Re: What was the last movie you've seen?
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 11:00 am
Finding a Reason

Pixar movies usually tell a truly good, self-contained story. The only Pixar movie that begs for a sequel is The Incredibles (which coincidentally is expected to produce a sequel in 2019 - fifteen years after the first film). On the other hand, by this time next year there will be five films and at least fifteen shorts in the "Cars" franchise. Phew. Beyond box office receipts and merchandising, what justifies sequelitis from the studio that made its name by creating original stories?
I knew it was inevitable to compare Finding Dory to Finding Nemo, so I sat down and watched my Finding Nemo DVD the night before I headed to the movie theater. Nemo is still a fun, heartwarming adventure with countless quotable lines. "Fish are Friends, not Food." "Es-Cah-Pey.""Mine! Mine! Mine!" Despite the fantastic script and charming voice acting, the thirteen-year-old cgi is showing its age.
Finding Dory ups the ante in terms of cgi. The textures in particular stand out as the biggest improvement. Marlin's scales and Dory's freckles seem real enough to touch. The animators clearly spent extra time working out how to animate sand underwater. The extra attention to detail shows, but does that fresh paint of state-of-the-art cgi justify an unnecessary sequel? Couldn't the same team of talented animators at Pixar apply their skills to any project?
Here's where the justification really comes in: Finding Dory (even moreso than its predecessor) is a story of people with disabilities overcoming struggles that unimpaired people never will, and that's a story worth telling. The character of Dory has a more realistic portrayal of memory loss than any character in any other movie not titled Memento. The character Marlin expresses the same kind of frustration felt by family and caretakers of Alzheimer's disease patients.
While on an escapade, Dory befriends an Octopus with a missing limb who seems to suffer from some form of post-traumatic stress disorder. This "Septopus" compensates for his missing limb by mastering camouflage. Despite his physical and mental impairments, Hank the Septopus braves the odds and helps his friends in need.
Other sea creatures overcoming impairments include a speech-impaired seabird, a nearsighted whaleshark and a beluga whose echolocation isn't working. The latter of the three is most interesting as his tankmates insist that it's "all in his head" - a criticism people with disabilities have heard too many times already.
Ultimately Finding Dory cannot supersede Finding Nemo; it never really could in the first place. Finding Dory can't beat the first film in terms of family fun; however, it can tell a true-to-life story about people who achieve greatness because of (not despite of) their impairments. This film is especially recommended to parents of children with impairments.

Pixar movies usually tell a truly good, self-contained story. The only Pixar movie that begs for a sequel is The Incredibles (which coincidentally is expected to produce a sequel in 2019 - fifteen years after the first film). On the other hand, by this time next year there will be five films and at least fifteen shorts in the "Cars" franchise. Phew. Beyond box office receipts and merchandising, what justifies sequelitis from the studio that made its name by creating original stories?
I knew it was inevitable to compare Finding Dory to Finding Nemo, so I sat down and watched my Finding Nemo DVD the night before I headed to the movie theater. Nemo is still a fun, heartwarming adventure with countless quotable lines. "Fish are Friends, not Food." "Es-Cah-Pey.""Mine! Mine! Mine!" Despite the fantastic script and charming voice acting, the thirteen-year-old cgi is showing its age.
Finding Dory ups the ante in terms of cgi. The textures in particular stand out as the biggest improvement. Marlin's scales and Dory's freckles seem real enough to touch. The animators clearly spent extra time working out how to animate sand underwater. The extra attention to detail shows, but does that fresh paint of state-of-the-art cgi justify an unnecessary sequel? Couldn't the same team of talented animators at Pixar apply their skills to any project?
Here's where the justification really comes in: Finding Dory (even moreso than its predecessor) is a story of people with disabilities overcoming struggles that unimpaired people never will, and that's a story worth telling. The character of Dory has a more realistic portrayal of memory loss than any character in any other movie not titled Memento. The character Marlin expresses the same kind of frustration felt by family and caretakers of Alzheimer's disease patients.
While on an escapade, Dory befriends an Octopus with a missing limb who seems to suffer from some form of post-traumatic stress disorder. This "Septopus" compensates for his missing limb by mastering camouflage. Despite his physical and mental impairments, Hank the Septopus braves the odds and helps his friends in need.
Other sea creatures overcoming impairments include a speech-impaired seabird, a nearsighted whaleshark and a beluga whose echolocation isn't working. The latter of the three is most interesting as his tankmates insist that it's "all in his head" - a criticism people with disabilities have heard too many times already.
Ultimately Finding Dory cannot supersede Finding Nemo; it never really could in the first place. Finding Dory can't beat the first film in terms of family fun; however, it can tell a true-to-life story about people who achieve greatness because of (not despite of) their impairments. This film is especially recommended to parents of children with impairments.