It's been 16 years, do you think Monsters Inc. was robbed?

it's been 16 years, do you think Monsters Inc. was robbed?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=rabwbzi6rLU
youtube.com/watch?v=cXo6JEK5WVE
youtube.com/watch?v=pCNhmbse3Sc
deseretnews.com/article/879975/Animated-feature-films-finally-find-respect-in-Oscars-world.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

The real crime was this movie getting nominated instead of Waking Life. Even Final Fantasy would've been a better choice.

In the Sound Editing category, absolutely. Brave winning anything is still the biggest travesty, though.

Fuck no. Shrek was an important film, and was the film that gave Disney the middle finger. It was about time someone did that.

youtube.com/watch?v=rabwbzi6rLU

>Joke directed at a democrat

holy shit, it was a different time

monsters inc is unwatchable garbage
in every way

Always cringed at these academy shenanigans of animated characters acting like real people.

Tim & Eric did a good spoof of it

youtube.com/watch?v=cXo6JEK5WVE

No Monster's Inc kind of sucks

It's not funny and it's way too predictable.

>Jimmy Neutron was nominated for an oscar

sparse pickings that year

Nah, Shrek 1 was great.

>a democrat
Al Gore, specifically. That guy was a weirdo.

Every registered democrat is considered untouchable today by hollywood, unless it's a softball setup to bash a republican

The true thing that Shrek robbed

I want to fuck donkey so hard.

One was original and different the other generic. You do the math.

youtube.com/watch?v=pCNhmbse3Sc

We all know who really should've won

>Nine films qualify this year, so the academy will choose three nominees from this list in time for the February nomination announcement:

>"Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within," this summer's costly digital-animated flop, based on the best-selling video game. (Released nationwide July 11.)

>"Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius," Paramount Picture's first foray into the digital animation field. (To be released nationwide next Friday.)

>"Marco Polo: Return to Xanadu," a little-seen animated adventure based on the story of the real-life explorer. (Played a handful of metropolitan markets during the summer.)

>"Monsters, Inc.," the latest fruit of Disney and Pixar's labors. (Opened nationwide Nov. 2.)

>"Osmosis Jones," a live-action/animated comedy from the Farrelly brothers. (Opened nationwide Aug. 10.)

>"The Prince of Light," an animated adaptation of "The Ramayana." (Played a handful of select markets.)

>"Shrek," the year's biggest hit (so far) and a major breakthrough for Dreamworks. (Opened nationwide May 18.)

>"The Trumpet of the Swan," director Richard Rich's disappointing musical adaptation of the E.B. White book. (Opened in Utah May 18.)

>"Waking Life," director Richard Linklater's trippy exploration of dream states and "reality." (Opened in Utah Nov. 16.)

deseretnews.com/article/879975/Animated-feature-films-finally-find-respect-in-Oscars-world.html

How the fuck was Atlantis not in consideration?

Shrek 1 and 2 are the best of the best for Dreamworks

From the same source as above:

>By the way, in case you're wondering why Disney's "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" isn't on that list, the answer is simple: The Mouse House will need all the help it can get to compete against "Shrek," and it doesn't want to compete against itself. (In other words, the studio didn't submit the film.)

Fudgehead was decent but Shrek was definitely better

Besides, Nick Movies would get their animation Oscar years later.

Yeah that's 'cause the republicans went absolutely fucknuts over the next two decades

Holy shit. Learned something new.

The Oscars have always been a popularity contest. Jimmy Neutron earned more money at the box office than both of those other films combined.

Weren't there a lot of jokes about Biden?

Hell no,Shrek changed animation and it's impact is still felt today.


Monsters Inc wast just another Treacly Pixar flick

What do you expect from a category where members let their children pick the winner for them?

At least it looked nice, Shrek was TV tier CG with stiff animation and an ugly desktop buddy artstyle.

Yes. I like Shrek, but MI got fucked over.

>that Weinstein joke
Lel.

We need a new Shrek now more than ever. Disney is fucking out of control.

It was to prop up Obama. "Haha Biden is eccentric but fun uncle, Obama has him under control guys don't worry XD"

No, Shrek was a very unique animated movie, a real game changer to be honest.

IF IT HAD CHRIS FARLEY STILL YEAH THEN IT JUSTIFY ITS WIN.

His anger about Lego Movie not getting in is truly righteous though.

I always found Monsters Inc to be good but way too overrated.

but this time, it need to be in 2D.

it was so good it got a prequel.

Funny thing, waaaaaaaaaaay back in the day and I used to think that Smash Mouth was the backstreet boys because they said "backstreet" in the song.

i thought Duckula was part fo the Duck Tales universe because it was about a duck.

how did he not manage to get most film names right

It should have been in over Big Hero 6 which was really mediocre

We need a REAL anti-monopoly law. That FUCKING WORKS.

disney have the money, they make laws.

>not liking the Elon Musk documentary

Monsters Inc. was good but overrated, Monsters University didn't need to exist and was trash.

like every post 2010 pixar sequel

Does money protect you from snipers?

>Monsters University didn't need to exist
Yeah, it came out of nowhere and nobody asked for it.

>and was trash.
Fuck you, it was actually pretty good all things considered.

Marco Polo: Return to Xanadu is actually a shitty re-edited version of the obscure 1972 film Marco Polo Junior Versus the Red Dragon (retitled for TV broadcast in 1976 as The Magic Medallion).

Are there seriously people who think that Monsters Inc was better than Shrek?

technically yes

Shrek definitely felt unique and was a smash hit at the time, but the early pixar movies are just so damn good that it feels unfair to compare them to other movies of the times.

>other movies of the time
direct competitors anyway, I mean.

Monsters Inc ages a lot better than Shrek because Shrek is trying to be a little edgy and doesn't shy away from pop culture, which will inevitably date your movie.

>technically
>but still possible
That raises my hopes.

it was only made becasue some asshole got butthurt over disney.

couple of years earlier another persons did same.

Shrek was unique and something unexpected. Monsters Inc. was basically like every other Pixar movie ever made.

Speaking of not submitting something do you have to submit something for best picture if you want best song or do you just submit seperatly? Surely there is a reason Hasbro did not try and get an Oscar for open up your eyes. It was one of the best pieces of music I have heard in years.

No I mean technically like you can hire protection and be so far away from nuts that trying to even get in a spot to snipe you be sooner rolled off to jail.

>tfw Shrek made a The Matrix reference
Fuck! The movie is that old.

Shrek is a legitimately better movie overall than Monsters Inc.

Films are always going to be dated that's unavoidable. From graphics, to sound, to performance, hell even actors, you'll see/hear a voice and go "holy shit I forgot that guy was a big deal" or "remember when he was a nobody?"

I understand your point but I think it's unseasonably to make a note of that unless the film is plagued with it like Robot Chicken.

>Films are always going to be dated that's unavoidable. From graphics, to sound, to performance, hell even actors
That is a very strange thing to say. It is simply not true, unless, and the burden of proof is on you, humans somehow get better at writing and acting every 10 years or so.

>hell even actors, you'll see/hear a voice and go "holy shit I forgot that guy was a big deal" or "remember when he was a nobody?"
That is unrelated to a film being "dated". That's not what people mean when they say "dated".

Shrek does pop-culture references right in that 90% of the movie's humor doesn't rely on them and they are fairly subtle. As opposed to modern movies, where the vast majority of the humor relies on understanding CURRENT YEAR references.

It's not they get "better" it's they are "subjective" as in what was popular loses popularity and becomes the abnormality. They standout for reasons like how they talk or how dramatic they act, they date themselves by the means they operate.

>fairly subtle
You praise Shrek but Shrek 2 was the one that started the whole trend of shoving pop culture references down everyone's throat. At the time, there was some bullshit media articles going around about how the Simpsons was an "intellectual" show because of all the references and subtle jokes and then fucking Shrek 2 came along with all the product placement to make a studio exec's wet dreams come true. It was the snowball that jumpstarted the shit we get today.

for context of the argument of Shrek yes it does.

Well, and what if I happen to like a certain type of acting? What if I like, say, 70s acting the most. Am I wrong?

So, is this change for the better? If not, should we stop making movies, if everything we make becomes dated in 20 years?

He's right, fuck ireland

Change is good, change is part of evolution, it's adaptation. Things constantly change to survive, entertainment is no different.

>WAAAH WHY ISNT IT MORE OF A POPULARITY CONTEST! HOW DARE THEY GIVE NON-AMERICAN FILMS A CHANCE!
I totally get being mad over the Lego Movie not getting in, but how can you seriously bitch about it being because an award show isn't basing itself on popularity enough?

Monsters University is great. I'd call it a 10/10 movie if it weren't for the basic bitch, last minute liar-revealed twist.

This happens every few decades. Right now things are heavily politicized and the mainstream population understand surrealism and abstract writing somewhat more through internet humor and memes. It'll of course be different in 30 years.

just fyi the entire category was created literally so they didn't have to worry about Shrek winning best picture, it was a completely foregone conclusion that it would win best animated.

>brave winning anything is still the biggest travesty
could not agree more

I'd say Megamind was their best.

Shrek was better and revolutionary.

He is absolutely right about the lego movie being robbed though, that film should have won and it wasn't even nominated. What a fucking joke.

a movie doesn't have to be good to get a prequel, just marketable

>Monsters University
>Cars 2
>Finding Dory
>Incredibles 2
>Toy Story 4

all of these movies are nostalgia cashins requested by Disney.

How about The Boxtrolls? Mixed reviews, so-so box office, not a lot of fans of that movie. It only got in because the academy likes stop-motion.

LOL imagine living in a timeline where not only did that get nominated, but also won the Oscar.

They should reboot the whole franchise with Chris Farley playing Shrek as originally intended.
>but he's been dead since 1997
I DON'T CARE

>but this time, it need to be in 2D.

Not really, no. MI was a great movie, but Shrek felt like something entirely different than any other mainstream animated movie at the time. Giving it recognition isn't that much of a stretch.

I'm pretty sure that kids still watch Shrek and just find it funny even without understanding some references.
They are similarly done like the ones in Spongebob or Rocko's Modern Life where you don't need to get them for it to be funny but if you watch it again later you actually understand and appreciate them.

Name a show from the 90's and early 2000's that looked as good as Shrek.

we have technology, we need someone daring, who wants to break the rules again.

>Not wanting The Incredibles 2

Shit taste detected

ohhhh, i'm very excited for a sequel to a movie from like 14 years ago.


actually, not really. momentum is gone.

I wanted Incredibles 2 for a Q4 '06/07 release date. Ten years later is a cash grab and you know it

>Even Final Fantasy would've been a better choice.
Let's not go saying things we can't take back.

This is more Brad Bird's fault than Pixar's.

Pixar wanted an Incredibles Sequel a lot sooner. But they left that ball in Brad Bird's court, who's gone on record to say that he didn't want take any Continuations to the movie until he came up with something as good as the original.

It's not their fault Bird is such a hack, that it took him over a decade to come up with a good story.

Monster's inc and Shrek were both great. I remember both of them fondly. I don't like to rate which of them was objectively better. Shrek was fucking hilarious, but i'll say Monster's Inc was very emotionally poignant. The final act has so much going for it. The laughter replacing the screams, the door, the very final moment.

Great. Now you have to prove that all change is good. And that Shrek 1 is somehow flawed.

What kind of movie would it take to make 2D animation popular again? Normal people don't care about artistic foreign films so it needs to be something marketable but good enough to leave an impact.

the biggest advantage of 2d over 3d is expresiveness.

it should be a comedy first theh ...uh...

Yes

In that case, kill yourself.

Yep, that is my argument. And it's still better than yours.

holy shit shrek is real ?

Monster Inc. is great, but Shrek is easily the better movie.