Reply to Topic
And I'm obviously pointing out that you can't just call a film "manipulative" and expect it to be a self-evident criticism. Most people here have disagreed with you on that because of the way you expressed this claim and subsequently haven't done much to back it up.
This does go back to my whole "variations on a theme" comment. I don't look for similarities, I look for differences - if I do have to acknowledge similarities, I at least try to understand if there's a point beyond mere recycling them for the same purposes. Per your examples:
-All three films open with a sequence of the toys being played with in some capacity (if anything, it's 2 that is different because it's revealed to be a toy playing a videogame instead of a human playing with toys)
-All three films deal with the impermanence of a toy's existence, with the first being about Woody's rivalry with Buzz being motivated by fear of being replaced and discarded
-All three films are about toys mistakenly being considered unwanted - it's worth noting that, in 1 and 2, it's Woody who thinks that Andy no longer wants him whereas in 3 he's the only toy who Andy really wants to keep and so he must convince the others that they weren't supposed to be thrown away either
-All three films involve the protagonist toys meeting other toys whose appearances hide their true nature, with the first film featuring Sid's horrifying-looking misfit toys who join forces with Woody
-All three films know the narrative value of Buzz's "original" mode as a strong source of conflict and find different uses for it each time (him realising the truth about himself in 1, him being forced to face off against a second Buzz in 2, and him being brainwashed in 3). It's a consistent character trait across all three films.
-You should try noticing what's different rather than just shrugging off 3 as "literally a copy" because of superficial similarities - the flashback in 2 builds sympathy for one character, the one in 3 details a villainous backstory. The same technique, but with vastly different intentions.
-All three films see the antagonists receive an ironic/karmic comeuppance - Sid (who has no problem messing with toys and upsetting his sister in the process) gets traumatised by the realisation that toys are alive, Stinky Pete (whose bitterness comes from never being played with) finally gets someone who will play with him in a way he finds horrible, and Lotso (who turned his perceived rejection into an excuse to control and torment other toys) is trapped in a horrible situation by someone with fond memories of his particular type of toy
Also, like I said, you know that nostalgia isn't an inherently bad thing, right? I already pointed out how it at least informs the film proper in a way that isn't just about preying on people's memories (at least not compared to the likes of, say, Jurassic World). It still sees Andy give up all the toys (even Woody, which he wasn't originally going to do) so it acknowledges the importance of the past without wallowing too hard in it. It quite rightly understands that this is the end of an era instead of just an empty experience to be replicated out of fondness for the past.
This is what I'm getting at with all this - you can't just get hung up on superficial details and try to cynically overlook a film's strengths because they don't fit with your preconceptions of what a "good" movie should be like. Rather than just go "I don't like this", try asking yourself "why don't I like this?"
-All three films open with a sequence of the toys being played with in some capacity (if anything, it's 2 that is different because it's revealed to be a toy playing a videogame instead of a human playing with toys)
-All three films deal with the impermanence of a toy's existence, with the first being about Woody's rivalry with Buzz being motivated by fear of being replaced and discarded
-All three films are about toys mistakenly being considered unwanted - it's worth noting that, in 1 and 2, it's Woody who thinks that Andy no longer wants him whereas in 3 he's the only toy who Andy really wants to keep and so he must convince the others that they weren't supposed to be thrown away either
-All three films involve the protagonist toys meeting other toys whose appearances hide their true nature, with the first film featuring Sid's horrifying-looking misfit toys who join forces with Woody
-All three films know the narrative value of Buzz's "original" mode as a strong source of conflict and find different uses for it each time (him realising the truth about himself in 1, him being forced to face off against a second Buzz in 2, and him being brainwashed in 3). It's a consistent character trait across all three films.
-You should try noticing what's different rather than just shrugging off 3 as "literally a copy" because of superficial similarities - the flashback in 2 builds sympathy for one character, the one in 3 details a villainous backstory. The same technique, but with vastly different intentions.
-All three films see the antagonists receive an ironic/karmic comeuppance - Sid (who has no problem messing with toys and upsetting his sister in the process) gets traumatised by the realisation that toys are alive, Stinky Pete (whose bitterness comes from never being played with) finally gets someone who will play with him in a way he finds horrible, and Lotso (who turned his perceived rejection into an excuse to control and torment other toys) is trapped in a horrible situation by someone with fond memories of his particular type of toy
Also, like I said, you know that nostalgia isn't an inherently bad thing, right? I already pointed out how it at least informs the film proper in a way that isn't just about preying on people's memories (at least not compared to the likes of, say, Jurassic World). It still sees Andy give up all the toys (even Woody, which he wasn't originally going to do) so it acknowledges the importance of the past without wallowing too hard in it. It quite rightly understands that this is the end of an era instead of just an empty experience to be replicated out of fondness for the past.
This is what I'm getting at with all this - you can't just get hung up on superficial details and try to cynically overlook a film's strengths because they don't fit with your preconceptions of what a "good" movie should be like. Rather than just go "I don't like this", try asking yourself "why don't I like this?"
Again, you still haven't convinced me that they didn't rely on the nostalgia factor for emotional responses, TS3 doesn't stand out as an independent movie the same way its predecessors do, if you didn't already have a connection with the characters from the first 2 films then there is no way that the film would have much of an impact on you.
Also, there is no closure, Pixar isn't dumb enough to give up on the most grossing series, Toy Story 4 is coming in with full charge Choo Choo ! And I can't wait to see the over-hype for such a film once again.
"Why I don't like this ?" This is funny because I think I gave enough reasons to justify my dislike of the film so far, while you keep talking about how much the movie made you feel good, but if you want more, sure ?
- It's not funny, it fails at being funny, the jokes are a joke.
- Some of the toys are a bunch of irrational idiots that serve no purpose other than advancing the plot, in the first film it does make enough sense to not believe Woody, but in the third film it's way too convenient to the point where the rest of the movie wouldn't have happened had they believed him, it's not like Woody has been right mhmmmm for the past 15 years ?!
I have many nitpicks, but this one was the most annoying:
- I will never forget the stupidity of this part, so while all of the toys are in the magnetic thingy or whatever, the purple bear is stuck under something, Woody tries to save him using a golf club but it lefts him off the ground because it's metal, then Buzz grabs it and uses his weight to bring it down, then they use it to save the bear, then ALL THREE OF THEM USE THE SAME GOLF CLUB TO GET LIFTED BACK UP. WOW. Also, everyone goes back down at some point, but it is never explained how the metal dog got down...I get this is just a cartoon, but the previous movies made enough logical sense for the world they're in, contrary to this film.
You still haven't explained exactly why that is a problem beyond the fact that you seem to arbitrarily consider one approach to be better than the other. Besides, Manchester already creates a traumatic situation and explores what kind of character emerges from it - the actual plot is kicked off by Kyle Chandler's character dying of a heart attack before examining how Affleck and Hedges are affected by his death. Affleck's tragic past is already hinted at multiple times before it does get revealed halfway through, and it's not like it's the first flashback in the film either - the film's constant flashbacks do get at the idea that one can't escape their past and how it affects their present/future. It's a matter of what storytelling structure benefits the film most. Would In Bruges have been better if Harry had explained his real plan for Ray and Ken in the first couple of scenes, or is the film better served by having the reveal be hidden until at least halfway through? That's the kind of thing you need to think about when considering how a film delivers exposition and develops characters.
Also, that last part was not supposed to be "just a description of the film", it's a general approach to emotional narrative structure. A film is like a rollercoaster - the enjoyment and appreciation come from the ways in which it goes up and down or slow and fast between beginning and end. A rollercoaster that stays on the same incline at the same speed all the way through is a pretty useless rollercoaster and I'd maintain that the same is true of films that maintain the same tone no matter what.
Also, that last part was not supposed to be "just a description of the film", it's a general approach to emotional narrative structure. A film is like a rollercoaster - the enjoyment and appreciation come from the ways in which it goes up and down or slow and fast between beginning and end. A rollercoaster that stays on the same incline at the same speed all the way through is a pretty useless rollercoaster and I'd maintain that the same is true of films that maintain the same tone no matter what.
Thanks I guess for telling me what a good drama is supposed to be like...but unfortunately Manchester still doesn't fall in that category in my opinion, it's funny how you say that a film should be a rollercoaster, but yet MBTS is a pretty toned down and dull with little to no twists or turns, even the characters stay the same as they were in the beginning.
__________________
"A film has to be a dialogue, not a monologue — a dialogue to provoke in the viewer his own thoughts, his own feelings. And if a film is a dialogue, then it’s a good film; if it’s not a dialogue, it’s a bad film."
"A film has to be a dialogue, not a monologue — a dialogue to provoke in the viewer his own thoughts, his own feelings. And if a film is a dialogue, then it’s a good film; if it’s not a dialogue, it’s a bad film."
- Michael "Gloomy Old Fart" Haneke
Last edited by Okay; 04-06-17 at 07:33 AM.
