Disney Closing Blue Sky Studios Down

[Farerb]

Well that awful "jumpy thing" is something that would pop up in a Lionsgate film (!), not a Disney feature. It just feels old already.

I don't disagree, I'm saying that this kind of humor was already there in previous Disney films, arguably since Aladdin even.

Although most of it HAS, since Rio seemed to go studiously out of its way to DNA-replicate the DreamWorks "hero", a pathetic nerd whom we are supposed to sympathize with for no other reason than "he's picked on", especially when the script seems to be doing most of the picking in the first place.

You just described Wreck-it Ralph. Good to know I'm not the only one who dislikes this film.

[EricJ]

No, technically, I was describing Turbo. And NOT the one from Wreck-It Ralph.

(And who wasn't a BlueSky character, but most had to probably look that up.)

[Ben]

Blue Sky.

Blue. Sky.

Two words.

And, yes, you were not only describing Ralph but lots of other basic screenwriting class animated films that have come along since the 90s. If you had one specifically in mind, perhaps you could have said so, although I’m sure no-one would have ever thought of Turbo. I don’t think anyone has thought of Turbo since it came and went. And you really think JK, after Shrek, didn't think that each new film might not be the "next big thing" to become a franchise? I can only see, 17 years after Shrek, that Boss Baby and Captain Underpants came along that year. You think he thought one of those was going to be another Shrek? Right as he sold the company...? Oops.

[EricJ]

There's a difference between Ralph, Blu, and...oh, since we're picking just about any DW character, let pick Po from Kung Fu Panda:
We FELT for Ralph. Yes, he's not the brightest brick in the pile, but we connect immediately that he's a nice guy at the heart (even if he's not supposed to be), that he gets the worst of it, and that he has a simple goal in mind, even if he's not going about it the right way.

DW, and post-Illumination Blue Sky who was taking notes carefully, have no emotion...It would not be too excessive to say they have no HEART.
"CGI Comedy" in their minds means sitcom gags, and when trying to create an "Underdog Loser", the second part always comes first. The need to let an expensive self-embarrassing comic like Jack Black, Ben Stiller or Will Ferrell do their shtick means most of the gags will be at the character's expense. The supposed "heroes" of our stories come off as pathetic dweebs whose self-delusions are the stuff of punchlines, to the point that we're not the bullies dumping Turbo or Megamind's books in the school hallway, but we're the other kids at their lockers getting a good group laugh out of it.
Po should be another big bumbler with a dream, but since we're getting too much loud Jack Black to establish a character, all we get is a big, loud self-delusional nerd annoying the more experienced characters who, boo-hiss, bully him, but the gags never quite get around to establishing why they don't have a point, why they're the wrong ones for doing it, and why the heck he just doesn't give up and go home already.

Now take that cold voyeuristic need to laugh at the character as much as feel for him, and extract it even further to a studio trying to do THAT by rote imitation. Well, at least Rio's Blu came off as a "loser", they managed to get that part right.

[Farerb]

When was Ralph not a "good guy"? He was just playing a part. The I really love though that this movie just paints that it was wrong of Ralph to leave the place where he's abused in order to find a place where he's more appreciated? And then there's that stupid line "it's good to be bad blah blah... I'm bad and it's good" whatever good of him to give in into the mindset that "society" forced down upon him even though he never did anything wrong, even breaking Vanellope's car was well intentioned, but no he can't even ponder about that, he has to ponder about leaving his game because of those stupid nicelanders. You know I don't care about any of Dreamworks films except maybe one or two, but at least they have the nards to make their "bad guys" bad.

You know what Wreck-it Ralph is? It's a bad film that Disney somehow tricked people into liking it

[EricJ]

You know what Wreck-it Ralph is? It's a bad film that Disney somehow tricked people into liking it

Er, no, you're thinking of Hocus Pocus.

[Farerb]

Weird I thought you'd say either Beauty and the Beast or The Lion King.

[Ben]

For the record, I actually hate Hocus Pocus. There.

[EricJ]

Weird I thought you'd say either Beauty and the Beast or The Lion King.

ALMOST went for Hunchback, but that wasn't Disney marketing's fault.

(And I had too much a soft spot to use Princess & the Frog, which was.)

[Ben]

How are Beauty And The Beast, Lion King or Hunchback "bad" films, for creep's sake?

If anything, Princess/Frog *is* almost a bad film, for easily being 20 minutes too long and, as I said in my review at the time, feeling like something left over from the Studio's 70s heyday...

[Dacey]

I’m confused since I thought this thread was about Blue Sky.

I’m not even sure what we’re talking about anymore, besides popular movies that Eric doesn’t like.

[Randall]

I think a few people here got their licks in when discussing films they don't like. But, right. Back to topic. Though, I have to say, Eric's analysis a few posts back was pretty good. And, I knew what he meant by "he was supposed to be bad." That was in the context of the game Ralph was from, not the film. Eric may have slightly derailed things, but not everything he says is crazy, guys.

Bringing this back to Blue Sky, yes--- they hadn't quite nailed the "loser we want to cheer for" vibe, outside of The Peanuts Movie. And even then, it wasn't quite the Charlie Brown we knew. However, I always have argued that The Peanuts Movie was basically intended to be "The Last Charlie Brown Story," which allowed him to grow more than he ever could be allowed to in the comic strip or the TV specials. And, as a lifetime Peanuts fan (who has reviewed countless specials, collected the entire strip, and read many interviews with Schulz), I absolutely LOVED it.

[Ben]

Which is ironic, because Peanuts was the most non-Blue Sky movie that Blue Sky did, on many levels!

[Randall]

Oh, yeah. And it's my favourite, from a studio that I don't' generally love. No coincidence, there. It doesn't feel or look like a Blue Sky movie at all.

[EricJ]

That's what I meant by a "ringer"--When a studio imports someone from outside the Wacky Wisecracking CGI studio system, either from independent work, or from a better quality studio, and all of a sudden an uncharacteristically better movie appears, and fans try to defend the studio by the one exception.

So, just like DW managed to snap up the Lilo & Stitch directors on their way out of Disney and make the Dragons movies, or Warner found that young Brad Bird kid on "Amazing Stories" and let him do Iron Giant, Blue Sky let the Schulz family try and write a CGI movie for a change. A nice change where Blue Sky was concerned, even if not so much for Peanuts.