Best Animated Film: 2004
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Re: Best Animated Film: 2004
Never saw Shark Tale and I like Shrek 2 well enough, but damned if <em>The Incredibles</em> isn't still one of the best superhero movies. Beats almost everything the MCU has put out.
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: 2004
I think this is the last animated film category where my least favourite best picture nominee is better than my least favourite animated film nominee (which is why I’m never* deeply irritated about 5 nominees, especially now). I didn’t see any other animated films from 2004.
Shark Tale is awful. It’s so bad. I’m sorta annoyed Martin Scorsese is in it. Everything about it pissed me off. It’s mercifully short, though.
After hating Shrek, I’m actually surprised at how much I enjoyed Shrek 2. I’m not talking about it being very good or anything, but there are witty moments throughout. Puss in Boots is a genuinely inspired addition. The song score is less egregious (actually, outside the Oscar nominee, integrated in a manner that makes the movie feel like a musical)
Of course, this is going to The Incredibles. It’s still top 2/3 Pixar. I called it nimble in the Pixar thread and a recent rewatch suggests that I underrated it there. That superb voice cast. The set pieces are genuinely exciting (the 100 Mile Dash) with terrific beats (that laugh he does when running on water). The screenplay itself is just a marvel of structure and dialogue (almost everything Edna Mode says has entered into conversation with me – “No capes!” – “And yet, here we are” – “I know darling, I know….” - “I’m sure I don’t know darling, luck favours the prepared.”)
A quick word about the 2004 nominations in general. We’ve seen inspired film years lead to disappointing best picture line-ups but we generally would still see solid acting or writing categories to somewhat mitigate the disappointment (a year like 1999 comes to mind). 2004 is year where they just whiffed category after category in particularly disappointing ways. Best Supporting Actor felt very much like clean-up. Best Actor omitted a character actor in favour of a star at his blandest. Jamie Foxx was sweeping his way to an Oscar but they felt the need to category fraud him to a second nomination (why?...). I look at most categories and see what was missing, not what was there.
*subject to change
Shark Tale is awful. It’s so bad. I’m sorta annoyed Martin Scorsese is in it. Everything about it pissed me off. It’s mercifully short, though.
After hating Shrek, I’m actually surprised at how much I enjoyed Shrek 2. I’m not talking about it being very good or anything, but there are witty moments throughout. Puss in Boots is a genuinely inspired addition. The song score is less egregious (actually, outside the Oscar nominee, integrated in a manner that makes the movie feel like a musical)
Of course, this is going to The Incredibles. It’s still top 2/3 Pixar. I called it nimble in the Pixar thread and a recent rewatch suggests that I underrated it there. That superb voice cast. The set pieces are genuinely exciting (the 100 Mile Dash) with terrific beats (that laugh he does when running on water). The screenplay itself is just a marvel of structure and dialogue (almost everything Edna Mode says has entered into conversation with me – “No capes!” – “And yet, here we are” – “I know darling, I know….” - “I’m sure I don’t know darling, luck favours the prepared.”)
A quick word about the 2004 nominations in general. We’ve seen inspired film years lead to disappointing best picture line-ups but we generally would still see solid acting or writing categories to somewhat mitigate the disappointment (a year like 1999 comes to mind). 2004 is year where they just whiffed category after category in particularly disappointing ways. Best Supporting Actor felt very much like clean-up. Best Actor omitted a character actor in favour of a star at his blandest. Jamie Foxx was sweeping his way to an Oscar but they felt the need to category fraud him to a second nomination (why?...). I look at most categories and see what was missing, not what was there.
*subject to change
Best Animated Film: 2004
Continuing Okri's excellent work...
2004 would prove to be another year backing up Damien's claim that this category needn't exist when it doesn't appear that there are enough good candidates to fill a three film lineup. The biggest question of this category was whether or not voters would nominate a technological breakthrough that nobody liked (The Polar Express) or an empty slice of commerce that nobody liked (Shark Tale). Looking through the list of overlooked films doesn't amount to much either with films that I had to look up like Disney's Teacher's Pet, Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence, Sky Blue, The Legend of Buddha, Clifford's Really Big Movie, and Home on the Range. I haven't seen The SpongeBob Squarepants Movie (2004) but it seems like a fitful replacement.
It really is interesting that so many of these early 00's lineups render years like 1999 a fluke.
All three nominees were in the top ten grossing films of the year, which is very depressing when one considers Shark Tale. It's a garish Dreamworks feature that seeks to capitalize on trends started by Shrek but in the world of Finding Nemo. It's a "liar revealed" story involving a narcissistic dreamer fish (Will Smith) who concocts a plan with a wussy great white shark (Jack Black) after his brother was killed to position Jack Black as "The Shark-slayer" which draws in the attention of... the mob. It's a very Dreamworks-y movie. Imagine if Shrek centered around Donkey. I have no doubt that if a poll were taken of what is the worst nominee of every year combined, Shark Tale would "win" hands down. It's certainly the ugliest nominee, especially compared to Finding Nemo released one year earlier. I wouldn't go that far if only because it's probably the leading beneficiary (for me) of what I'll call a "Nostalgia Allowance." What might have seemed interminable at the time benefits in hindsight because nothing of that sort is being made anymore and comes across as sort of charming. Sort of.
What's the highest grossing film of 2004? What's the highest grossing domestic film between 2000-2006? What's the highest grossing animated film until Toy Story 3? If you somehow guessed Shrek 2, you're right. I remembered this film only for three reasons: there is a newlywed montage between Shrek and Fiona set to The Counting Crows song "Accidentally in Love," for Donkey's instant infatuation with being transformed into a white stallion, for the winning addition of Antonio Banderas as Puss N Boots, which I have no doubt propelled many return viewings. I rewatched Shrek 2 for this vote and while it certainly benefits from a Nostalgia Allowance, I still think this franchise deserves a bit better than to be collectively remembered as something we're all embarrassed about. Sure, the human animation is lousy (Pixar waited until they were ready for that) but I think it benefits from a very flawed hero in Shrek, something missing from today's animated fare. I read somewhere that Shrek's defining personality trait is that he doesn't want to be in his own movie. It's staggering to me that they managed to stretch that to four films. But taken on its own term, his insecurities are a very adult story-driver more befitting a sitcom than an animated film for children. Like, did children really enjoy watching Shrek measure himself to Fiona's childhood crush on Prince Charming or deal with her father's racism towards ogres? The knock on Shrek is that it's an empty joke burrito of references, but it's such a bewildering joke burrito from today's standards.
But the biggest problem with Shrek 2 is that it's both disposable AND boring. We don't need it. It's similar to Toy Story 2 in that it redefines itself how future iterations will move as less a character origin story (which is to say "The Story") but as an ensemble affair. The biggest difference though is that Toy Story 2 found new, specific emotional ground to tread with its characters but Shrek 2 feels like a retread of the same stuff. Even worse, it's cynically disposable. It's product. But it's also product in a story where not really that much happens. Shrek doesn't transform into a human until halfway through the movie. There are good ideas in the film about Fiona's father being cursed himself but at every turn it's concerned about presenting early 00's empty calories desperately trying to remind audiences that they're having fun. Whereas Toy Story 2 evolved to refine its language of storytelling, Shrek 2 ultimately has none. And yet, I like Shrek enough as a character (and how he couldn't be more attracted to his ugly green ogre wife years before sex positivity entered the lexicon -- these two fuck) and I enjoy how the film plays on our collective knowledge of fairy tales to call it passable enough entertainment, but part of this is because the franchise lost the war.
But we're talking about The Incredibles. I am going to predict that the only race that will match this year for its runaway victor will be 2008 which will see WALL*E compete with Kung Fu Panda and Bolt. I've recently rewatched The Incredibles and written about it. I think it's the best comic book film ever made, based on an existing comic book or not. I don't think anything new was said about the world of superheroes until Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse with its lead of personal faith. It's witty. It features as inspired a voice cast as we've seen (Craig Nelson, Holly Hunter, and Sarah Vowell!). And to this day, I remain in awe of how it successfully restarts itself twice over the course of ten minutes (with the opening newsreel and Mr. I's marriage to Elastigirl + launch of his new villain) and still manages to get the ball rolling towards a breathless second act, all while tapping into real human emotion about mid-life crisis. And as a CGI animated film almost twenty years old, its rendering of humans still mostly works with most of their stiffness feeling like a choice.
I don't think anybody remembers 2004 as a great year for the Academy Awards, nor does it top anybody's list of possessing any of the great outrages of our time with cries of "Scandal!" But even though I remain quite a fan of two of the nominees, there was a stark milquetoast quality to the lineup in comparison to films that made a greater impact that year. I'm talking about Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, even the largely manufactured Red/Blue State match-up between Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Passion of the Christ, but especially The Incredibles which was seemingly something Hollywood could be incredibly proud of itself for launch into theaters. An enormous hit with critics and audiences, which felt doubly-meaningful as Hollywood entered its first post-Lord of the Rings year leaving an unmistakable emptiness in the calendar (with Lemony Snicket clearly no replacement). The Incredibles -- and Pixar -- was something everybody could agree on in our increasingly divided country (save for one, RIP Damien). But voters connected more to... Finding Neverland. But I have a theory that by voting time some voters felt different, as evidenced by its surprise win for Best Sound Effects Editing. Maybe if Eternal Sunshine... was released in 2003 as it was originally slotted then The Incredibles would've been the first animated film to receive an Academy Award for writing?
But I digress. Yeah, I vote for The Incredibles.
2004 would prove to be another year backing up Damien's claim that this category needn't exist when it doesn't appear that there are enough good candidates to fill a three film lineup. The biggest question of this category was whether or not voters would nominate a technological breakthrough that nobody liked (The Polar Express) or an empty slice of commerce that nobody liked (Shark Tale). Looking through the list of overlooked films doesn't amount to much either with films that I had to look up like Disney's Teacher's Pet, Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence, Sky Blue, The Legend of Buddha, Clifford's Really Big Movie, and Home on the Range. I haven't seen The SpongeBob Squarepants Movie (2004) but it seems like a fitful replacement.
It really is interesting that so many of these early 00's lineups render years like 1999 a fluke.
All three nominees were in the top ten grossing films of the year, which is very depressing when one considers Shark Tale. It's a garish Dreamworks feature that seeks to capitalize on trends started by Shrek but in the world of Finding Nemo. It's a "liar revealed" story involving a narcissistic dreamer fish (Will Smith) who concocts a plan with a wussy great white shark (Jack Black) after his brother was killed to position Jack Black as "The Shark-slayer" which draws in the attention of... the mob. It's a very Dreamworks-y movie. Imagine if Shrek centered around Donkey. I have no doubt that if a poll were taken of what is the worst nominee of every year combined, Shark Tale would "win" hands down. It's certainly the ugliest nominee, especially compared to Finding Nemo released one year earlier. I wouldn't go that far if only because it's probably the leading beneficiary (for me) of what I'll call a "Nostalgia Allowance." What might have seemed interminable at the time benefits in hindsight because nothing of that sort is being made anymore and comes across as sort of charming. Sort of.
What's the highest grossing film of 2004? What's the highest grossing domestic film between 2000-2006? What's the highest grossing animated film until Toy Story 3? If you somehow guessed Shrek 2, you're right. I remembered this film only for three reasons: there is a newlywed montage between Shrek and Fiona set to The Counting Crows song "Accidentally in Love," for Donkey's instant infatuation with being transformed into a white stallion, for the winning addition of Antonio Banderas as Puss N Boots, which I have no doubt propelled many return viewings. I rewatched Shrek 2 for this vote and while it certainly benefits from a Nostalgia Allowance, I still think this franchise deserves a bit better than to be collectively remembered as something we're all embarrassed about. Sure, the human animation is lousy (Pixar waited until they were ready for that) but I think it benefits from a very flawed hero in Shrek, something missing from today's animated fare. I read somewhere that Shrek's defining personality trait is that he doesn't want to be in his own movie. It's staggering to me that they managed to stretch that to four films. But taken on its own term, his insecurities are a very adult story-driver more befitting a sitcom than an animated film for children. Like, did children really enjoy watching Shrek measure himself to Fiona's childhood crush on Prince Charming or deal with her father's racism towards ogres? The knock on Shrek is that it's an empty joke burrito of references, but it's such a bewildering joke burrito from today's standards.
But the biggest problem with Shrek 2 is that it's both disposable AND boring. We don't need it. It's similar to Toy Story 2 in that it redefines itself how future iterations will move as less a character origin story (which is to say "The Story") but as an ensemble affair. The biggest difference though is that Toy Story 2 found new, specific emotional ground to tread with its characters but Shrek 2 feels like a retread of the same stuff. Even worse, it's cynically disposable. It's product. But it's also product in a story where not really that much happens. Shrek doesn't transform into a human until halfway through the movie. There are good ideas in the film about Fiona's father being cursed himself but at every turn it's concerned about presenting early 00's empty calories desperately trying to remind audiences that they're having fun. Whereas Toy Story 2 evolved to refine its language of storytelling, Shrek 2 ultimately has none. And yet, I like Shrek enough as a character (and how he couldn't be more attracted to his ugly green ogre wife years before sex positivity entered the lexicon -- these two fuck) and I enjoy how the film plays on our collective knowledge of fairy tales to call it passable enough entertainment, but part of this is because the franchise lost the war.
But we're talking about The Incredibles. I am going to predict that the only race that will match this year for its runaway victor will be 2008 which will see WALL*E compete with Kung Fu Panda and Bolt. I've recently rewatched The Incredibles and written about it. I think it's the best comic book film ever made, based on an existing comic book or not. I don't think anything new was said about the world of superheroes until Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse with its lead of personal faith. It's witty. It features as inspired a voice cast as we've seen (Craig Nelson, Holly Hunter, and Sarah Vowell!). And to this day, I remain in awe of how it successfully restarts itself twice over the course of ten minutes (with the opening newsreel and Mr. I's marriage to Elastigirl + launch of his new villain) and still manages to get the ball rolling towards a breathless second act, all while tapping into real human emotion about mid-life crisis. And as a CGI animated film almost twenty years old, its rendering of humans still mostly works with most of their stiffness feeling like a choice.
I don't think anybody remembers 2004 as a great year for the Academy Awards, nor does it top anybody's list of possessing any of the great outrages of our time with cries of "Scandal!" But even though I remain quite a fan of two of the nominees, there was a stark milquetoast quality to the lineup in comparison to films that made a greater impact that year. I'm talking about Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, even the largely manufactured Red/Blue State match-up between Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Passion of the Christ, but especially The Incredibles which was seemingly something Hollywood could be incredibly proud of itself for launch into theaters. An enormous hit with critics and audiences, which felt doubly-meaningful as Hollywood entered its first post-Lord of the Rings year leaving an unmistakable emptiness in the calendar (with Lemony Snicket clearly no replacement). The Incredibles -- and Pixar -- was something everybody could agree on in our increasingly divided country (save for one, RIP Damien). But voters connected more to... Finding Neverland. But I have a theory that by voting time some voters felt different, as evidenced by its surprise win for Best Sound Effects Editing. Maybe if Eternal Sunshine... was released in 2003 as it was originally slotted then The Incredibles would've been the first animated film to receive an Academy Award for writing?
But I digress. Yeah, I vote for The Incredibles.
"How's the despair?"