Best Animated Film: 2001
-
Moviesandpizza
- Graduate
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue May 09, 2023 2:06 pm
Re: Best Animated Film: 2001
Yes the thing about Waking Life was that it wasn’t “real” animation. I just remember the huge outcry of outrage over no Waking Life and the WTF of Jimmy Neutron lol
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Re: Best Animated Film: 2001
To address Sabin's concern, I believe we're right now playing out the same situation that came up with Waking Life. The animated film branch doesn't consider it animation. I think they think the technique of filming live actors and then animating over it is not within the spirit of the award. I can't say I'm disappointed, because I don't like Waking Life or A Scanner Darkly and would be happy if Linklater would stop making animated films.
On to the show. I didn't see Jimmy Neutron and I can't say I'm disappointed that I didn't. It looks really awful. Even for the state of 2001 computer animation, it looked about 20 years out of date. Then compare it with Monsters Inc and you can see how cheap it looks. Pixar really was at the top of the industry and it took most other studios a long time to catch up, which is a shame, but there you have it.
Between Shrek and Monsters Inc, I'm torn. I like Monsters Inc well enough, but I think I'm one of the few people who don't love it like so many others. I thought Monsters University was a better film. That's the main reason Shrek comes out on top to me. Shrek was a bit different than animated films we'd seen before and the ugly character was the star of the show. It spoke about appearances don't always speak to the heart of the superficiality and that resonates still today. Monsters Inc, for all its brilliant animation work and creativity, doesn't feel like it goes nearly as deep as Shrek and that feels like a very odd thing to say.
On to the show. I didn't see Jimmy Neutron and I can't say I'm disappointed that I didn't. It looks really awful. Even for the state of 2001 computer animation, it looked about 20 years out of date. Then compare it with Monsters Inc and you can see how cheap it looks. Pixar really was at the top of the industry and it took most other studios a long time to catch up, which is a shame, but there you have it.
Between Shrek and Monsters Inc, I'm torn. I like Monsters Inc well enough, but I think I'm one of the few people who don't love it like so many others. I thought Monsters University was a better film. That's the main reason Shrek comes out on top to me. Shrek was a bit different than animated films we'd seen before and the ugly character was the star of the show. It spoke about appearances don't always speak to the heart of the superficiality and that resonates still today. Monsters Inc, for all its brilliant animation work and creativity, doesn't feel like it goes nearly as deep as Shrek and that feels like a very odd thing to say.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Re: Best Animated Film: 2001
The first year of the category includes probably the biggest miss in the category's now-twenty history: Waking Life. I don't know if it's Richard Linklater's best film but it's probably the finest distillation of who he is and what he does. But I wonder considering Richard Linklater's outsider status was it truly next in the running? I would've guessed Atlantis: The Lost Empire (which may have been a bomb but it's full of beloved industry talent like Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise) but Wes doesn't list it on the short list. Other contenders include the half-animated Osmosis Jones and the historic bomb that is Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Maybe it was. It's interesting that in the category's first year, no traditional 2D animated films seem to have been in consideration for a nomination. I don't think that would have been the case even one year prior. This is interesting because the 2D animation of this era looks better than many of the 3D films.
I saw Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius for the first time a few years ago. My take on it was that it was obviously an ugly-looking film by today's standard but by early 2000's standards it's a fine enough offering for young audiences. There's a fun energy to it that lends well to that era's 3D animation. I also like the lack of major name talent in the lead role. Had the category been expanded to five and its nomination would have been greeted as a no-brainer. No win from me but not an abomination.
Then there's Shrek. Poor Shrek. I don't know how much people on this board realize how much Shrek has become a meme over the last ten years. I've spoken to my friends about why Shrek has become such a joke in internet circles and the closest I can get is it's a perfect example of the kind of thing that we look back on and say "Why did we like this?" Its snarky humor, its lousy early Aughties soundtrack, its dated movie references (Princess Fiona doing The Matrix), even its stars feel a bit from a different era. But I think this downplays what a sensation it was. Shrek was in the official selection of the 54th Cannes Film Festival competing for the Palme over such films as The Fast Runner, Pulse, and Late Marriage to say nothing of its PGA and BAFTA nominations for Best Film. If this category didn't exist, I'm not convinced it wouldn't have been up for Best Picture.
Anyway, I've been in the middle on Shrek since I first saw it at a sneak preview in Tucson, AZ months before its release. I wrote on my audience card: "It's too stupid for adults, it's too grown-up for kids, it'll probably do okay." I still hold to a lot of those thoughts, but I think Shrek is a bit underrated these days for creating strong emotional arcs for its lead characters. Shrek is a good character who needs to grow and change a lot. It doesn't get any consideration from me but I think we might actually be at the point where Shrek is a little underrated.
Since putting my list out there, I wish I could mix up the listings more. I'm really not sure if Monsters, Inc. is better than The Incredibles or WALL*E, but something that leapt out at me during this PIXAR rewatch is that Monsters, Inc. is such a perfect distillation of one of PIXAR's most beloved formulas, the "What if [BLANK] had feelings?" approach to storytelling, which I think they do very well. Anyway, Monsters, Inc. is just one of those films that I love and watch when I'm sick. I love Mike and Sulley's friendship and their schticky banter. I love Sulley's arc with Boo. It has a handful of flaws: a third act that's far too reminiscent of Toy Story 2's, a second act that's a bit too constrained to running around an office building, and of course one's tolerance for Billy Crystal will depend on a lot. But every time I watch it, I feel like I've watched the world become a better place. This is going to be one of the easiest choices for me in Monsters, Inc.
I saw Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius for the first time a few years ago. My take on it was that it was obviously an ugly-looking film by today's standard but by early 2000's standards it's a fine enough offering for young audiences. There's a fun energy to it that lends well to that era's 3D animation. I also like the lack of major name talent in the lead role. Had the category been expanded to five and its nomination would have been greeted as a no-brainer. No win from me but not an abomination.
Then there's Shrek. Poor Shrek. I don't know how much people on this board realize how much Shrek has become a meme over the last ten years. I've spoken to my friends about why Shrek has become such a joke in internet circles and the closest I can get is it's a perfect example of the kind of thing that we look back on and say "Why did we like this?" Its snarky humor, its lousy early Aughties soundtrack, its dated movie references (Princess Fiona doing The Matrix), even its stars feel a bit from a different era. But I think this downplays what a sensation it was. Shrek was in the official selection of the 54th Cannes Film Festival competing for the Palme over such films as The Fast Runner, Pulse, and Late Marriage to say nothing of its PGA and BAFTA nominations for Best Film. If this category didn't exist, I'm not convinced it wouldn't have been up for Best Picture.
Anyway, I've been in the middle on Shrek since I first saw it at a sneak preview in Tucson, AZ months before its release. I wrote on my audience card: "It's too stupid for adults, it's too grown-up for kids, it'll probably do okay." I still hold to a lot of those thoughts, but I think Shrek is a bit underrated these days for creating strong emotional arcs for its lead characters. Shrek is a good character who needs to grow and change a lot. It doesn't get any consideration from me but I think we might actually be at the point where Shrek is a little underrated.
Since putting my list out there, I wish I could mix up the listings more. I'm really not sure if Monsters, Inc. is better than The Incredibles or WALL*E, but something that leapt out at me during this PIXAR rewatch is that Monsters, Inc. is such a perfect distillation of one of PIXAR's most beloved formulas, the "What if [BLANK] had feelings?" approach to storytelling, which I think they do very well. Anyway, Monsters, Inc. is just one of those films that I love and watch when I'm sick. I love Mike and Sulley's friendship and their schticky banter. I love Sulley's arc with Boo. It has a handful of flaws: a third act that's far too reminiscent of Toy Story 2's, a second act that's a bit too constrained to running around an office building, and of course one's tolerance for Billy Crystal will depend on a lot. But every time I watch it, I feel like I've watched the world become a better place. This is going to be one of the easiest choices for me in Monsters, Inc.
"How's the despair?"
Best Animated Film: 2001
The thing that’s most interesting about the “specialized feature” categories this century is just how much better they became. It used to be that the documentary and foreign film categories were defined by what films were disqualified or omitted. Now a film might be ignored, but that feels more just a function of numbers opposed to it being willful. What makes the animated category even more interesting is that it’s improvement (in my eyes, I know that’s not a universal thought) feels much more organic than AMPAS trying to make the quality better. It just happened over time. Now we get 1-2 “pure art” entrants, 1-2 quality commercial play entries and then 1-2 mild box office hits filling the category. The key caveat being over time. It’s inopportune for AMPAS to have debuted the category this year. In 1998, you had 4-6 films that did decently. In 1999 you had a fair stellar crop as well. However, 2000 was a step down and 2001 even more so. I think the early aughts were a pretty barren time for animated film (8 of the first ten years only had 3 nominees, something we haven’t had since 2010!)
Which makes the omission of Waking Life all the more disappointing. For me, it was the only animated film from 2001 I fully embraced. I found the style mesmerizing. And that score! It’s the cinematic equivalent of a stoner hangout session, but whatever. Richard Linklater’s animated films work for me.
I actually rewatched all three nominees as I hadn’t seen any of them since their initial release. When reserving Jimmy Neutron from the library, I discovered that it inspired two television series. While I won’t say it wore out its welcome, you can imagine it being more successful in that form. It’s very kiddy and I won’t deny I’m carrying a degree of resentment because I blame it for taking the slot that I thought was going to Waking Life. But there are moments of anarchic glee that remind me of kids playing (the amusement park space vehicles) that I don’t know how you script. Now, It shouldn’t have been nominated, but I won’t be as resentful of it going forward.
Conversely, Shrek is programmed to within an inch of its life. I remember liking it at the time, but time has not been kind. Firstly… it’s very ugly to watch. I get part of that is by design, but it goes even further than that. I can’t tell, to be fair, how much of it is due to computer animation having improved by leaps and bounds in the past twenty years. But Sabin’s comment – that Katzenberg “downgraded” animators to Shrek feels true. The animation in The Prince of Egypt was pretty stunning. This… not so much. There is some genuine wit (everything with the gingerbread man, John Lithgow’s performance) but overall it feels very strenuous and aimed very low.
Having rewatched Monsters Inc, I feel like a maybe underrated it in the Pixar thread. There’s genuine wit and warmth throughout. There are things I don’t care for (Billy Crystal is too much) and the door climax is redolent of Toy Story 2’s luggage conveyor. But the animation is pretty good (compare the care in drawing Sully to anything in Shrek), the concept is fun and of the three, it’s my (mild) vote.
Which makes the omission of Waking Life all the more disappointing. For me, it was the only animated film from 2001 I fully embraced. I found the style mesmerizing. And that score! It’s the cinematic equivalent of a stoner hangout session, but whatever. Richard Linklater’s animated films work for me.
I actually rewatched all three nominees as I hadn’t seen any of them since their initial release. When reserving Jimmy Neutron from the library, I discovered that it inspired two television series. While I won’t say it wore out its welcome, you can imagine it being more successful in that form. It’s very kiddy and I won’t deny I’m carrying a degree of resentment because I blame it for taking the slot that I thought was going to Waking Life. But there are moments of anarchic glee that remind me of kids playing (the amusement park space vehicles) that I don’t know how you script. Now, It shouldn’t have been nominated, but I won’t be as resentful of it going forward.
Conversely, Shrek is programmed to within an inch of its life. I remember liking it at the time, but time has not been kind. Firstly… it’s very ugly to watch. I get part of that is by design, but it goes even further than that. I can’t tell, to be fair, how much of it is due to computer animation having improved by leaps and bounds in the past twenty years. But Sabin’s comment – that Katzenberg “downgraded” animators to Shrek feels true. The animation in The Prince of Egypt was pretty stunning. This… not so much. There is some genuine wit (everything with the gingerbread man, John Lithgow’s performance) but overall it feels very strenuous and aimed very low.
Having rewatched Monsters Inc, I feel like a maybe underrated it in the Pixar thread. There’s genuine wit and warmth throughout. There are things I don’t care for (Billy Crystal is too much) and the door climax is redolent of Toy Story 2’s luggage conveyor. But the animation is pretty good (compare the care in drawing Sully to anything in Shrek), the concept is fun and of the three, it’s my (mild) vote.