I wasn't as excited for this one as I was
Luca and
Turning Red--the Ghibli / Aardman-esque quality to those two played a big part in the difference (among some story-related things that were intriguing about both)--but my instinct was correct because this wasn't as good as either of them to me.
This film felt like one that was very hampered by the buddy roadtrip formula, imo, which makes it fitting its been the last of its kind at PIXAR in that regard for now (with
Luca being more of a trio story and
Turning Red being focused on a girl, her mother, and her friends). I found 22 very annoying and didn't really enjoy the part of the film with Joe wandering around in a cat's body, although some of the few movements 22!Joe made at points were cute. And the ugliest cat design ever, might I add at that. Joe himself and his mother, as well as the light beings, were the most interesting parts of this, imo, although even the stuff with the mom felt like I'd seen this conflict a thousand times over (and better) in animated fare. Oh, and the lost souls' designs were very interesting, too.
That said, all three of these films are very "small," focused on very intimate and personal stories. I think that's why I was annoyed when Joe's story got hijacked by the annoying 22 character (no offense to Tina Fey at all, I don't blame her). I thought both 23's and Dorothea's designs left a lot to be desired, tbh. So naturally the short they made for 23 also did little for me--although I did laugh when the one soul's spark was the fact he was a follower (and then a sheep symbol appeared).

Btw, one of the biggest laughs in the film was when Joe first finds himself in the cat's body and he doesn't understand how a soul could have gone into a body that was already inhabited by a soul (cut to the cat on the escalator going into the light--"Meow."). What I don't get though, is for a moment I wondered if Joe entering the body killed the cat, but I thought that was saying the cat must've died on the lap of Joe's body and so its body was "open" when Joe fell into it. But then later when Joe leaves the cat, it's soul returns somehow? Even though it should've entered the light a long time before that happens?? So Joe
had pushed the cat's soul out...
I think I would've enjoyed the film more if Joe had "moved on" at the end after acknowledging what one of the light beings told him--that a person's spark and their purpose aren't the same thing. What satisfies you isn't the same as what you do for others, in other words (Joe's love of jazz v. his work as a teacher to so many others). The way it actually ends feels incomplete somehow. I thought that, if he was going to return to life, that they'd flash forward to him meeting 22 as a student 10 years later or something.
Disney Duster wrote:A long time ago, in 2008, when Pixar’s Wall-E first came out, I was so mad at Pixar being considered better than Disney I tried to hurt them by pointing out robots couldn’t feel love like they do in Wall-E, because they don’t have souls. I was stupid. People were saying why couldn’t the robots be alive and fall in love in the same way other anthropomorphic objects in Disney or Pixar films did? I should have listened to them, but I didn’t get what they were saying. Then a member named
TM2-Megatron started debating with me over if humans are only alive and have their personality from souls, why robots could be just like humans, and if God exists, and his points against mine were so convincing it sent me into a deep depression.
Today I am still deeply depressed, and will never get out of it till I die, but I at least I have some sort of revenge. Pixar is now making a film going completely against what
TM2-Megatron argued, and is all in favor of what I argued for. Here is what transpired between me and
TM2-Megatron:
https://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewtopic ... 34#p400234
I didn't realize you were partly saying that over anger over PIXAR. I'm sorry it all sent you into a depression. I think it all sounds like an argument over nature (are you simply born with your personality?) versus nurture (you become what you are through your experiences, particularly early, formative ones). Personally, I've always thought the answer is a mix of the two rather than one or the other. I think you
are born with a personality already in tact because you existed before this life, but naturally your early life here impacts how that personality is expressed. Such as if you're an extrovert versus an introvert, how you view yourself and the world around you (such as if you have a traumatic experience that inhibits you at a young age), what parts of your personality were encouraged or discouraged (sort of like a flower that's watered, some things grow and some things you try to hide about yourself), etc.
D82 wrote:Disney Duster wrote:So, does Joe really kill the cat when he enters its body, or did the cat die in its sleep before Joe landed in it, or what?
I totally forgot about the real cat by the end of the movie, but I found an article that I finally didn't post where they explain it.
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought about this. Their explanation is pretty flimsy.... And, personally, I think they made the wrong decision about the ending (the article talks about it being debated whether Joe should die at the end or not).