootopia:

Now, is it as good as Pixar at its best? Inside Out or Toy Story good? No, probably not.

Wait, let me get this straight. Disney Animation’s best film in 20 years isn’t as good as one of Pixar’s most recent movies?

Do you see why I chose this article for Snarcasm? It’s obviously well written, and Lussier is a very smart person. But for whatever reason, people are making grand conclusions about the quality of Pixar based on very slim arguments. If the best Disney animation movie isn’t even better than Inside Out, then how can you even argue that the studio itself is “just as good?”

Lussier seems to be basing his argument on the fact that he thinks The Good Dinosaur sucks, but that’s just one movie. And he’s also saying that the pinnacle of Disney isn’t as good as the best of the Pixar movies. So why say they are easily just as good?

I guess it frustrates me because Inside Out proved so well that Pixar hasn’t slipped the way so many people claimed they would over the last few years. And now we’re already hearing the narrative that Disney Animation is getting better while they’re getting worse, and it’s just bonkers.

And yet even with all that, there are other factors in play here too. Disney Animation and Pixar now create films in the same way, and share creative resources, so the two balancing out makes sense.

Pixar movies and Disney Animation movies aren’t even remotely similar. Can you honestly say that Frozen and Tangled are legitimately made like Pixar movies? These are fairy tales that are built up on source material. Wreck-It Ralph comes closer, but it also relies on a huge list of existing entities to make its video game world come to life. And Big Hero 6 is based on a Marvel Comic of all things.

disney pixar

Well, loosely.

Meanwhile, Pixar creates entire worlds. They make you feel for rats, monsters, and even the very idea of emotions. Their creativity is absolutely unmatched when they’re at their best. Even The Good Dinosaur pushes animation itself in ways Disney has barely touched (aside from Big Hero 6) with effects shots and photorealistic landscapes that actually contribute to the narrative.

They may be in the same sport, but Disney and Pixar are in two very different ballparks.

Plus Pixar’s films were so successful in the past, Pixar’s begun to make more and more sequels (Monsters University recently, plus Finding Dory, Cars 3, Toy Story 4 and Incredibles 2 coming soon)

Just keep in mind that Pixar has only made one lackluster sequel. We still don’t know if they can pull off another Toy Story 2, but I’d bet money that Incredibles and Finding Nemo are worthy of the challenge. Lussier sort of points this out as well and even makes the case that Disney is also making sequels for its popular movies with Frozen 2.

But none of that changes this basic fact: From a time when Pixar was ruling everything and Disney Animation Studios was making Treasure Planet and Home on the Range, things have once again aligned. Disney has not only gotten back to the high bar of quality set by Pixar, but that of its namesake, too.

I agree that Disney is back on track when it comes to recapturing its former glory, and Pixar’s own John Lasseter is a key reason why this is happening (Lussier also points this out). But the idea that Disney is somehow on the same level because they’ve made a few good movies in a row is a gut reaction, not a careful analysis. Pixar consistently makes superb, excellent movies, while Disney Animation makes good, sometimes great movies.

disney pixar

And if you don’t agree, then just try to tell me which current Disney movie even comes close to matching Toy Story, Incredibles, Finding Nemo, Up, and now Inside Out. Because not even Lussier could seem to do that.

One of these days I need to put together a full analysis on The Good Dinosaur and why I consider it to be vastly better than it gets credit for. While I’m not worried about Pixar’s foreseeable future because of the box office failure of that movie, it hurts to know that a movie with so much effort put into it is being considered worse than movies that are, at their core, deceptively generic.

At any rate, I’ll be seeing Zootopia for myself at a screening next week, and despite everything we just talked about, I couldn’t be more excited. Isn’t it great to know that both Disney and Pixar are putting their best efforts into animation right now?

Hey! If you’ve come across a silly article that deserves the Snarcasm treatment, send it my way via Twitter or the comments below!

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

 

‘The Secret Life of Pets’ Is Weirdly Identical to ‘Toy Story’

secret life of pets toy story

You’ve probably seen a teaser or two for Illumination Entertainment’s upcoming franchise starter, The Secret Life of Pets. The movie is essentially about what dogs, cats, and other pets are up to when their owners aren’t around.

Sound familiar?

Look, I didn’t dare make this comparison last summer when the first teaser released. That version of the movie was intriguing, as it featured a variety of animals getting caught up in humorous situations in different environments somewhat connected by an apartment building.

Then the trailer dropped, revealing the actual plot of Pets. And to be honest, it doesn’t look nearly as interesting thanks to its incessant borrowing from Pixar’s first feature film, Toy Story.

What do pets do when their owners aren’t around? This is a generic premise that movies have been using for decades, not just Toy Story. That said, a handful of movies have already tackled the pets aspect of that story (the live-action Cats vs. Dogs immediately comes to mind), but I’m not opposed to a different studio trying something new with the concept. After all, Toy Story can easily be compared to The Brave Little Toaster, and who hasn’t compared The Walking Dead to Toy Story?

But then…well, here’s the trailer:

Like Toy Story, we have a pre-established society where pets call the shots. On top of that, we have a main character named Max who is used to getting all of the attention from his owner, exactly like Woody and Andy’s relationship in Toy Story.

The inciting incident appears to be the adoption of a new pet who steals the attention away from the favorite, who is Max in this case. Then the two of them get “lost” and have to find their way home, resolving their differences along the way. I won’t be surprised if getting neutered will be spun as the new “YOU ARE A TOY!” line.

The plot also borrows a key structure from Toy Story 2, in that the remaining pets go on a mission to the city in order to find their lost friend. Gidget’s speech sounds remarkably reminiscent of Buzz’s rallying of the toys to find Woody.

Sure, there are some inventive gags in this trailer, including the poodle’s System of a Down obsession. But then you have the tired jokes where dogs get easily distracted by animals, circa Dug in Up.

And I haven’t even mentioned the visual similarities. Take Max for example. His colors are nearly identical to Woody, from the brown and white to the black, red, and gold.

toy story secret life of pets

The design of the “new” dog and Buzz Lightyear are different, but the scope is still there. This new dog is a lot bigger than Max, which is a visual representation of how Max feels around him. The same emotion was captured by Buzz’s space-cool features.

And these aren’t the only characters who are weirdly similar. Gidget, a side character who seems to be the close friend/love interest, shares a similar voice and style as Bo Peep.

toy story secret life of pets

In fact, all of the side characters have a reasonable counterpart when it comes to tone and basic visuals.

toy story secret life of pets

toy story secret life of pets

toy story secret life of pets

toy story secret life of pets

And that’s still not the end of it. Not only does the plot share a lot of basic similarities, even some of the scenes are ripped straight out of Toy Story:

toy story secret life of pets

secret life of pets toy story

There’s the bunny, Snowball, who is voiced by Kevin Hart. And from what I can tell, he feels like a fresh(er) character inspired from the Penguins of Madagascar. But his character arc looks a lot like Sid’s in Toy Story. He frees Max and Duke from a cage, then tells them that they belong to him. He’s also maniacal and appears to be sadistic.

Actually, the bunny could more easily be compared to Lotso from Toy Story 3. Both characters are cute on the outside, yet are slowly revealed to be monstrous villains. They both bail out the main characters when they’re in trouble (Lotso provides a new way of life for the toys, and Snowball rescues Max and Duke from Animal Control), only to thrust the heroes into an even worse scenario.

Of course, thoughtful borrowing can lead to great movies. That said, when your work is this derivative in so many ways, it calls the quality of the entire film into question.

I have no doubt that Pets will have some clever jokes and memorable characters. Despite my public disdain for the Despicable Me franchise, I have high hopes for directors Chris Renaud and Yarrow Cheney, who are returning to cement Illumination Entertainment as one of the top animation companies (Eh, who am I kidding? Minions is a billion dollar franchise. They’re already at that point).

But while the movie will cater to the same people who still think the Minions are adorable, I am losing hope in Illumination’s ability to deliver a remarkable story, or anything that will last the test of time for a reason beyond genius marketing ploys.

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

‘Revenant’ Review; How Star Wars and Marvel Could Last Forever

star wars marvel

We had a full cast for this week’s episode of Now Conspiring, and for good reason. After weeks of dancing around it, we finally review Revenant once and for all, with some of us loving it and others…not so much.

We also discuss a ton of new movie news you can jump to in the show notes below, and our main segment covers the possible permanence of Disney’s new flagship franchises.

QUESTION OF THE WEEK: Will Star Wars and Marvel last forever?

Go on…‘Revenant’ Review; How Star Wars and Marvel Could Last Forever

Review: Star Wars: The Force Awakens Will Please Everyone, But That’s About It

star wars force awakens review

This is a spoiler-free review. 

When Disney acquired the rights to make a new Star Wars film, there was a unified cheer that this new take on the beloved franchise would be reinvigorated, creatively. Finally, there was a new hope for Star Wars, one of the most groundbreaking and revolutionary trilogies of its time.

So it puzzles me to see The Force Awakens be the most derivative Star Wars movie yet.

George Lucas has always infused his films with what he calls “rhyme.” That is, he echoes moments from previous movies in order to manufacture a compelling moment. Limb-cutting, catchphrases, and even cinematic shots are repeated endlessly throughout the original trilogy and its prequels.

The Force Awakens restrains itself from “rhyme,” but settles instead for replication. Elements throughout the film are carbonite copies of plot structures in both A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back, remixed and polished for a new audience.

star wars force awakens review

The doe-eyed Rey serves as the new Luke Skywalker, there’s a mysterious Sith villain tied to the past, a resistance versus an unstoppable military, and of course, there’s a destructive space station that must be stopped. There are few sparks of novelty in The Force Awakens when it comes to the ideas and struggles we’ve seen already.

This is likely intentional. Like the balance and cyclical nature of the Force, The Force Awakens almost advertises that its story must firmly echo the adventures of Luke Skywalker and his friends. And that caveat serves as an excuse for J.J. Abrams, the director, to evolve the lore for a brand new audience unwilling to sit through 30-year-old movies.

That said, Star Wars looks better than ever. The creatures, settings, and practical effects are a marvel. So much so, that any use of CGI is actually distracting. You’ll probably feel underwhelmed by one or two of these computer-generated characters who don’t hold their own against Abrams’ other creations. They’re inventive, to be sure, but stand out in the worst way possible.

The best thing that The Force Awakens has going for it is its new cast, with Rey (Daisy Ridley) at its center as one of the saga’s best characters yet. Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) also delivers an excellent performance as the villain you’ll love to hate, and I gushed over the antics of the “daring pilot,” Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac).

star wars force awakens review

BB-8 is also a welcome addition to the new family of characters, truly deserving of the role left behind by R2-D2. And while I’m not yet won over by John Boyega’s character, Finn, the actor provided an energy to this role that his peers should certainly take note of. And like the other characters, I’m waiting intently to see what Finn can offer as the trilogy progresses.

The characters interact well with each other and the original cast. Taking a note from its Marvel Cinematic Universe, Disney allowed the screenplay to have plenty of humor and levity, which balances well against the dramatic stakes and galaxy-crushing battles taking place in the background. Its one of the film’s strongest, most unique offerings.

Because the characters are a delight to watch onscreen, the battles (both with lightsabers and blasters) are more electric than ever, and easily among the best of the saga. The ample space battles are among the most entertaining dog fights you can see at the movies, and a one-take shot in particular featuring Dameron will likely be replayed dozens of times when this gets to DVD.

There are only two noticeable things that hold The Force Awakens back from surpassing the best of Star Wars. As discussed, it fails to fully develop any of its newer ideas, in favor of plot retreads that somewhat break the line of being an homage. You can argue that they’re kicking the can down the road for the next two movies to gain their own identity, but for now, it comes off as manufactured. Disney knows the recipe for pleasing a crowd full of fans, and this is both a good and bad thing.

star wars force awakens review

You’ll get most of what you want out of The Force Awakens, but you’ll also know that you’re getting it. If The Empire Strikes Back had let itself be crammed with this much fan service, it wouldn’t have become one of the greatest films of all time, by comparison.

The second thing that holds The Force Awakens back is some of its writing. Granted, it’s a tradition with these movies to have gaping plot holes. But that’s no excuse at this point, especially when you have a movie that is excelling at doing the same things as its predecessor. You’ll notice many odd and confusing plot inconsistencies that will take you out of the movie, and even if they can be explained in the next movie or two, they’ll still distract you until we get answers.

The script’s job is to make us feel like we can keep up with the film’s mythology, letting us peek into the development of the characters based on the moments we’re allowed to witness in the story. The previous trilogy did a poor job at this as well, and I’m disappointed that Abrams and company were unable to produce a tighter narrative. One or two more drafts would have served this film extremely well.

Grade: B+

It’s one of the better B+ movies I’ve seen this year, to be sure, and a standout among 2015 sci-fi movies. But as a first offering by Disney, I’m not yet impressed by what they can do with Star Wars in terms of pushing the series forward and delivering something new and exciting to audiences. It’s a crowd-pleaser, by design, and that’s about all you’ll get out of it.

Extra Credits:

  • This movie could have used double the amount of Poe Dameron that we got. Oscar Isaac was superb in Ex Machina, his best movie of 2015, in my opinion. Be sure to check that film out, if you haven’t already.
  • I’ll be providing a spoiler-filled discussion review at some point, so for now, keep your spoilers to yourself, please.
  • I want to watch this movie again (it really is a lot of fun), but I’m actually more excited for Rogue One at this point, since it seems to be the Star Wars movie that will take more risks. It’s coming out next December.
  • I firmly believe that many of the unsolved mysteries in The Force Awakens will be tied somehow to events in the anthology movies. That’s all I’ll say, for now.
  • All of the old characters fit snugly back into their roles. Especially a certain droid.

Review: ‘Krampus’

krampus review

The most interesting thing about Krampus is probably how refreshing it is to see a horror Christmas movie that sidesteps the usual suspects (such as a directly murderous Santa Claus). But while Krampus isn’t actually very scary or even funny, it captures something just as welcome as horror comedies go: it’s fun mayhem.

In European folklore, Krampus is the evil shadow of Santa Claus. Rather than fulfill the happy wishes of children, he comes to satisfy their darkest desires with his band of merry murderers. A child who has become disenfranchised with how Christmas shapes his dysfunctional family tragically discards his Christmas list, which earnestly asks Santa to make everyone in his life happier. As a result, Krampus (and a magically frenetic blizzard) is called upon instead.

That said, little of Krampus is seen until the end of the movie, as we spend more time focusing on his “little helpers.” Thankfully, they almost steal the show with their remarkable practical effects and a willingness for the movie to inflict violence on just about anything in its way, creating a tension that mashes well with the chaos captured in an early scene that satires the greed of holiday shopping.

It can be easy to discount Krampus as a whole for a few rotten eggs, namely some of the performances and its odd “PG-13” rating. But it finds its groove with an inspiring throwback animation that cleverly tells the story of Krampus within a new context, coupled with a dreadful (in a good way) performance from the grandmother, played by Krista Stadler.

While Krampus may not ignite the sort of pre-Christian folklore that deserves more cinematic attention, it may prove that holiday horror is a genre worth larger budgets that keep it off the discount bin.

Grade: B+

Extra Credits:

  • Michael Dougherty directed and co-wrote Krampus, and the comparisons between this and Trick r’ Treat are obvious. The superior film is pretty obvious.
  • This is a much better cast than I think the movie deserved. Adam Scott and David Koechner play quite well together, and the relationship between Scott and Toni Collete’s character is actually quite touching.
  • It’s subtle, but the sibling relationship between “Max” and “Beth” was written so well, I was quite sad they didn’t spend much time together outside of the first act.
  • No spoilers, but I adore the ending. I wish more movies would be brave enough to let their final act match the rest of the film.

This week on the podcast, we review Krampus in more detail, get our feet wet with some movie news, read your comments from last week’s show, and get down to business on our favorite animated movies.

I’m joined by YouTube sensation, Maria “Cineclub” Garcia; Film writer, Adonis Gonzalez; and digital illustrator, Kayla Savage.

QUESTION OF THE WEEK: What is your favorite animated movie that wasn’t made by Disney, Pixar, or DreamWorks?

Go on…Review: ‘Krampus’

First Thoughts: ‘The Jungle Book’ Trailer

jungle book trailer

The Jungle Book is Disney’s upcoming live-action remake of the 1967 animated film of the same name. This, of course, is not a surprise due to the successes of Alice in Wonderland and Maleficent. And with 2015’s live-action Cinderella being such a big hit, remaking the last film Walt Disney ever produced was inevitable.

You may not remember this (I certainly didn’t), but Disney already did a live-action remake for this movie in 1994. It borrowed stories from both The Jungle Book and The Second Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling, and it was actually well-received by both audiences and critics. Yet many people still scolded the film for veering so far away from Kipling’s original stories, not that the animated film did a good job of this.

There was also an animated Jungle Book sequel made by DisneyToon (they make the majority of Disney’s direct-to-video movies) in 2003. I’ve never seen it, and I honestly don’t intend to anytime soon. For context, this is the studio that brought us Planes and Planes: Fire and Rescue.

Oh, and I guess I have to mention that the first Jungle Book movie ever came out in the 1940s, decades before Disney got to work on it. Also, an unrelated movie called Jungle Book: Origins will be coming out in 2017, and it’s being made by Andy Serkis and Warner Bros. We honestly don’t have time to get into that, but I will mention that it has a stellar cast.

jungle book trailer

Now, we have the first teaser trailer for Disney’s next retelling of The Jungle Book, and it provides a lot of information that will intrigue longtime fans of the story. Even if you’re not very interested in the Jungle Book franchise, I think you’ll still find something unique to latch onto as we learn more about this movie. It’s the first Disney remake I’ve come across that seems like it could bring something new to the original story.

Sure, Maleficent and Alice and Wonderland already tried this by extending their stories and putting more emphasis on the villains. And they’re not terrible movies or anything. My only issue with them, honestly, is that they feel like unnecessary accessories to an animated movie that’s already great.

But with The Jungle Book, we have a source material that has so much potential as a live-action movie with updated special effects. It will be a visual spectacle just to see these complex animal characters coming to life on the big screen. And since The Jungle Book hasn’t been retold thousands of times over the years (ahem, Cinderella), this new movie will hopefully feel fresh for many people who see it.

Here’s the trailer below, and I encourage you to watch it at least twice. Afterward, we’ll discuss. 

OK, so to start things off, let’s talk about the cast.

Jon Favreau, the director of Iron Man, is helming the film and will probably make a cameo at some point. Mowgli is being played by a newcomer named Neel Sethi, and like the original animated film, he’ll be raised by a family of wolves.

Giancarlo Esposito (Breaking Bad) will voice the alpha male, Akela. Lupita Nyong’o (Star Wars: The Force Awakens) will voice of the mother wolf, Raksha. And the panther, Bagheera, will be voiced by Ben Kingsley (pretty much every movie you’ve ever seen).

Bill Murray is voicing Baloo in this film (yes, that’s the song he’s whistling at the end), and Idris Elba is voicing Shere Khan. When I first heard that Scarlett Johansson would voice the seductively dangerous snake, Kaa, I was less than excited, but she kills it in this trailer as the narrator. And of course, Christopher Walken will be handling the voice of King Louie.

jungle book trailer

I was hoping that this new movie would borrow more from Kipling’s work, and I think this might be the case in some ways. Naturally, Disney is maintaining a lot of what made the original animated film so well-liked, but they seem to be adding some of the darker material that got cut from the original. Pirates of the Caribbean proved that Disney has room for darker and more epic movies, and I hope they apply that here.

So, how is this new film like the old one?

Kaa the snake will apparently be more of a villain who wants to eat Mowgli, at least at first. In the book, she actually saves Mowgli from the Bandar-log after he gets kidnapped, which could also happen here. Pretty much everything related to the Bandar-log and King Louie in this trailer looks more like the animated movie, instead of the book.

Baby Mowgli is found by Bagheera instead of the wolves, just like in the animated movie. And that last scene with Mowgli and Baloo floating down the river is clearly an homage to the 1967 film.

jungle book trailer

But something from the book that appears to be happening in this trailer is Mowgli stealing the “red flower” from the village. He runs across the bridge holding fire, as instructed by King Louie. This could mean that he’s going to fight Shere Khan with the red flower, which is straight out of Compton-er-the book. Toward the end of the trailer, you can see a glimpse of this fight.

It also looks like the film is adding something that neither the book or movie did, which is a fight between Bagheera, Shere Khan, and Baloo. I have absolutely no idea where this is going, so I’m excited to see it go down in the film. It’s the natural progression of the story when you think about it, at least before Mowgli gets his chance to face Shere Khan on his own. Or it could mean that he’s not fighting the tiger alone.

Finally, I want to point out that the look of many of these characters is coming from the book, which is a great thing. This includes Baloo, who is now a brown bear instead of the bluish grey bear from the movie. And Hathi, the old elephant, appears more like the domineering and wise character that the Kipling story portrays. He’s not supposed to be comic relief, like we see in the 1967 film, which I think they added because they already had so many know-it-all animals running around in the script.

jungle book trailer

Like I said before, the movie is so far coming off as darker and more epic than the animated film. That said, some people who’ve seen footage of the movie at D23 claim that it’s actually light-hearted, so this trailer might be a little misleading. Whether that’s a good or bad thing is up to you.

I don’t know how I feel about this film yet. On the one hand, it’s cool to see that they’re breaking away from the music numbers and treating the source material more seriously. But I’m worried this will take away what people loved about the classic film in the first place. I guess we’ll have to trust that Disney can surprise us once again with something that fits comfortably in the middle.

The Jungle Book opens in theaters, April 2016.

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

Were There Self-Aware Toys in ‘Monsters Inc,’ All Along?

toy story monsters inc theory

Since the release of my new book, The Pixar Theory, I honestly haven’t given much thought to expanding these Pixar-related connections because…vacation.

So, I’m back and here’s something potentially interesting for you to seek your teeth into. A few weeks ago, a regular visitor to the site (cheers, @ThomastheBrainEngine), brought me some interesting evidence of toys being “self-aware” in Monsters Inc, a la Toy Story.

In Toy Story, we learn that toys are sentient. They move around on their own when we’re not watching, and their entire lives revolve around the children who love them.

One of the main tenets of my theory, which tries to unite the Pixar movies, is that toys are alive because in the Pixar universe, human imagination is like a battery, and it gives life to ordinary things (maybe even cars).

toy story monsters inc theory

I argue that this is the same concept as monsters powering their society with the energy of children in Monsters Inc. But despite a few cameos (like Jessie and the Luxo ball), there’s nothing tangible linking Toy Story and Monsters Inc, especially if you consider Jessie’s appearance in Monsters Inc., to only be an easter egg, not a hint to something more.

But ThomastheBrainEngine presented a fascinating thought that I had not yet considered: what if we do see evidence that the world of Monsters Inc. has sentient toys? 

So I looked into this, and the evidence is solid, believe it or not. And it all hinges on the movie’s first scene.

Mr. Bile, can you tell me what you did wrong?

toy story monsters inc theory

This opening sequence introduces us to the basic mechanics of how monsters scare children. The monster, Mr. Bile (Phlegm), sneaks into a child’s room and attempts to scare him, but the kid wakes up and sees him. We see that Mr. Bile is actually more scared of the child than vice versa, and he trips and falls for comedic effect.

This, of course, is a simulation. A demonstration of how not to scare a child, so that the movie can cut to Sulley, our main character, who is the best scarer at Monsters Incorporated. The simulation we just watched was at the factory, and it’s our set up for everything that happens next in the movie (notably, that the worst thing you can do is let in a child by leaving the door open).

toy story monsters inc theory

Something that has bugged a lot of people, including myself, is a major goof (or series of goofs) that transpires during the simulation. When Mr. Bile walks in, we get a clear shot of the room’s layout and where everything is located. The soccer ball is under the bed, the toy train and its tracks are at the foot of the bed, and one of the books near the window hangs over the edge.

But as the scene changes, everything moves around. The soccer ball inexplicably moves to the side of the bed. It’s in a totally different location, and it eventually shows up again at the foot of the bed, where the train tracks have disappeared. Instead, there’s a bunch of jax in its place. Mr. Bile steps back on the soccer ball and falls on the jax (see above) like we’re watching a better version of Home Alone 3. We even see that the books on the toy box have moved a little bit, but they return to their original spot toward the end of the scene.

toy story monsters inc theory
The soccer ball is now under the bed again.

It’s nitpicking, but I’ve always been annoyed by how overtly obvious these goofs are. I’ve sat through a dailies session at Pixar, where the director and a group of animators will scrutinize every single aspect of what’s on the screen. Even for a movie that was made in Pixar’s early days, it’s strange to think that they could make so many continuity errors in just a couple of minutes, and the movie’s first few minutes at that.

Granted, these goofs happen all the time, and some are caught too late in the game to be considered worth the effort of fixing them. But they’re usually separated and scarce, not gathered in a cluster.

So, what if this entire scene wasn’t a goof at all? What if we were meant to see them? They’re certainly hard to miss, after all.

monsters inc toy story theory

The idea is that the toys moved on their own because the rules of Toy Story bleed into Monsters Inc. Part of any good simulation would be to make sure monsters are prepared for anything that could happen. If toys are able to come alive and possibly protect their sleeping owner from an invader, then it makes perfect sense for these simulations to include these variables.

Without those toys interfering, Mr. Bile probably would have been able to successfully leave the room and escape before the child could get up and go through that door. So part of the simulation could be to move the toys around, like they would in a real situation, in a way that conspires against the monster pulling off a scare. In this case, that meant moving the ball to where he would fall on a bunch of conveniently placed jacks that weren’t there in the first place.

It’s definitely possible, at least. The monsters controlling the simulation are creating atmospheric effects (the curtain moving like wind is blowing it, the child moving around in reaction to realtime events). If toys could move, too, then the monsters could simulate that experience.

monsters inc toy story theory

Would toys really do this, though?

I don’t think it’s a stretch based on what we’ve seen in Toy Story. Woody breaks the rules and unites Sid’s toys against him just to get back to Andy. He goes to incredible lengths to make Andy happy, so I’m pretty sure he’d also go pretty far to protect Andy from a terrifying monster.

It might not happen every time with every kid who has toys, but it could happen enough to warrant a response from Monsters Inc. When you watch Monsters University, you see that the higher ups are teaching the monsters tons of useful tips and facts about this profession, ranging from how the doors work to how monsters can adapt to any given situation.

monsters inc toy story theory

They have to prepare the monsters to be so stealthy, not even the toys know they’re there (which is possible, since we see that the toys do sleep when Woody has that nightmare in the first movie).

This also solves another major inconsistency that was brought on by Monsters University. If monsters have to go to college to get jobs as professional scarers, then why is Mr. Bile having such a hard time? And why is he doing this, anyway, if he has experience and a college education?

Well, if you watch Monsters University again, you probably won’t notice any of these instances of toys getting in the way. And that’s probably because introducing them as a variable is when you get into the expert mode of scaring. This would make scaring so hard for monsters that it wouldn’t be a critical point of the simulator until you actually got the job, explaining why Mr. Bile is sort of talented, but he ends up falling on his face, despite the rigorous standards of professional scaring established by Dean Hardscrabble in MU.

monsters inc toy story theory
Weirdly, Phlegm was good enough to hide this with a sweater.

To sum up, I think this evidence is pretty strong, mostly because those goofs I pointed out just seem overwhelmingly obvious. It is possible that the monsters controlling the simulation could be moving the toys around from the control room just to make things harder for Mr. Bile, not because toys are expected to come alive. But that just seems sort of harsh.

Mr. Bile walked into that room and surveyed everything as he was trained. Mixing things up for no good reason in a scenario that wouldn’t possible happen just to make things harder undermines how the monsters are trained in Monsters University. It’s like testing high school students on a different subject with information you never taught them—OK, wait, that happens all the time.

Let me know if you’re convinced or unconvinced and we can hash it out in the comments. If you’re interested in the Pixar Theory (that is, how all the movies may be connected and why) enough to read an entire book about it with all of the clues and arguments I’ve collected over the past few years, don’t forget to check out my book, which is available now in print and as an e-book on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc.

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni