Open Forum Friday: Should Ratatouille Be Nominated for Best Picture?
Over at The IFC Blog this week, an interesting point was thrown out for discussion in regards to Pixar’s Ratatouille (which, coincidentally, is now out on DVD). The film currently has the highest rating out of any film released in 2007 over on Metacritic (it’s also sitting at #6 on their all-time highest rated list). And yet, the film is not even considered as a possible nomination for Best Picture at this year’s Academy Awards. (Technically I’m not sure if it’s eligible, but it’s certainly not being mentioned by anyone either way.) Isn’t there something inherently unfair about that?
John Lassater responds thusly: “I’m proud that the academy has an Oscar that celebrates the best animated feature… It used to be the best you could hope for was a musical nomination. I guess you have to view it as akin to the best foreign language film. You’re still eligible for other categories, even if it doesn’t happen very often.” How diplomatic. I guess there are some people who would say that Ratatouille wasn’t necessarily being judged on par with live action films, and that its high ratings are a result of it being so good “for an animated film”. And yet, even though Ratatouille wasn’t one of my favourite movies of the year, I have to disagree with that sentiment whole-heartedly. This is one of the first animated films that I think can truly be compared to other non-animated films and compete on that level. What do you think? Does Ratatouille deserve a shot at Best Picture this year? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.
Comments (71)
I think that all deserve a shot. Whether or not this movie will be one of the few “best of the year” that actually worthy still remains to be seen. There are still lots of good that are coming out.
Posted by mike on November 9th, 2007in my mind its still the best picture of the year. that said, it all depends on the quality of the fall/winter movies. if it doesnt get nominated but hte other films are worthy, i wouldnt cry about it.
one thing though is that apparently Ratatouille is no longer the lock for the animation category. that persepolis movie is apparently so well made that it could challenge.
Posted by Goon on November 9th, 2007Considering the number of films that the Academy have given the award to recently (I’m looking at you: Forest Gump, Braveheart, A Beautiful Mind, Titanic). Ratatouille certainly is a better film than any of those. so by that criteria. Yea, Sure.
That being said, it’s in the company of:
No Country For Old Men
Gone Baby Gone
Before the Devils Knows Your Dead
The Darjeeling Limited
and
Zodiac
All of the mature and nuanced films as well. So, it’s a tough year.
(Oh and I wouldn’t be the least surprised if Juno pulls a FullMonty/LittleMissSunshine and sneaks in ahead of Ratatouille into a Best Picture Nod. As animated films go, This is the year that Pixar really does deserve the Best Animated film (and I’m a huge fan of Paprika and A Scanner Darkly)
Posted by Kurt on November 9th, 2007I agree that it is and should be considered on par with some of the other Best Picture contenders. The subject matter is just as important as any of that covered by the other contenders.
However, since it’s made the list of Animated contenders, I don’t think it qualifies for Best Picture. The only animated film to date, which has taken a best picture nomination was “Beauty and the Beat” in 1991 and it did NOT qualify into the Best Animated Feature category so it looks like it’s either one OR the other.
Posted by Marina on November 9th, 2007That ghettoization is why so many animators were against an Animated Feature category in the first place.
And contrary to what Lasseter says above, an animated feature has been nominated beyond the song category. Beauty and the Beast was nominated for Best Picture, right up there with all the live-action films.
Posted by Steven on November 9th, 2007Marina, beating me to the punch.
Posted by Steven on November 9th, 2007Oops. I should also mention that the Animated Feature category was only added in 2001, nearly a decade after Beauty and the Beast was released. It’s unlikely that if there were an Animated Feature category it would have received the Best Picture nod.
Posted by Steven on November 9th, 2007Forrest Gump is an awesome movie. So is Braveheart.
Posted by Henrik on November 9th, 2007didn’t Forrest Gump beat Pulp Fiction?? or am i mixed up here?
Posted by mike on November 9th, 2007It’s a picture, so why shouldn’t it be allowed to win “best” picture.
Posted by Rian on November 9th, 2007Of course if a film is deserving it should be eligible in the best picture category whether it is animated or not. Should “Ratatouille” be up against the likes of anything that is likely to be nominated in that category this year? Hell no.
It’s a movie about a rat cooking for a human nerd. While it’s visually gorgeous, it’s not particularly funny and doesn’t even really have much to say, does it? If you really think about it, it’s fairly inane.
As Kurt said above, compared to Zodiac, Jesse James, Gone Baby Gone, No Country for Old Men, Devil Knows You’re Dead, Once, Rescue Dawn, Michael Clayton, Lars and the Real Girl, Into the Wild, A Mighty Heart, arguably even Eastern Promises… Ratatouille isn’t even in the same league as these others.
Posted by Drewbacca on November 9th, 2007Mike,
Yeah FG beat out Pulp AND Shawshank that year. All three great movies in my opinion and although Pulp is my favorite (of all time), I’m happy with any of those three winning that year.
I also like Braveheart and Titanic (best picture, maybe not, but good nonetheless). A Beautiful Mind I can take or leave.
Posted by Drewbacca on November 9th, 2007That year was probably the strongest for american cinema in my lifetime.
Is it really a picture though? I’d argue that it’s an animation, which is what I thought the category was invented for. To honor that artform specifically. It’s extremely different that taking 24frames of a real person pr. second, and as such, should be considered in its own category, much like documentaries have their own category. It’s just different artforms.
Posted by Henrik on November 9th, 2007I agree with you Drew that Ratatouille doesn’t make my personal top 5 or even top 10 of the year, but how do you explain the fact that it is the best reviewed movie of the year? Is it the lowered expectations of an animated film?
By the way, good point about Beauty and the Beast guys, I had totally forgotten about that. That was the same year Silence of the Lambs won, which was also a bit of a surprise considering it was essentially a horror film.
Posted by Sean on November 9th, 2007I wouldn’t have a problem if a documentary was nominated for best picture either…
Posted by mike on November 9th, 2007The Coen’s Fargo lost out to Anthony Mingella’s THE ENGLISH PATIENT (A movie I profess a strong dislike of, that and most thing Mingella-directed actually). I’d forgotten to mention that one in the list above.
And Ratatouille has a lot of rich deep themes about the democratization of art (and distilling of art into commodity as in Gusteau’s frozen foods), the complexity of balancing personal dreams/goals against family and other responsibility. The fact that all great accomplishments pretty much need the artist and the mediator (in this case both Anton Ego but also Linguini’s bizarre brand of public relationships. Of course like Brad Bird’s the Incredibles, it also takes the time to celebrate and appreciate ‘greatness’ and not attempt to confine and dumb it down. So yes, Drewbacca, there is plenty going on in Ratatouille and it is told in a very mature and humourous (if not knee slapping) way. A delicate balance. I wouldn’t call it inane.
Oh and I’d forgotten about Rescue Dawn, and I still want to see Into the Wild. Yea, it should be a competitive year, and a probably hairpulling one (as per usual) if (when) films like American Gangster, Lions for Lambs and In the Valley of Elah get noms…
But, there are some good ones still coming, Namely THERE WILL BE BLOOD.
Posted by Kurt on November 9th, 2007Oh, and Chalk up Silence of the Lambs as another Academy Travesty. And, it WON ALL FOUR (!!) of the biggie awards. I can acknowledge that the acedemy must half felt collectivly edgy (or it was a slow year) at awarding such an extreme film, but if memory serves, outside the great chemsistry of Foster/Hopkins in what amounts to about 15 minutes (tops) screen time, there isn’t much else that is truly memorable about the picture.
Posted by Kurt on November 9th, 2007Personally I’m pulling for TMNT to win best animated feature. What an awesome movie! I haven’t seen Ratatouille though, but most people who like it, also seem to like The Incredibles which was pretty bad.
All things aside, whatever qualities (‘rich deep themes’, phrasing like this makes me roll my eyes) it’s an artfrom in and of itself. It’s like comic books vs. novels. They each have their separate strengths, weaknesses, boundaries and opportunities, and I think they should be judged separately. When the americans included the animation category, I took it as an agreement with this way of thinking.
Posted by Henrik on November 9th, 2007I’m okay with the fact that Silence of the Lambs won… at least compared to the other nominations that year. At the very least I don’t think it was a “travesty”. The character of Hannibal Lector is definitely memorable at the very least.
Posted by Sean on November 9th, 2007Why should it matter if a film is animated or not? It’s still a film. If a movie evokes enough of a positive reaction from people, it shouldn’t matter whether it’s live action, animated, computer animated, claymation, rotoscoped, or a bunch of puppets. If it’s good, it’s good. This is not to say that Ratatouille should definitely win this year, because there are a few other films that I have liked better in 2007, but I don’t think it should be denied a chance just because it’s animated.
Posted by Rian on November 9th, 2007You talk as if animated is below live-action. It’s just different, and a minority.
It’s impossible to compare animation to live-action because so many parts of the process are drastically different.
Either artform can hold fantastic pieces, but they are still different artforms. Like operas and plays or novels and comic books.
Posted by Henrik on November 9th, 2007“doesn’t even really have much to say, does it? If you really think about it, it’s fairly inane.”
Ratatouille has more to say than most of the films you listed (with no disrespect to the majority of them)
Ratatouille captured the value of art and criticism of it better than any film that will probably ever exist. Aside from the other obvious message that good art can come from anyone or anywhere, Ratatouille is actually incredibly deep, not just for a childrens film, to the point where i nearly shed a tear by the end.
Posted by Goon on November 9th, 2007“Ratatouille is actually incredibly deep”
No offense, but coming from the guy who thinks This Is Spinal Tap is actually THE best movie that has ever been made, that means nothing.
Posted by Henrik on November 9th, 2007Yes animation is different than live action, but so are dramas different than action movies, comedies different than horror, etc. etc. If there’s no distinguishing between genre at the Oscars, should we really distinguish between the format?
Posted by Sean on November 9th, 2007..and you think TMNT is a better movie than Ratatouille.
my list was of my favorite movies of all time, and Spinal Tap is indeed that. I don’t disvalue comedies because they are slight, Ive seen Spinal Tap more than any other movie because it never gets less funny to me, I can listen to it like an album while I do other things, I can quote it religiously. I could cite its value in comedy history to justify it, but why bother?
If i remember correctly, you never accepted the challenge to put up your own list for scrutiny, so kindly eat a bag of dicks
Posted by Goon on November 9th, 2007Henrik,
“It’s impossible to compare animation to live-action because so many parts of the process are drastically different.”
In my opinion, that is a horribly inaccurate statement. Who cares if the process of making one film is different from another? Animated and live action movies both have scripts, they contain acting and plots and comedy, drama, and whatever other emotions you can think of. What is it, exactly, that separates (for example) Forrest Gump from a film like Ratatouille or The Iron Giant other than the visual style? And if visual style is so important in deciding whether a film deserves to be nominated or not, should a rotoscoped film like A Scanner Darkly or a black and white film also be unworthy of a best picture nomination? Should we not be able to compare the animated version of How The Grinch Stole Christmas with the live action one? Or how about the live action Lord Of The Rings as opposed to the animated ones? Are they so different that they can’t even be placed in the same category together?
Posted by Rian on November 9th, 2007You aren’t dealing with human beings, but colors put together to resemble (to various degrees) the appearance of human beings. MAJOR difference.
In terms of acting, in live-action you only have from when the director says ‘action’ to when he says ‘cut’ to get the performance right. In animation you have several months. Needless to point out is the fact that emotion in animation will always be purposefully inserted in order to draw or manipulate response from audiences.
Not to mention that nearly all the concepts for animated movies would be impossible to pull off in a live-action movie.
Goon: I have no seen Ratatouille so I don’t know if it is better or worse than TMNT. My point was just that seeing as you are coming from the reference-point of a movie like Spinal Tap being the best ever made, I would not trust your opinion on what is deep or not.
As for a list, I did ponder it, and I’m pretty convinced I haven’t yet seen 100 good movies. I could probably do a top-10 or top-15 list, but considering the massive onslaught of cinema I am currently undergoing, it would be ridiculous to make a definite list at this point.
I’m so comforted by your decision to meat my ‘No offense’ approach with a ‘eat dicks’ response though. In that other religion-thread, I was afraid we might actually have something in common!
Posted by Henrik on November 9th, 2007And why should “deep rich themes” cause eye-rolling? Um, we’re celebrating art here aren’t we? Thematic content has to be at least as important to visceral response (you mentioned comic books, isn’t this the main driver there..?)
Ratatouille actually tries to get people on board to celebrate greatness, and it does so in a non-condescending way. Wow, it’s actually an attempt to merge the high-brow and the low-brow with out cheapening or catering to either side. Much like The Marx Brothers did back in the 1930s and The Looney Tunes folks did with Opera back in the 40s-50s, heck even BRICK tried to find a balance between the teen flick and the classic noir. (noir film itself being a bit of a mid-point between philosophy and trash).
Yea, I may sound all wankery here, but I did love Ratatouille. I also liked MTV’s Aeon Flux cartoons, Tarkovsky’s Solaris and Richard Donners Superman. And Yes, I think Spinal Tap is a brilliant piece of cinema. Just rambling at this point.
Posted by Kurt on November 9th, 2007Since when do the terms “movie”, “film”, and “motion picture” only refer to live action? To the best of my knowledge, animated films move, are played on film, and consist of pictures in motion.
Posted by Rian on November 9th, 2007‘Deep rich themes’ just seem overdone and reactionary.
Rian, you are right. The difference is that it’s all animated, which is why the terms “animated movie”, “animated film” and “animated motion picture” would apply to this particular artform.
Posted by Henrik on November 9th, 2007Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: HELL yeah!
Posted by Dave on November 9th, 2007For those (Henrik) who think that animated films and live action films are so vastly different that they simply cannot exist in the same category, where do we put films with heavy CG effects?
LOTR trilogy, Star Wars prequels, Blade trilogy, Spider-Man trilogy, Terminator 2, King Kong…
Some of those films feature entire characters that are essentially ‘cartoons’.
What about Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Marry Poppins? COOL WORLD!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?
My mind has been blown.
Posted by Jay C. on November 9th, 2007Henrik,
As long as I can take a feature length bit of media on DVD or video, put it in my player and watch it, or go out to a movie theater and pay to see something, it’s a movie. This includes documentaries, live-action films, animated films, musicals, or whatever else it may be that has a plot or a purpose and characters running around on screen doing something for entertainment value.
If I watch an animated film and a live-action film, I have the capacity, as does every other human on the planet, to decide which one I liked better. In the event that I like an animated film more than a live-action film, I will say so. I won’t say, “well, it would have been better than the live-action film if it weren’t animated,” because that is a close-minded way to look at the topic.
The way I see it, if Ratatouille had been the only good film to come out this year and every live-action film released in 2007 was on the same level as Troll 2 or 3 Ninjas Knuckle Up, it would be wrong to award one of them the best picture award simply because they weren’t animated. The way you seem to be approaching the subject, it appears that you would justify a move like that based solely on the filming technique, which I find rather foolish. I realize that the situation I came up with just now is rather far-fetched, but I think it serves to translate my point. Just because a film is animated doesn’t make it any less worthwhile than a live-action film.
Posted by Rian on November 9th, 2007“Just because a film is animated doesn’t make it any less worthwhile than a live-action film.”
How do you keep misunderstanding me? This is what I said before:
“You talk as if animated is below live-action. It’s just different, and a minority.
It’s impossible to compare animation to live-action because so many parts of the process are drastically different.
Either artform can hold fantastic pieces, but they are still different artforms. Like operas and plays or novels and comic books.”
Either artform is equally as worthwhile as the other. Animated movies are just as worthy of viewing, analysation and celebration as live-action movies. But they are different none-the-less.
It’s not a matter of one being above the other. They are on the same level. I don’t know how to make it any clearer. But they work with different strengths and weaknesses, different techniques and conventions, and they are too different to compare directly. You can compare similar aspects like story or plot, but too many parts of the finished piece are different to compare them as a whole.
I mean “The marriage of Figaro” and “Henry V” are both masterpieces, are both performed by human beings on a stage in front of a crowd. They are both masterpieces, but there would be no point in comparing them to eachother, because they belong to different artforms.
Posted by Henrik on November 9th, 2007Jay C: I can’t give you guidelines for thinking. Movies like LOTR or Star Wars are a grey area, and there could be made arguments for either side. If you are really doubting (and not just trying to show me up with your insidious cleverness) wether or not Terminator 2 is live-action or not, I’m not sure how to convince you of one or the other.
I definitely think it is live-action, but I’m not too stubborn to admit that there can be made good arguments for the opposite. Or at least for it being a new sort of hybrid-movie, that has yet to be clearly defined. Somebody should write the theory behind that and get a ph.D.
Posted by Henrik on November 9th, 2007Henrik,
“It’s impossible to compare animation to live-action because so many parts of the process are drastically different.”
You’ve said this two or three times now over the course of this thread and I still personally believe that it is a completely false statement. If for no other reason than I CAN compare animated and live-action movies. You make it sound like it’s a physical impossibility, as though the human brain cannot possibly match these two mediums against one another without imploding in upon itself, but I think you’re wrong in that regard. Animation and live action are both films. All you have to do is ask yourself which one did the job better. Forget HOW the film was made and just look at the outcome.
Posted by Rian on November 9th, 2007You can have preferences based on your enjoyment. I am talking intellectually.
Posted by Henrik on November 9th, 2007Henrik:
“I can’t give you guidelines for thinking.”
Please?
Posted by Jay C. on November 9th, 2007P.S. i’m still trying to rediscover the site i found the cannibal holocaust theme for free download.
Posted by Jay C. on November 9th, 2007So you’re saying that it’s not intellectually sound to consider an animated film to be better than a live-action one? Considering all of the planning and work that goes into an animated movie, I don’t really see how you could consider one less worthy of a best picture nod than a live-action film simply because there are no real people onscreen.
Posted by Rian on November 9th, 2007that seems to be what he’s saying Rian, and its absolutely retarded.
Posted by Goon on November 9th, 2007Animation is not a lower form of art than live-action! It is just a different form of art!
It is not intellectually sound to compare them, because so many aspects have different attributes.
A best animated feature oscar nomination is as big a recognition as a best picture nomination or a best documentary feature nomination. They are just different forms of art, sharing the use of moving images. Am I getting through to you Rian?
Jay C: If you want guidelines for thinking I guess I could provide it for a fee. Let me know and I’ll set up an email course and a PayPal account.
Posted by Henrik on November 9th, 2007I actually see where Henrik is coming from. However, since film is actually in and of itself an animated medium (i.e. a camera takes 24 frames per second, uses a shutter to take advantage of the human brains persistence of vision and thus provide the illusion of motion). Thus the two start to look remarkably similar. When you edit a film it is being chopped up and manipulated. Drawing/Computer animating is just the actual extreme from. Since there voice performance (and in the cast of Beowulf and A Scanner Darkly Animation over life acting, (Motion Capture, and rotoscoping respectively).
Thus, I think at this point you are splitting hairs.
Now if you had to generalize, animated films in North America have more or less been aimed at a less discriminating audience (mostly for children and/or family entertainment), thus some form of ghettoization isn’t out of line (we do the same thing for “made-for-tv-movies” etc.) but in the past years things have been changing, from The Simpsons/KingoftheHill/etc on TV to Waking Life, A Scanner Darkly and yes Ratatouille (other countries have been doing this for years, Japan, France, etc.) So actually I’d love to see a film be eligible for both BEST PICTURE and BEST ANIMATED PICTURE, much like some foreign films have crept into the mainline academy categories.
Been rambling on a bit here. Take what you will from it…
Posted by Kurt on November 9th, 2007Ratatouille deserves to be considered for a Best Picture nomination, but there’s no way in hell it will get one because it will get a Best Animated Film nomination and the Academy members would consider it a waste of a nomination to put Ratatouille up for Best Picture as well.
Having said that, Life Is Beautiful (1998) and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) both received a nomination for Best Picture and Best Foreign Language Film in the same year, so in theory it is possible for an animated film to achieve a double nomination.
Posted by TheSnowLeopard on November 9th, 2007Here’s a interesting article that is related to this discussion:
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2007/11/avary_responds.php
Posted by TheSnowLeopard on November 10th, 2007I definitely think Ratatouille is a great movie, but I don’t think it should be nominated for Best Picture. There has to be exceptional reasons why the academy awards added The Animated Feature category. Maybe it’s to give more notice to animated films? Do we have to wait 50+ years to see an animated film get recognized by one of the most prestigious film awards?
Only a handful of animated movies are even major releases each year. I remember when they added the category and loving that they finally showed the recognition animated films deserve. Henrik is right, its a different form of art and should be treated as such.
Posted by Primal on November 10th, 2007Wow. A lot has happened here since I left and got drunk.
How about this? What if you took Ratatouille, filmed it EXACTLY the same way; using live-action, except for the rats (whom are barely even in the movie) which would be CGI.
In other words, you actually have Patton Oswald, Janeane Garofolo and Peter O’Toole onscreen with the same exact story, same dialogue and even the same camera motions. I.e. – shot for shot identical. Would you look at the film the same way or not? Would you think it is ridiculous (Joe’s Apartment, Stuart Little) or would it still be considered fantastic by all of you who think it should be up for best pic? I offer no opinion, just a “what if?”
Kurt:
“Ratatouille has a lot of rich deep themes about the democratization of art (and distilling of art into commodity as in Gusteau’s frozen foods), the complexity of balancing personal dreams/goals against family and other responsibility.”
I suppose. We see the conservative father figure and the child wanting to break free. But haven’t we seen this before like… I don’t know, a billion times? Although I do agree with you about art and how it is perceived and the emotional joy it gives us (even the bad art) is all great, none of that comes to life until the final 15 minutes of the film. Break it up into what you will, it’s still just an amusing movie about a rat who can cook.
Don’t get me wrong; again, I liked the movie. Favorite picture of the year for some of you? Fair enough. “BEST” picture of the year? NOT. EVEN. CLOSE.
Posted by Drewbacca on November 10th, 2007Henrik,
“Am I getting through to you Rian?”
You are most definitely not getting through to me. I’m trying to figure out what you’re saying, but all I keep coming back to is that you must not think that animation is worth being paired up with live-action. When you get right down to it, yes, there is a category for “Best Animated Picture”, but until the title of “Best Picture” is changed to “Best Live-Action Non-Documentary Picture”, it is my belief that any film, no matter what genre/style it is, should be given equal consideration for the award.
And once more for the record, I don’t think that Ratatouille is the best picture of the year. I would just like to think that if it were, it would get the recognition it deserves as such.
Posted by Rian on November 10th, 2007“or would it still be considered fantastic by all of you who think it should be up for best pic?”
if it has the same message and story I would feel the same about its depth, but perhaps I wouldnt think it was best picture quality – in other words, i’d have to see it. I think that’s a shitty analogy and is irrelevant. Its all about presentation.
I mean, you bring up Stuart Little’s mix as if that made people like it less?
What about “Babe”? Babe was up for best picture, is still quite loved, has some depth to it of its own, and was made in a mix of live action and CGI, and in in its case its probably a better movie than it would be if it was entirely animated. Ratatouille is probably a better movie all CG. some stories fit certain mediums better. I would never know for sure unless I saw both versions, but regardless its pretty much an irrelevant argument.
These are the versions we have – either the films are great or they are not. Babe is great. Ratatouille is great, for some of the same reasons and also for some very different reasons.
btw, a ’shot for shot’ live action remake of Ratatouille would be absolutely impossible – could anyone conceivably create a ‘rats eye view’ camera for that amount of shots, with tha t level of composition and cinematography? not a chance. I know its a while back, but think of “the Witches” who couldnt even come close, and not even Stuart Little could really do it. If you’ve got a tiny character, CGI or traditional animation is probably going to give you a better looking film.
“none of that comes to life until the final 15 minutes of the film.”
watch it again.
“Favorite picture of the year for some of you? Fair enough. “BEST†picture of the year? NOT. EVEN. CLOSE.”
not just favorite picture of the year for me. I put it in my top 10 of all time. I not only think its Brad Bird’s best, I think its the best Pixar film… and probably the best Disney film.
“conservative father figure and the child wanting to break free” – you act as if this is the crux of the film and its nowhere close, and even at this example Remy is different from the others – he’s not angry or feeling repressed, he keeps it a secret but its not desperate, he acts like a human and not like a sitcom or cartoon character. The father doesn’t understand but doesnt shun him, the brother is a moron but makes jumps to learn – yet never does. the framework may be cliche to you, but the handling is anything but.
And I can go on and on like this on anything you want to throw at this film. Remy is the most ambitious character in animated history, and arguably among any film ever. He doesnt fall into his craft in some freak occurance like every other fish out of water genius story, its a completely calculated development of someones interest and struggle to acheive it, more inspiring than 90% of Oscar bait movies without the desperate ham scenes to win individual people awards. This is a fantastic film that doesnt need lightning bug cars and puns. Is it as funny as other Pixar movies? Absolutely not, but why does it have to be? Because it’s Pixar? Because its a “kids movie”?
Posted by Goon on November 10th, 2007I don’t really want to debate this because I liked the movie and don’t like playing devil’s advocate this heavily. I just didn’t like it as much as everyone else seems to.
Still, top 10 of all time? That’s cool; just not for me.
Posted by Drewbacca on November 10th, 2007I like this movie and the animation is fantastic.
Posted by Movie Reviews Collection on November 10th, 2007Drewbacca – on the other hand, I actually enjoy bashing Cars and all its pandering mediocrity. Yea, I’m a meanie.
Posted by Kurt on November 10th, 2007Cars starts out as a noisy toy commercial but it won me over by the end.
Posted by TheSnowLeopard on November 10th, 2007I’m with TheSnowLeopard on Cars. I watched it, without any great expectations, more or less just because it was a Pixar film. It took a while, but the film eventually hooked me. It’s definitely my least favorite of the Pixar movies, but really no less worthy of praise than any of the others in my opinion.
Posted by Rian on November 10th, 2007Henrik’s a riot. He finally admitted that he hasn’t even seen Ratatouille, yet he is and has always posted so maliciously on every forum that dares mention Ratatouille.
Also, TMNT was okay but I’m pretty confident that there is no way that it’ll even get nominated let alone win Best Animated Picture. It was pretty uneven in it’s execution, story wise and visually. A lot of the movie looked on par with videogame cut scenes and some of the human designs were just plain terrible and inconsistent with the other designs.
BTW, I thought Ratatouille was good but in no way a favourite film of mine this year.
Posted by Nuno on November 10th, 2007How Did Bee Movie even get there, the animation looks like crap. How the hell did they spend $150 Million dollars on this? (that’s the number according to box-office mojo).
Posted by Kurt on November 10th, 2007Nuno: “I am not a person, I am dynamite!”
Goon: “This is a fantastic film that doesnt need lightning bug cars and puns.”
But it does need people riding their bikes, crashing into cars.
Calling a rat struggling to achieve aclaim in his field because he is not an acceptable ‘race’(insert anything different from straight white anglo-saxon protestant male) hardly qualifies him as the most ambitious character in movie history. Have you seen any movies before 1980? The more movies I see, the more it seems that by around 1955 any story or character that anybody could ever conceive had been conceived and done justice. There are a few masters of cinema out there who actually make an effort (or not, they might just be that brilliant) to make films about real people, like Ingmar Bergman. I mean if you have seen even one of Bergman’s movies I can’t wrap my fucking (un-wrestling-loving) head around how you would consider Remy the most ambitious character in movie history. It just stinks of pandering to all the struggling artists out there, who are frustrated with blockbusters, yet still go and see them.
Posted by Henrik on November 10th, 2007Let me just clarify, that I don’t think you are an idiot if you like Ratatouille, or any Pixar movie for that matter. I think you are worthy of making your own decisions in any matter of art or otherwise, and you can like whatever speaks to your heart.
Nuno: As for ‘finally’ admitting not to see Ratatouille, I think that was clear from the beginning of this thread, let alone the fact that I stated in an earlier thread containing much of the same participants. I know you enjoy taking random shots at me, but considering my posting that animation and live-action are different artforms as somehow being ‘malicious’ is a pretty glaring sign of your own insecurity in your views, and I can’t really take into consideration all sorts of people reading my (in my own words) pretty bland, unemotional and dry observations on cinema. I feel sorry for everybody who feels they were violated by my opinions though. Just remember, it’s not too late to form your own and stick with them!
Posted by Henrik on November 11th, 2007Henrik, in the time you’ve made all these posts, you probably could have watched Ratatouille twice and had a relevant point to actually make.
Remy isnt ambitious because he’s of a different “race”, it isnt the ‘overcome the odds’ element that makes him ambitious, its his love of food and his desire to share it with his friends and family, and to prove himself to a critic who is skeptical of all food, no matter who made it.
See the goddam movie.
Posted by Goon on November 11th, 2007“The more movies I see, the more it seems that by around 1955 any story or character that anybody could ever conceive had been conceived and done justice.”
while i’d hardly make a case for modern originality, by 1955 the world in general was still pretty prudish with a whole lot of ground left to cover. Not to mention modern events and people who greatly changed the face of the world. As for ‘doing justice’, sorry, but modern advancements in technology do actually matter in ‘doing something justice’ – could Lord of the Rings have been done justice in the 1950s?
If you really think our attacks are that random, please look at your own posts and the number of random generalized statements about such vast genres and eras of film and see how we would at least like to see you back up your claims rather than just throwing them out there as if its up to us to refute them. There is an onus on you and in my opinion you’re nowhere close to fulfilling it.
Posted by Goon on November 11th, 2007I would have watched, except it costs money to watch movies, and I have to select what to see based on previous experiences.
Lord of the Rings is hardly ambitious in terms of characters and story. Of course technology allows for more flash, and will continue to allow for more flash, but that’s not what I mean when I say ’story or character’.
I thought we had covered this already, but obviously what I am saying is nothing other than my opinion. What onus are you talking about, you’re acting as if I am presenting these things as ways to prove you wrong or something. I’ll work on making stuff more clear in this way for you… Maybe next time I’ll write ‘the more it seems TO ME’ since it seems like that’s necessary to avoid ad hominem bullshit.
Posted by Henrik on November 11th, 2007thats a squeaky defense.
when you throw out sweeping statements like “everything was done by 1955″ you have some responsibility to make your case rather than just saying its so and leaving it to everyone else to refute you. you constantly do this and its unfair and annoying.
Posted by Goon on November 11th, 2007Unfair? What are you babbling about?
It sounds as if you think I’m not entitled to an opinion unless I can prove to you that it is in fact the truth. You are free to agree or disagree.
As for my defense being squeaky, I can’t offer anything other than my honest thoughts. If you don’t think it would hold up in court, I can live with that.
Posted by Henrik on November 11th, 2007Ratatouille was one of my favorite movies I watched this year.
Posted by MoriaOrc on November 11th, 2007This movie had actors,a director,writers,musicians,set designers,sound designers and of course CG animators.On top of all that it is a great film.
I cannot say if it was THE best movie of the year but nothing about its production should exclude it from being a nominee.
If it wins best picture of the year I imagine some hollywood elite will be upset and will have snarky things to say about animated movies.
They will miss the point entirely that Ratatouille is a just better done film than most live action movies.
Lord of the Rings rightly won best picture and need I say much on the CG creature Gollum and entire enviroments and action sequences created in a computer.
Henrik, you just dont get it
You’re entitled to any retarded opinion you want. “Making the case” doesnt mean to prove its the truth, doesnt mean that I have to agree, it means you have to back up your grand statements with actual reasoning. A proscecuting lawyer doesnt simply tell the defendant is guilty, they have a responsibility to attempt to prove why. This line about 1955 and all characters having been done before, you just said it with no attempt to explain why we should agree with you, leaving it for everyone else to dispute, having to pull up their own examples why we disagree, with nothing to work from that you brought to the table, and then you chime in with “well thats not what i was talking about when i said…”
well than what the fuck WERE you talking about. Stop ignoring your responsibilities – if you want to argue, ARGUE A POINT, dont just throw any statement out there to see what sticks and gets people talking.
Its not a matter of me THINKING it wouldnt hold up in court, I KNOW your grand, un-backed up statements wouldnt hold up.
Posted by Goon on November 11th, 2007My point was that we are not in court. I am not a prosecuting lawyer.
“you chime in with “well thats not what i was talking about when i said…†”
That’s because you misunderstood something. I said story and character, and you brought up visual effects. I would think that from that, it was pretty obvious that I was talking story and characters? My point is that it seems that almost any conceivable character has been put into movies, and as been done justice with at least one good movie. I am not going to bring up concrete examples of something like that, it’s based on my life with watching movies.
I am expressing thoughts, not facts. I don’t always have clearly defined reasons for my opinions, since they are the product of living, more so than lecture.
Posted by Henrik on November 11th, 2007“My point was that we are not in court. I am not a prosecuting lawyer.”
Listen, you love to argue. That’s great. You even argue about movies you haven’t seen. If you actually want anyone to give a fuck about anything you say, you will at least pretend you are a lawyer when you make a grand statement. Here you were, backed in a corner, not having seen Ratatouille, when you pull out a “every character has been done since 1955″ anyways, with no backup to save yourself.
with no evidence to support you. this is why these little diversions we have Henrik, keep popping up.
If you have these thoughts, clearly there are things that made you believe them that you could bring up. But you act like I’m asking you to prove to me without a shadow of a doubt that you are right and I’m wrong, when I’m simply asking for a goddamn break – for you to actually make an effort. is that too damn hard to ask of you?
Because if you dont care to make an effort in expressing any opinion beyond a sweeping statement, everything you say is essentially worthless babble.
Posted by Goon on November 11th, 2007Well, this argument was more about ’should it be nominated’, and I brought up points that wasn’t specific to Ratatouille itself, but to the artform in general. That’s why I decided it was worth posting, even if I hadn’t seen the movie.
You throw out sweeping stuff like ‘most ambitious character in history’ with little reasoning. How much effort is required? One arguable analysis of a scene?
I’m not big on effort though, you’ve definitely got me there. I do throw in qualifiers like “it seems”, “i think” to make up for not posting tirades.
When I actually make an effort, it’s not like I get credit for it anyway. Usually it’s met with “idiot”, “eat cock” & “get laid”.
Posted by Henrik on November 11th, 2007go back and look where i said Remy was the most ambitious character in history.
“Remy is the most ambitious character in animated history, and arguably among any film ever. He doesnt fall into his craft in some freak occurance like every other fish out of water genius story, its a completely calculated development of someones interest and struggle to acheive it”
dont give me the Pulitzer or anything, but from there I immediately went into some defense of my statement. I’m not asking for a novel in defense of yourself, just some evidence that you actually have an iota of respect for the people you’re debating, because as its been for a long time now, it certainly doesnt feel like it.
Posted by Goon on November 11th, 2007I’m in the “It should be eligible but that doesn’t mean it should be nominated camp”. I don’t think it should be excluded on the basis of animation, but I really did *not* get the hype surrounding so, personally, I’d be disappointed if it ended up with a nomination.
Posted by Liz on November 11th, 2007no. because it wasn’t that good of a movie.
Posted by P. S. on November 12th, 2007Leave a Reply