Finding Nemo 2

[President Squidward]

WHAT THE BUMP?!

 

I wasn't much of a fan of the first movie, it was alright, but it wasn't the greatest Pixar Movie ever. (I know none of you are saying that) And Finding Dory sounds worse.

[Jane]

Still not entirely convinced but it doesn't look awful by any means. And the animation is just stunning.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Teamwork

[Joe Biden]

"HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN TWICE?! Ugh, I suck as a dad." - Marlin

[WhoBibbles]

Sorry fans and Ellen. Not feeling excited about it. I mean it could be cool to find out Dory's past but at the same time, the trailer gives me feelings thst this is gonna be so similar to first movie. A character tries to find someone, goes on an adventure, gets trapped in a fish tank and it seens to me, they are bringing back the girl from first movie or a copy of her. At least it sounds better than Toy Story 4.

[Clappy]

17 minutes ago, Zoidberg said:

Sorry fans and Ellen. Not feeling excited about it. I mean it could be cool to find out Dory's past but at the same time, the trailer gives me feelings thst this is gonna be so similar to first movie. A character tries to find someone, goes on an adventure, gets trapped in a fish tank and it seens to me, they are bringing back the girl from first movie or a copy of her. At least it sounds better than Toy Story 4.

So you aren't excited because it retreads the original?  What was one of your favorite movies of 2015 again and borrowed heavily from the original?

I still stand by what I said three and four years ago.  I thought the potential was there when Pixar said they were bringing back the crew that worked on the original and from what I've seen, I like.  The animation is some of the best I've seen in awhile and I got a good laugh from the new whale and octopus characters.  Will definitely be checking this out come summer time.

[WhoBibbles]

9 minutes ago, Clappy said:

So you aren't excited because it retreads the original?  What was one of your favorite movies of 2015 again and borrowed heavily from the original?

I still stand by what I said three and four years ago.  I thought the potential was there when Pixar said they were bringing back the crew that worked on the original and from what I've seen, I like.  The animation is some of the best I've seen in awhile and I got a good laugh from the new whale and octopus characters.  Will definitely be checking this out come summer time.

Cuz TFA had a lot of excitement and humor, even if TFA is similar to original.

Besides It did have different stuff than original.

I'm just not excited for it because the same journey doesn't look as exciting as awesome situations the characters of Star Wars have.

I hope I explained clearly.  

[Jane]

My assumption is it will at the very least be decent. I think there's a certain amount of quality control that went into this. I mean they got most of the voice cast and Stanton back.

[Jane]

Alright, this has the potential now to be great. Not entirely sold, but Dory's character arc looks very compelling. Really hope they nail this as this could be a great film and a worthy sequel.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Teamwork

[Jane]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/finding_dory/

Peging it's final score in the 70s. Consensus sems to be it's good, but not great.

[Hayden]

3 minutes ago, Teamwork said:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/finding_dory/

Peging it's final score in the 70s. Consensus sems to be it's good, but not great.

Or we can wait until the real consensus starts after June 17th.

[Clappy]

11 hours ago, Hayden said:

Or we can wait until the real consensus starts after June 17th.

Preach.

[Jane]

19 hours ago, Hayden said:

Or we can wait until the real consensus starts after June 17th.

I'm not saying it looks bad, it looks enjoyable even, but from the few reviews I've read it seems like it won't be as good as the original. Considering I only see around 5 movies a year I need to be selective with what I watch. Of course, maybe I will be proven wrong and word of mouth will spread.

Also I'm not saying I'm entirely blind and don't use my own instinct to decide if I will enjoy entertainment or not. I will still watch it on streaming/Blu ray if I don't see it in theaters, and I saw the Ratchet movie which a lot of people didn't like.

 

On 7/18/2012 at 1:57 PM, terminoob said:

Pixar needs to stop with sequels and prequels and get back to original movies.

Unfortunately I would have to blame this on the Disney buyout. The films they started work on post-2006 really reek of Disney's influence. Toy Story 3 (albeit good), Cars 2, Monsters University, etc. I know Iger's prerogative is to franchise everything and capitalize on success.

Source: http://www.cartoonbrew.com/business/secret-to-disneys-record-profits-franchises-113996.html

It makes sense business wise since Disney and Pixar movies make a killing with merchandising sales and DVD/blu-rays, but it's really had an affect on them story-telling wise. They don't take risks in their sequels (aside from the Toy Story sequels) and you can tell there isn't a sense of passion that their original films have.

They proved with Inside Out they're still capable of making great films. Unfortunately I guess the head honchos are pushing for more and more sequels. Brave was the only less than stellar original movie in my opinion, but that had a lot of production issues.

[Less_SpongeBob]

So the critic reviews are coming in, and they're exactly what I expected. They're mostly positive (93% right now) and compliment it like any past Pixar film with it's stellar animation, comedy and heart, however it's still put at a lower pedestal than its predecessor, much like Monster's University.

[Joe Biden]

8 hours ago, Teamwork said:

I'm not saying it looks bad, it looks enjoyable even, but from the few reviews I've read it seems like it won't be as good as the original.

Not every sequel will be as good as the original. There are some sequels (or spin-off movies) I've seen that got better reception than the original (Sponge Out of Water, for instance), but besides those exceptions, a lot of sequels don't get better acclaim that the original has. That doesn't mean that the movie won't be good. In fact, this movie will probably be just as great as the original.

 

though finding nemo's rt score is basically 99% so it'll probably never top that lmfao

[terminoob]

12 hours ago, Teamwork said:

 

They proved with Inside Out they're still capable of making great films. Unfortunately I guess the head honchos are pushing for more and more sequels. Brave was the only less than stellar original movie in my opinion, but that had a lot of production issues.

I know this is an extremely unpopular opinion, but I really didn't like Inside Out. It seemed like it was trying to be a character-driven piece but they also wanted to tick a bunch of boxes and the end result came off incredibly forced and almost like it was written by a computer program trying to emulate other Pixar movies. It proved more than anything - to me - that they've just perfected a formula that they know will manipulate the audience's emotions in the exact way they want instead of being able to do anything new or interesting.

I'm sure this movie is going to follow the exact same formula and I'm sure everyone's going to be "surprised" at how much they actually love it and how that one tear-jerker scene at the end of the second act is just "so" sad.

[JCM]

2 minutes ago, terminoob said:

I'm sure this movie is going to follow the exact same formula and I'm sure everyone's going to be "surprised" at how much they actually love it and how that one tear-jerker scene at the end of the second act is just "so" sad.

I wouldn't really say Pixar has a formula. The last new Pixar film I've watched is Monster's University, and I skipped Brave and Cars 2, but every other movie felt noticeably distinct, including the Toy Story sequels. I also don't remember seeing that "tear-jerker at the end of the second act" you talk about outside of Toy Story 3. The idea of a formula seems really new and seems to exist to undermine Pixar's stellar track record over the last 20 years, which is something be impressed by regardless of whether or not there's actually a formula.

[Jane]

59 minutes ago, terminoob said:

I know this is an extremely unpopular opinion, but I really didn't like Inside Out. It seemed like it was trying to be a character-driven piece but they also wanted to tick a bunch of boxes and the end result came off incredibly forced and almost like it was written by a computer program trying to emulate other Pixar movies. It proved more than anything - to me - that they've just perfected a formula that they know will manipulate the audience's emotions in the exact way they want instead of being able to do anything new or interesting.

I'm sure this movie is going to follow the exact same formula and I'm sure everyone's going to be "surprised" at how much they actually love it and how that one tear-jerker scene at the end of the second act is just "so" sad.

I do agree with you that they use the same basic plot structure and archetypes in their movies. A character is in a predicament and has a sort of rivarly-turned friendship, they go on a life-changing journey that changes them as a person and there's usually an emotional moment near the climax (in Inside Out's case it was Bing Bong's death)

I think they executed it well though in IO, but I would like them to make a film that follows a different structure. My assumption would be Disney is imposing that on them though. The same thing happened with Ant Man where they fired the original director because it wasn't like other Marvel films.

[Jane]

51 minutes ago, JCM said:

I wouldn't really say Pixar has a formula. The last new Pixar film I've watched is Monster's University, and I skipped Brave and Cars 2, but every other movie felt noticeably distinct, including the Toy Story sequels. I also don't remember seeing that "tear-jerker at the end of the second act" you talk about outside of Toy Story 3. The idea of a formula seems really new and seems to exist to undermine Pixar's stellar track record over the last 20 years, which is something be impressed by regardless of whether or not there's actually a formula.

I haven't seen Monster's University in years, but if I remember it was more of a comedy than most Pixar films.

Brave was like the neutered Pixar formula. I remember Merida being really annoying.

[terminoob]

51 minutes ago, JCM said:

I wouldn't really say Pixar has a formula. The last new Pixar film I've watched is Monster's University, and I skipped Brave and Cars 2, but every other movie felt noticeably distinct, including the Toy Story sequels. I also don't remember seeing that "tear-jerker at the end of the second act" you talk about outside of Toy Story 3. The idea of a formula seems really new and seems to exist to undermine Pixar's stellar track record over the last 20 years, which is something be impressed by regardless of whether or not there's actually a formula.

Tear-jerking, emotional - whatever you want to call it. There's a scene (and character) in Inside Out that I felt was only in the film because it was supposed to make the audience cry - there was nothing natural about that scene (or character). I'd say the whole scene in the human world in Monster's University was supposed to be emotional, especially the talk by the lake (which absolutely 100% worked for me, but that's also an unpopular opinion). Wall-E was almost destroyed beyond repair. The furnace scene in Toy Story 3. Merida's mom almost gets killed in Brave. Carl giving up Kevin in Up. Going all the way back to Monster's Inc we had Sully saying bye to Boo and the door being destroyed. Those are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head. The great majority of those scenes made complete sense and those emotions were well-deserved because they were driven by the characters we had been with from the beginning of the film (or series, in terms of Toy Story and Monster's University). Inside Out just felt completely and totally forced and like it was just there for the sake of being sad (I feel the same about the opening of Up, but at least that added something to the story beyond just being sad). The "formula" I'd say started with Toy Story 3 - that furnace scene had no real business being there, but it worked well no one really cares. The writing feels like it's forcing the characters to be put into these emotional situations, rather than letting them get there on their own.

Just now, Teamwork said:

I do agree with you that they use the same basic plot structure and archetypes in their movies. A character is in a predicament and has a sort of rivarly-turned friendship, they go on a life-changing journey that changes them as a person and there's usually an emotional moment near the climax (in Inside Out's case it was Bing Bong's death)

I think they executed it well though in IO, but I would like them to make a film that follows a different structure. My assumption would be Disney is imposing that on them though. The same thing happened with Ant Man where they fired the original director because it wasn't like other Marvel films.

To each their own. I know the vast majority of people think it was executed well in Inside Out, but Bing-Bong's whole purpose and existence was for that one scene (which didn't make sense, because, as per the rules set by the movie itself, Joy should've also disappeared in that chasm) and that rubbed me the wrong way from the time he was introduced until that scene.

[Hayden]

I didn't give a crap about Bing Bong either.

The only character that interested me in Inside Out was Sadness, but too much focus went to Joy. The lesson in the end was of course good, but we took a boring road to get there.

I actually shed some tears during the lake scene in Monster's University, when I saw it in theaters. Relatable.