Slashdot Mirror
Review: Monsters, Inc.
Before I get to the review, I want to mention that I saw this at the crappy theater in holland. The sound system is super assy, and the screen is kinda small. I've seen many movies here, but the Holland 7 always kinda taints a movie for me just because the theater is dirty and the sights and sounds aren't to par with a state of the art theater. Also our showing was led off by the Star Wars Episode II trailer (which wasn't really very interesting) and a Pixar short. I love shorts before films. I wish that this was standard practice. All movies. At least, all comedies anyway, should start off with a short. And this one was hilarious.
Since this is a computer animated film, I'm gonna start by talking a little about the CG. I don't feel like Monsters Inc has hugely advanced the state of the art for computer animated graphics with this film. There are however exceptions: especially in James, John Goodman's character. They hair system they used on the gigantic blue-with-purple-spots monster is simply stunning. There are some scenes where I simply couldn't take my eye off of it. Also the finale which takes place in a gigantic room with a roller coaster like system of children's closet doors whizzing through the air is absolutely a site to behold.
There are other exceptins too, but really what Monsters, Inc. has done is taken the state of the art CG that pixar has perfected, and used it to tell a story. And I think that it might be awhile before a movie comes a long and is able to up the ante as much as Toy Story and Toy Story 2 did. I think this is much more akin to a Bug's Life, where they broke less new ground in the rendering techniques, and instead tried to do more with the characters.
The look of the film is simply stunning. The warm tones of past pixar movies have been chucked out the door for blues and purples and neon green. But when monsters pass into the human's world, you feel as if you might be back in Toy Story... but why would you want to when this world is so interesting? The centerpiece is the Monsters, Inc factory which has a look that is sorta like a factory with a bit of airport stirred in. But then all skewed. Thats where this movie has really taken off: previous Pixar efforts have all taken place in a relatively believable world (assuming that you believe bugs or toys can talk). They take place in a subset of our world. But MI takes place in what might be thought of as a parallel world with gateways (read:childrens closet doors) back to ours. So the artists were given a chance to truly create something unique.
Now I'm going to try to give you a brief summary of the plot without spoiling anything. The main characters are the blue and purple hairy James (John Goodman) and the little green one eyed Mike (Billy Crystal). The main enemy is a chameleon monster named Randall (Steve Buscemi). Other notable smaller parts are voiced by Frank Oz and John Ratzenberger.
Anyway, James and Mike work at Monsters, Inc. The factory is a power plant... but in Monstropolis, they don't use coal or natural gas. Rather they use the power generated by the screams of children. Using a complex system where doors open into Children's Closets, the monsters run in, get their scream, and the juice is collected. It's dangerous work because children are lethal to monsters. One touch, and a monster is dead! James is the best scarer of all time... until his rivalry with Randall goes wrong, and a little girl (nicknamed 'Boo') accidentally comes back to Monstropolis.
The bulk of the show then revolves around Mike and James dealing with this tiny (and adorable) "Monster" that they have accidentally been stuck with. While trying to get her home, protect her from the Bad Guys, and unraveling the secret plot, good times are had by all.
The voice acting is all fairly solid. And I'm not particularly fond of Billy Crystal any more. I was really worried that his baggage was going to carry over into the character and his lame humor would drag everything down. But they /almost/ never let that happen. And Goodman just has great charisma as a voice. What a lucky man. I'd kill to get to be a voice in a Disney or Pixar film, and he's already got a chance to do both! (To say nothing of practically having a guaranteed part in every Coen bros. movie. What a sweet gig!). But as you would expect, all the voice acting was top notch.
The score was excellent for the film. I'm not going to comment on the sound effects because (as I said above) I saw this film in a crappy theater so its just not fair for me to mention that the audio clipped a bit in places and the surround sound effects weren't very good. I purely blame my theater.
Worth noting is that this is the first Pixar film not directed by John Lasseter, and I think it shows. The pixar trademark of being family friendly, but just skewed enough to make it fun for adults is definitely strong here, but MI is a little edgier then its predecessors.
Pixar's deal with the devil (read:disney :) is almost at an end, and I'm really interested to see what they're going to do after they have free reign to create films on their own. But as long as they are producing films as solid is this one, I'll continue to show up to the theater on opening night. The eye candy. The humor. It's just a class act in an age where most movies have none. I still think TS2 is a better film, but you're not going to see many better all-ages movies this year. Unless of course Harry Potter is everything it could be...
can be found at landoverbaptist.com.
And I braved crappiest theater in all of holland to see it opening night.
It thought english was the main language in Slashdot...
...Like facing the wrong way, using a mirror to see the screen? 3D glasses? Cross-dressing? I'm just not following you...
Shouldnt john katz be reviewing monsters inc and telling us how the monsters represent the post-colombine geekiness and solidarity against the microsoft behemoth?
I think he was thinking more to the line of DivX downloads, etc.
But with the hair movement in this film, along with the works of final fantasy and others, they are getting pretty close to making this kind of thing... look like real life.
Haven't seen it, how was the star wars trailer anyone?
Really nice. Thank you Pixar :)
Why is everybody saying Pixar=Steve Jobs ?
Pixar is John Lasseter, that's all.
He's an artist, and I love all that he has done,
from the very beginning.
I think one of the first 3D computer rendered image that Pixar made and got used in a movie was in "Young Sherlock Holmes", but I am not sure about this...
By the way, if you like short animation movies you can also
go to Aardman [aardman.com], and enjoy some movies from the makers of Chicken Run !
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
FP! (Almost)
I wonder if Taco got to see it. I went to the Revere Showcase Cinemas in Revere, Mass, and they DIDN'T PLAY IT!!
I was quite angry, because as well as going to see Monsters Inc, I was looking forward to the 45 seconds of joy at the beginning of the film. I talked to the most horrible and bitchy manager at the end of the show, who gave me a spiel about how it "didn't arrive yet"... which is BS, because (correct me if I'm wrong) the trailer was attached to the Monsters Inc prints, and theaters were instructed that if they cut it out they would be heavilly fined and possibly not allowed to show Episode II.
Can anyone add to this with similar experiences, or ways to report this theater, or if I am totally wrong and just bitter, and there was some horrible mishap that actually removed the teaser from the print?
Thanks,
Luke (Yeah, that's my real name... any jokes that I haven't heard in my lifetime are welcome)
... when are games going to look this good? What year do I set on the time machine to pick up a Geforce 9 TiMXSe 69000 Pro Ultra Crazy?
Even better, think of the applications for user-controlled pr0n =)
"I love eye candy kids"
okay, so he said "kids movies". Talk about taking a quote out of context.
The Star Wars trailer was really lacking. It didn't make me want to see it at all. Of course, i still will, but not because of the trailer. I hope upcoming trailers improve.
The good news is, no sign of everyone's favorite character.
Notice how each child (well, their door at least) had a national ID card?
What is disney trying to say now to their audience?
Yeah, I'm paranoid, who told you?
fortune: You die cold and alone
This is a lot like my protest against greenpeace and peta. Roasting seals over my giant tire fire in my back yard.
you're not going to see many better all-ages movies this year. Unless of course Harry Potter is everything it could be...
ummm...LOTR?
"Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
Some funny, some CG, a little music... fairly middle of the road if you ask me. Yet this film will make a heap of money, not because it is brilliant (which it, unfortunatly, is not) but because it fits the needs of the demographic it is intended for: Parents who like to watch cartoons.
Disney knows who it's paying demographic is and this film (more than most in the past) seems to show that if you are a boomer or an early X'er with a family your money is safe with MickeySoft. I mean, I kind of noticed this before (Toy Story 2) but it was never this glaringly apparent before, and it scares me.
Granted, most films are not "high art" (or even close to it, usually) but is the easily found "lowest common denominator" fuel going to power the Pixar machine forever?
crazy dynamite monkey
I saw this last night in our town's newest theatre, and they were showing it on the biggest screen with the best sound system. The audio for this film is just plain awesome! Everything was crisp and clear, and the entire theatre shook whenever Goodman roared. If you can manage it its definitely worth seeing in a theatre with a good sound system.
--
phill
yes, i saw the movie as well, they could have just left out everything but sulley's hair and the rollercoaster scene, and i would have been much more satisfied and did you see the animated short, "for the birds"?? that was hilarious! and if you didn't see it, go see it! it was worth the trip just to see that!
"When all the buildings fall, pimpin still gone stand tall" - Ricky D
Whats wrong with BC? Is it something I missed? Which is very possible since I don't pay much attention to hollywood stuff. But I have always like billy. just my $0.00002
Pixar's style is a lot different than what we've seen in other full-CG movies including Final Fantasy: TSW and even Shrek. So how do they do? What kind of process to these guys follow? At Pixar, there are four key stages to making a movie. They start with development, move on to creating the storyline (they don't just make the graphics). First, a text treatment (short document summarizing the main idea of the story) is written. Then the storyboards are drawn the old fashion way. Pixar begins to scout for voice actors and then get them into the studio to get some recording done. The editorial staff then begins making reels. If you aren't familiar with reels they are basically videotapes with cleaned up storyboard sequences on them. Finally, the art process begins. The art department at Pixar begins illustrating the world and the characters. They also design sets, props, and visual looks for surfaces and colors. These are reviewed and then the 3D process begins. The models are sculpted and articulated (not sure if this is done on SGI OCTANE workstations, but I do know that the actual rendering and animation is done on them). After the models are adequately designed, the sets are also built in 3d. Now they can begin adding models into the backgrounds and setting the stage according to storyboards. The shots are then animated and shaded and lighting is added. This is where Pixar's RENDERFARM is put to work. For a Bug's Life, 150 dual-processor Silicon Graphics OCTANE[tm] workstations and an Onyx2[tm] visual system were employed. [If anybody knows if the same were used in this, please respond.] After everything is rendered, sound and other final touches are added. Boom! There is your movie.
the byproduct of years of oppression by the white man
Glad to see a movie review posted by someone other than JonKatz. Nothing wrong with Katz IMO, just when he posts you have to fight hundreds of anti-Katz submissions under it. Bleh.
== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====
Hands down a great overall movie. I'm a sucker for Animated Disney movies, I'll admit. Something to appreciate about the movie is that there really is something for every age in that movie.
So Disney may be eating up the bucks on it, but you can't deny the quality here. The CG - I stopped noticing after about five minutes - in that it was done that well. The plot was pretty sharp, and built up well.
And just like Toy Story, the humor is there, too (I personally thought Monsters was a crack up).
That's my 2 cents.
ALSO: TechTV is running a bit on the making of Monsters, Inc. I caught the second 1/2 hour last night, but check there website for more times - looked very cool.
and they think I know what I'm doing....
The character's name is James Sullivan. His friends call him Sully.
lots of people see this and say the kids should look like real people.. this is annimation. why should they.. did the loony toons have people who looked real? what about the simpsons. yellow skin and blue hair.
Final Fantasy was beautifully done, and looked real, but monsters inc. is meant to have a cartoony feel to it, and real looking people i think would just be out of place..
I've been spoiled by the past Pixar projects. I was really disappointed that there was no outtake reel at the end of the film.
It was an excellent movie, not as funny as Shrek, but definatly a worth see. The animation was all there, especially the snow rendered on Sully's hair in Nepal. I was drooling on my lap.
The little bird short at the beginning was f'ing HILARIOUS.
Star Wars trailer, disappointing....
Shrek with hair?
Very descriptive, Taco. Sort of like an airport or a factory but all skewed, eh. Right. That really works to drive the image home. Yet once again have you applied your steady hand and unwavering eye commandingly to the razorsharp scythe that is your pen, burning with great precision this image unto my inner eye!
Your writing is so lame, Taco. Also the dept's you use, always the same tired "gee-that's-nice", "well-isn't-that-special" claptrap.
Just some criticism.
Pushin' 'n dealin', shovin' 'n stealin'
The Origins of Bukkake:
Let me start with the origin of this fetish. The term bukkake is from the country of Japan. This term is actually not a sexual term at all. It was just brought out as a sexual term just recently (around the late 80s) That is the facts. I have heard so many times in the past of people saying that Bukkake is a ancient form of humiliation in Japan (this is NOT the case) It was actually just brought about in porno videos in Japan not too long ago. Now bukkake is growing and moving across the world rapidly.
True Term Meaning of Bukkake:
As I said earlier on the site that Bukkake is from Japan. The term of Bukkake is not a sexual term at all. After this explanation of bukkake hopefully you will understand why the term is not and why it could be a sexual term and fetish. So let me get on to the explanation of this hot new fetish racing through the American continent.
Bukkake in Japanese is base form of a verb, as it stands alone it is a noun. Bukkake means splash or heavy squirt. This being said let me give you an example of this misunderstood word:
SIMPLE EXAMPLE:
Japanese:
boku ha kanojo ni mizu wo bukkaketa.
I her water splashed
English:
I splashed her with the water.
When adding something to the end of bukkake such as: ta (makes it past tense) te(command, such as do it) or teru(present) or tai(want to do)
With that being said you could say as well:
SIMPLE EXAMPLE:
Japanese:
boku ha kanojo ni mizu wo bukkaketai
I her water want to splash
English:
I want to splash her with the water.
Either way you know what bukkake means as a word. believe it or not Japan even has a soup called bukkake udon. That's how much of a normal word it is. This soup has nothing to do with sex at all. It is a soup that Japanese call bukkake because it makes the soup sound more appetizing. They put a lot of vegetables and liquid in the soup, and by calling it bukkake it gives the feeling that the soup was made quickly and its fresh. As if they splashed the soup together. So maybe that will give you more of an insight as to the meaning or feeling of the word as well. Now on the the sexual meaning of it.....
Sexual Definition and History of Bukkake:
Now that you know that bukkake is a term from Japan that means splash, let me tell you why it is a new sexual fetish.
Around the late 80's early 90's a couple of video companies were trying to make videos that catered to facial and sperm lovers in Japan. So they decided to make videos that would consist of a girl getting facial after facial over and over again.There are many videos series and companies from Japan that do nothing but bukkake specific videos such as: Soft on Demand, Shuttle, M's video group, Deeps and a few more smaller companies (these videos are hard to find, but do exist). There are also a list of great sites and magazines that show this Japanese bukkake fetish such as: gotcum.com or the magazine Gal's shower. With this information you can do your own research as well as see examples to cure your own curiosity or sexual desire.
After these Japanese companies did such extreme facial and cum play videos, pictures and websites; the world caught on like a bon fire in the Evergreen Forest. Now all countries around the world are trying to emulate what the Japanese have done with this new and exciting sexual fetish.There are many American videos out as well other great key players of bukkake media such as Germany or the U.K. Although these countries have tried to emulate the Japanese, nobody does quite like Japan. so far Japan has the most exciting and extreme bukkake out.
The Japanese usually have a cute girl sit down in front of a line of up to 200 men. From there she awaits her huge sperm shower. These men repeatedly give her facial after facial. These is where the term bukkake is used because it is like they are splashing her with sperm!! This is not the usual facial you see at the end of a video but rather a shower of facials over and over again on a willing person. This is what makes the fetish a group project rather than just something that two people do together. With this being said, bukkake is not only a fetish but also a sort of orgy.
Now that the fetish on video has blown up so big there are many parties through out the U.S. being thrown by amateurs doing large bukkake parties. You can go to the yahoo groups and find many types of bukkake groups who throw parties all the time. Just do a little research and you are on your way to even being in one of these parties. You could be a giver or a receiver!!! Its up to you and it is no holds barred.
So now you know exactly what bukkake means. The true meaning (in the sexual term) is to splash or squirt a large amount of sperm on a girl (or man, if you are gay) This being said you are well on your way to knowing more about this great phenomenon that is bukkake. Go out and have a good time....but please make sure before you do any parties to make sure everyone is tested for STD's (although they say that aids is difficult to pass through saliva or semen) Be sure to use your best judgment, or just join a site or buy videos and be completely safe.
Different types of Bukkake:
There aren't really a lot of genres of Bukkake, but rather a different way or additions to them. Here is a simple list that I have come across in the past of this style of sex.
Forced Bukkake:
This is were a willing participant acts or seems unwilling to get a facial shower from several men.
Bukkake Summit: Here is where a person receives a bukkake shower but tilts their head back and opens their mouth for the full experience, trying to catch it all. At the end of all the facials the cum is collected and drank by the target of the bukkake shower.
Costume Play Bukkake: Here is where a party or video is made in a theme setting such as a girl wearing a schoolgirl uniform in a schoolroom. She would sit and suck off each guy in a line waiting. The men repeatedly cum in her mouth or face.
Dream Shower Bukkake: This is where the group of men have sex with the target. As one man is having sex the other men watch and cum on the girls face. When the man comes to his climax he cums on her face and the next man in line has sex with her. This one can last a while depending on how many men the target is willing to have sex with.
Snowball or Trade Bukkake: This style of bukkake has two or more targets, which when receive facials swap the cum from mouth to mouth or lick it off of eat others faces.
Cum Play Bukkake: Here is where many men cum on the girls face, after which she plays with the cum. Also the men cum on the girls food and the proceeds to eat the food with the sperm glazing.
The genre of Bukkake that I listed above are just a few. There are many more and there are many that are created everyday. You might want to check back to get new ideas on what can be done with bukkake. I will be listing more styles of bukkake in the future.
"People should be allowed to keep midgets as pets."
- Gov. Jesse Ventura
I waited until the 9:15 showing last night so as to avoid as many smaller kids in the theatre as possible.
First off, the Episode II trailer was more of a "teaser." I liked having the only sound be Darth's breathing, but the clips seemed so short (5 seconds or less each?) that it was difficult to get any senese of the movie. In addition, I am not sure I am glad to see that Lucas decided to put the teaser before Monsters, Inc. I think it definitely says something about E.2.'s intended audience.
Also, has anyone else noticed that we are getting more and more in front of movies these days? I went and saw K-Pax last weekend. 23 minutes of commercials and previews. Monsters was not as bad, but was still up over 17 minutes of previews. By the time the movie starts, I frequently have forgetten what I came to see.
To the movie at hand: The bedrooms seemed almost straight out of Toy Story. A great scene is when you see the "scarers" (as opposed to the paperwork monsters) coming out of the light in slow-motion. It has been done in so many fighter-pilot movies, and worked really well here.
The two janitors were highly annoying. They reminded me of characters from another movie/show that I cannot think of right now. They should have been dropped.
The CGI was great. I am glad to see that Pixar is getting better and better at human beings (by far one of the more difficult things to realistically render). Boo looked halfway decent.
For the sound: I am still waiting to see a movie that uses theatre digital surround to its full advantage well. What was interesting last night was that one of Goodman's roars was so loud that it shook the ceiling of the threatre, causing a vibration on top of the speakers.
In all, it was a good movie. Toy Story and Shrek were still better, but I think that most kids and most CGI fans should see this one in the threatre. I would give it 2.5 stars out of 5.
If only I could have talked my friend into seeing "The One" instead...
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
Even before my wife and I saw the movie, it was worth the price of admission. The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Star Wars trailers all looked excellent, and I'm looking forward to seeing each movie. Watching the trailers side-by-side really pointed out how different these movies are. They aren't competing with each other at all, even if they're all fantasy/sci-fi movies.
Lord of the Rings is quite obviously (attemping to be) an epic fantasy movie. Epic is hard to pull off, but I believe Lord of the Rings will make it. Will it be as good as the books? No. Will there be times you're distracted by the special effects? Probably. But the source material of the movie is the very definition of Epic Fantasy, and if the director (Peter Jackson) has a devotion to stay true to the source, Lord of the Rings can't help but achieve its goal of successfully portraying the epic nature of Tolkien's books. The trailers quite clearly pitch it as a teenager/adult movie.
Harry Potter is another fantasy oriented movie, but it's quite clearly just "Good Fun". This doesn't mean the movie doesn't have depth. In fact, J.K. Rowling gave each actor a complete background story for their characters (which she has in her head, but hasn't been published in any books). It tries to portray a child's wonder at and adventure in the world of magic. It's not striving for epic. It's a movie that could and will be enjoyed by the whole family.
The Star Wars review had dark overtones, but was just shot after shot of breathtaking scenes packed with tension and action. It's a special effects, action movie. The plot might not be Lord of the Rings or even Harry Potter, but it's still ten times the plot of any other action movie. The Star Wars story doesn't have much depth anymore. (Especially since George Lucas tried to rewrite Han Solo as a good character from the start, instead of learning to love things other than himself.) But Star Wars does have a *LOT* of breadth, and that comes across in the movie. Just seeing all the different cultures and planets is still very exciting.
-Ted
So what about the Episode II trailer? Did they show it? Or was it just being released with the US version of Monsters, Inc?
Given the male/female ratio of the Slashdot audience, shouldn't that be "lady and gentlemen"?
-- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
I noticed Sun Microsystems name in the credits, but not SGI. I may have missed them. I also missed the ''bloopers'' that pixar has traditionally done.
1. The absurdity of the children's mythology of monsters. The film turns this on its head by having the monsters believe (incorrectly) that a child's touch will kill them (You get this real early on; this is a very insignificant spoiler).
2. The evils of big business, and how obvious smart solutions are both easier and usually ignored (Take THAT, MPAA).
3. Usually, a children's movie like this has a hero who has to overcome some evil force, which the hero conquers with the help of the good guys. ...
****MINOR SPOILER WARNING****
4. The possible negative effects of fame.
I especially liked how the seemingly self-centered Mike didn't mind being obscured on TV or on the magazine; it showed his flaw was in his inferiority complex, not in his self-centeredness, and made the ending a solution to his inferiority complex.
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
No, watch it on ABC.
Whoops!
Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
That jon katz is no longer the one reviewing movies! thank god
The Slashdot Effect: A new for
I gave Monster, Inc the acid test:
Went with my wife, my 5 year old and my two year old.
Each of us loved it, each of us found plenty to laugh at.
What amazed me most was not the CG (though really good), the acting (though really good) or the writing (though really good).
No, what amazed me most was watching my squirelly little two year old sitting on the edge of her seat with wide-open eyes glued to the screen.
A personal favorite moment (that, fortunately, doesn't give anything away) was the scene showing the beginning of a scare shift at the MI factory. The "scarers" -- a very goofy looking group of monsters -- walk onto the floor in a group with the group, pausing for a second in a low-camera-angle kind of shot that makes you think of a million "here come the good guys" scenes. Almost guaranteed to make you grin.
Good movie.
Great fun.
If you don't have a kid, consider borrowing one.
... no one can hear you scream.
No wonder these retards think that "Cowboy Neal" is somehow amusing. Sickening to look at his picture, yes. Amusing, no: Sad.
Thanks.
It is impossible to deny that Pixar is surely the Blizzard of the movie industry. Every movie they make is good and lives up to it hype.
It sums up what's happened to me this last 6 months pretty well. Except I might change the word Prosecution to Persecution.
i dragged my girlfriend to go see Monsters, Inc. opening night down at one of the two DLP projectors (digital projector, no film, no shakes or bumps, ect, ect) and i have to say, walking past the life-size Sullivan (blue and purple monster) in the theater lobby, and then seeing him there on the big screen.... i had a hard time convincing myself of the fact that this was *not* real....especially in the closeups, where you can see every single individual hair moving, quite convincingly lifelike.
this release from pixar says that "yes, it's cg, and no, smooth charicters aren't all we can do, when it comes down to details, we can pull off the good effects", especially in sullivan' hair, the pieces of the doors as they are shredded, ect ect. quite a bit of nicely done eye candy.
moox. for a new generation.
Offtopic for the article, but ontopic for the thread and the site. No real solution but to post here.
The ID card itself (other than creating a situation ripe for identity theft or confusion and an atmosphere of "the computer is always right") isn't all that bad. The thing that *is* bad is making it mandatory to have certain objects to be considered a "human", and those that do not desire or that don't "fit" are subhuman.
As an example, Japan has a national registry. Western males who marry Japanese women (and assumedly the other way around) do not show up on the registry - there is no way to insert non-Japanese names into it. Thus, Japanese women with children and a western husbund are reguarly visted to see how the "single" mother is doing. This is a fairly trivial example, but it shows how databases are not ideal when dealing with humans. Having an error on your paycheck is a pain in the ass. Having all records of your existance disappear could be fatal in a society that trusts records. When a rookie cop filled out my accident report incorrectly, getting my name wrong and making it look like I was the perpetrator of a hit and run rather than a victim, I just had to appear in front of a judge and get it nul prossed. Can you imagine if, because of his error, weeks went by in which my bank accounts were frozen, I couldn't travel in public places, and my ID did not work anywhere?
Plus, setting up an ID for everybody is a beginning. Once everybody is counted, it is easy to add more and more "requirements to be a citizen". I'm not sure where you are, but here in America, being a citizen is something granted by birth, and is a right, not something you have to do something for. This flips this fundimental right around, and anything that does that (like laws that place the onus upon the accused to prove innocence) changes at a very basic level the concepts of "Freedom" that the Republic was formed to protect.
Yes, it's abstract... yes, it's okay in 98% of cases. But it's a subtle and fundimental lessening of personal freedom that could cause serious ramifications down the road.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Anyway, my girlfriend and I took her 10 year old sister, and we showed up at 6:15 to find a fairly long line already there to get tickets for the 7pm show. I haven't seen a line like that since Phantom Menace, so I'd guess Monsters is going to win the box office game this weekend.
Monsters, Inc, and Harry Potter are the two movies I've been most excited about seeing (old enough to drink, but still into the kiddie films... go figure). I figured that since Monsters was backed by Disney and Harry Potter by AOL/TimeWarner, I wouldn't be seeing a trailer.
WRONG!
The new Harry Potter trailer played! It was pretty much the same one as before, but had some addition footage of quiddich and other eye candy that probably just recently got finished.
Then, just after the theater had played their little "hey, we're Carmike cinema's and we have a lame 3D intro thing" thing, and I was beginning to think that the rumors were false, the LucasFilm logo popped up and did its shiny thing, and I was treated to some very hastily thrown together scences from AotC set to Darth Vader breathing. Got to see portman, the new anikan, yoda, some light sabers and some ships. Nothing special, but enough to remind me that I should be getting excited about seeing it this summer.
Then there was the Pixar short, which was probably one of the best short cartoons that I have ever seen. The CGI wasn't so much impressive as the level of emotion that the characters had. I won't give any spoilers, but I will say that I enjoyed the short more than the movie itself
And don't get me wrong, it was a good flick. However, it did play out like a chilren's cartoon. While there was some stuff for the adults, this was certainly no Shrek. It was still enjoyable, and the munchkin liked it.
So um, yeah. Go to it. You won't be disappointed.
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
for more information on splicing together film, and other films, please visit your local bookstore, and read fight club.
thank you
moox. for a new generation.
Hey, how about that Jessica!
I found the CGI and montion of everything MUCH more beleivable in this then in Shrek. Seeing it in a good theatre the audio was spectacular. Not a clip in sight.
Pixar really comes out with some incredible stuff. Folks need to remember that EVERY one of their movies has been good, they keep on hitting stuff on the head.
They managed to sign a terrible deal with Disney but when that's over who knows what's going to happen, if Disney isn't nice about the sequel issue I imagine they will come back and hammer them into the dust.
And a fun movie. Take a kid to see it and you'll realize how anything "edgier" would have been a total loss. I liked it a lot, and am a jaded college kid.
1) The short, "For The Birds" ( i think ). I thought it was absolutely adorable, and practically everyone in the theater was giggling at it. ( I think you can watch it at Pixar's website
2) The trailers: I didn't get to see LOTR, but Episode II, while simply a bunch of wide shots strung together, is enough to get me salivating, and Harry Potter looks so amazingly like I imagined while reading the books, that it'll probably be my biggest letdown of the year ( this won't, of course, prevent me from seeing it: I have to find out... )
3) The movie itself. Particularly, I enjoyed the very, very cute little kid, Boo, and the Abominable snowman, voiced by John Ratzenberger (complaining about being labeled abominable -- "I'm a nice guy...!")
My complaint is that the villain wasn't amusing at all, but that's hardly a requirement. I just kind of expected it from Steve Buscemi.
Definitely worth my eight bucks.
I was privileged enough to get to see this film at one of the few theatres equiped with a digital projection system. All I have to say is that my jaw never came off the floor. The picture was by far the crispest, clearest picture I've ever seen. Throughout the entire movie every single strand of hair on John Goodman's character was distinct and had it's own amount of bounce. By far the most technically impressive movie I've seen. I really think that if the picture hadn't been as clear it wouldn't have been as impressive.
Yup, that short film had me laughing so hard I couldn't breathe. The expressions on the faces were just excellent. It was just about worth the price of admission all by itself.
I also thought that the animation of Goodman's character was excellent. The little girl was very good too, though Billy Crystal's character didn't do much for me.
Overall, well worth it.
I enjoyed the movie most of the way through, but the climax really kinda spoiled it for me. Not because of the effects or the characterization, but for a line it crossed.
What had up until that point been a lighthearted movie suddenly introduced the idea of kidnapping children and forcing screams out of them.
Was I the only person who found this completely inappropriate?
Wired News: Monsters, Inc. Used Monster Tools.
Great article (although a little short) on the tools used to create the movie. Modelling is done on SGI workstations, but the final rendering is done on Sun hardware. If you watch the end credits of any Pixar movie, they tell you so.
Boom! There is your movie.
If you don't mind me asking, where do you get your information? You sure make it sound easy to make a full-length CG movie.
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Alright, I saw this movie last night and thought it was awesome! Some people have been saying that it wasn't groundbreaking or that it wasn't up to par with Toy Story, etc. Personally, I don't really care too much about that - I went into the movie looking for a few laughs and got much more than I expected.
1) The voice acting was great. John Goodman's character (Sully) was hilarious. He had that gentle giant quality about him, due in large part to Goodman's voice presence. This is not to take anything away from Billy Crystal's and Steve Buschemi's characters, but Goodman really carried this film as far as personality.
2) The animation was good. From a strictly technical point of view, the fur/hair systems were excellent, and the rest of the CG was right up to par with what I was expecting from Pixar. While it didn't really break new ground, I don't know that it really needed to. The graphics were good enough that I really didn't notice them after the first few minutes of the movie.
3) There is some great cinematography in the movie. The door-riding roller coaster scene was absa-frickin-lutely crazy. I was actually tense watching them hang on and jump from door to door. Various other scenes in the movie make very effective, though less noticable, use of camera angles and colors and composition to give a great sense of feel to the scene.
4) As was noted in another post, the movie touched on some ethical/moral issues in a very light-hearted, kid-accessible kind of way. That was nice to see.
5) The animated short, 'For the Birds', at the beginning of the movie had me and my friends rolling. Pixar has a snippet of it up on their web site, but you really should see the whole thing. If you go see this movie, definitely get there in time for the previews. I would pay a couple bucks out of my ticket price just to see that short again. BTW, the snippet is here on the Pixar site.
Okay, this is getting rather lengthy, so let me stop while I'm ahead. Long story short, I would recommend this movie to anyone with a sense of humor, especially those with kids.
Pixar represents Disney. Disney represents the SSSCA. Why should I pay to see this movie again?
Fans of animation already know this, but Ray Harryhausen was one of the greats of animation. He brought stop motion animation to an entirely new level with movies like Jason and the Argonauts and 7th Voyage of Sinbad.
Apparently only a couple of us in the theater last night got the reference that appears briefly in the movie, so I thought I'd mention it for those who haven't heard of him.
Isn't it:
3 ladies
2 ladies
1 lady
0 ladies?
i saw the digital version at one of the two DLP projectors.... i only got to see the star wars trailer, but neither of the much-hyped harry potter or LOTR trailers. did anyone else have such problems?
moox. for a new generation.
I've only seen the film once and it happened so quick that I almost missed it. There's a scene towards the end in Boo's bedroom when James is handing Boo various toys to make her stop crying. I thought I saw him hand her a Woody doll from Toy Story. Anyone else catch that?
I was lucky enough to see a benefit screening of MI last Monday at the Pixar headquarters in Emeryville. The sound was absolutely top-notch, so do yourselves a favor and see it in a theater with a good sound system. They did a great job with various environmental sounds, often quite subtle.
I assume it was projected digitally, as it was absolutely crystal-clear, with no obvious film artifacts. I spent a lot of time gazing in wonder at the amazing job that the artists did with the hair and fur effects.
Enjoy!
There are only a handful of computer animated feature-length films, and as a result they tend to be compared to one another on that basis alone.
Anyone who has seen both A Bug's Life and Antz could attest that even though they both feature ants as their main characters, and are both computer animated, their similarities end there. In the same way, comparing Monsters Inc. to Shrek isn't quite right. MI isn't like any other movies around...it's a novel and creative (Pixar's strong suit) approach to childhood fears of monsters in the closet.
Just a though that maybe movies should be compared to eachother on the grounds of their story or theme, not because they share the same animation tools.
Leveling up builds character.
The thing I loved most about the movie was the way it seemed to resemble traditional animation. I know that sounds weird, but that's the impression I got. When I looked at the screen it didn't feel like I was looking at a CG film, because of the level of detail. But, it also didn't look like I was looking at actual filmed objects as well. I think that Disney/Pixar have really mastered the art of using CG as the new animation. Great story, great humor. It's been a long time since I went to a film and everyone applauded. Plus, "For The Birds"??? AWESOME! I laughed so hard!!! Great job Pixar! Disney needs to buy these guys SOON!
Is it just me or does the little green guy with one eye resemble Mr. Bumpy? You know, the star of Bump in the Night who also was short, green, and had a single eye, I believe? I guess not...
Bump in the Night was an old ABC claymation toon that aired Saturday mornings. Every episode ended with the characters doing karoke. It aired alongside another favorite of mine in my younger days, Reboot.
Anyone remember Reboot...You know with the guys in your computer and all...
For example, the keycard scheme, and the magical alien-killing virus in Independence Day were self-contradictory. Even with all the magic in the world it's mathematically illogical to have millions of numbers with 6 digits. And the virus in Independence Day contradicted a basic premise of the film: that it took place in our 1990s Earth, with our computers. Our computers are clearly incapable of communicating with alien systems, let alone infecting them, so that part of a film resulted in a logical contradiction. Which is why everyone found it so painful.
However, the magic doors are perfectly reasonable and make sense, if you accept as a basic premise of the film that
- It's not taking place in our universe, so the rules can be different
- In the film's universe, one of the basic rules is the existence of magic doors leading to other dimensions
Temporarily accepting these new laws of nature is what is known as suspension of disbelief. So the magic doors are only bothersome to the overly literal-minded, who are unable to step out into another universe for a moment; these are the people that hate all SF, accusing it of being "unrealistic". But the keycard numbers are annoying to everyone, because any universe conceivable by humans must follow the laws of logic; they are a premise that cannot be eliminated.i did the opposite yesterday in boston. i had time on early friday afternoon so i saw "monsters inc." and then immediately "the one." i believe i was the only one that laughed when i heard the line "there WILL be only one" near the end of the movie as if exchanging "will" for "can" will make it not a highlander ripoff. but, regardless, anyone can tell it's a highlander ripoff by the trailers and previews.
---
I'm just an ordinary man with nothing to lose.
Going to be pretty tough this year with Shrek and Monsters, and two decent entries Final Fantasy and Atlantis. In an average year I'd be happy to just have one of these.
I'd give it to Shrek by a sliver. It had a little more interesting story, humor and computer graphics techniques. I also have a soft spot for musical numbers, a few which were in Shrek.
Goodman character's name is James Sullivan. James's friend, the one eyed green guy, calls him Sully which is short for Sullivan.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
I could swear some things flashed by quickly
during the initial factory walk-through scene
and the street store-front scene that were jokes,
or quick reference to Lucas or Disney works.
I caught the produce names, but some of the wall
posters went by so fast, that I'd have to wait for DVD stop motion.
There are other exceptins too, but really what Monsters, Inc. has
done is taken the state of the art CG that pixar has perfected, and
used it to tell a story. And I think that it might be awhile before a movie comes a long and is able to up the ante as much as Toy Story and Toy Story 2 did. I think this is much more akin to a Bug's Life, where they broke less new ground in the rendering techniques,
and instead tried to do more with the characters.
And that is the difference between filmmakers making a movie and videogame producers making a movie... As a filmmaker myself and a fan of movies in general, I hope the people at Square are watching Monsters Inc... There is an attitude in the industry that seems to dominate people's minds saying 'more technology = higher production value = better film'. Unfortunately that equation doesn't work out. The real equation is: 'good writing + good acting + good light, sound and camera work = good film'. Pixar seems to understand this concept. They are fortunate to be able to use new technology for their films, but realize the technology doesn't drive the movie, the script does...
Of the many movies that come out each year, there are far too few that really understand this concept. Hopefully that will change...
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
They have the same voice as teenager who's usually working at a fastfood resturant.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
I rather enjoyed watching for the subtle stuff that the animators included like the book titles, posters on the wall in the background and the Powerbook? ad on the back of a magazine cover. Its really quick so you miss it if you are not careful, but any more obvious and it would have been tacky.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
When evil Jet says "I am Yulaw, and I'm nobody's bitch! You are mine." I about crapped myself laughing. It's true that it's a Highlander ripoff, but I'd rather see this again than Highlander 2. Zeist? WTF?
"For the Birds" was funny...I liked the part with the larger "stork" bird hanging upside down by his toes as the 2 "instigators" were pecking at the stork's toes. The looks on the faces of 1 or 2 of the little birds that "see it coming" when/if the stork lets go of the wire.
Heh, I've seen that look before...like when Flic knocks over the offering...the eyes get real big and the "OooHhhh, Noooo" escapes.
(I found it funny because a recovery disk I used one time did its job *too* well...fdisked 2 drives in a heart beat....I said "ooohh, nooo" just like Flic did. Art imitates life, eh?)
Monsters, Inc. was a very watchable movie and I do recommend it, but it was not as funny as I thought it was going to be.
It was more of a "smirk and chuckle" than a "laugh hysterically" film.
Billy Crystal's voice was a decent choice, but a less grating voice would have been better.
Nathan Lane springs to mind (Timone, from the Lion King). BC and NL have the same vocal qualities, but Lane comes off smoother than Crystal, I think.
The rendering of the characters was excellent and I kept looking for a "beauty shot" like in Shrek (The lady dragon scenes and when Shrek is yelling at the donkey and you see the air moving over the donkey's fur... that kind of detail)
I'm fairly shure those kinds of details are there and maybe I missed them....Oh, wait, the close op of Sully on the closet door trolley (the kind like those found in a dry cleaner?) as he moves through the air. Dang, maybe I'll see it again.
Personally, I wonder what are some of the best voice and screen actors out there.
Goodman is one, Anthony Hopkins is another who should be added to some of these films as well. Hopkins voice on the tapes in "Hannibal" (and in the movie, too) carries such a presence of *evil* much in the same way Goodman's voice carries a feeling of conviviality/joviality and friendlieness.
And Frank Oz's talents did not go unnoticed...if only I could place the voices he applied to which characters. That is a tough one.
Any ideas?
Overall a good movie. I did wish there was more "scenes" like in the trailers and teasers.
A little more for the adult audience due to the "chemistry" that Goodman and Crystal have.
Watch the trailer, then the movie and the "outer Magnolia?, that's outer Mongolia...." bit.
I guess "Who's on First?" spoiled me, sight, sound and voice gags where even if you miss one or two of the pieces it is still funny, reguardless.
If it is not on fire, it is a software problem.
Can you do the movie reviews from now on?
You don't have to see Katz's random bull shittery anymore! Turn him "off" in your preferences/authors settings!
Thank you,
dimator
-katz bull shittery free since '98.
I haven't seen MI yet, but I am glad to hear that there are mo outtakes in the closing credits.
Now that I've said that, I'll tell you why:
The outtakes from "A Bugs Life" were fantastic. They were funny. They felt spontanious, like "stuff happens". They also never violated the idea that "A Bugs Life" was a movie about insects, to the point that when Molt knocks the camera over we see that the stage hands are also insects. And most of all, they were unprecedented. Almost no animated movie has ever had "outtakes" in it - animation is just too expensive to have these toss-away jokes.
The outtakes in "Toy Story 2" (on the DVD, but not the theatrical run) felt forced. They lacked the spontinaity of the Bugs Life outtakes. They felt like it was assumed that they would be there, like there was no choice. Some of them were funny, but the magic that happened in thge "A Bugs Life" outtakes was just not there.
The "outtakes" on the "Final Fantasy" DVD were just plain dumb. Only "The Sneeze" was funny, and not by much. These "outtakes" felt like they had been done by people who really didn't understand what an outtake really was, but wanted to do them anyway. As jokes for the animators to blow off steam they were okay, but they didn't belong on the DVD.
I don't want every animated film I see to have outtakes. I don't want filmakers to feel compelled to do them. They are funny the first time someone does them, but like all gags, get old real fast.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
ok. your gospel sucked. what'd you do, have cmdr taco edit it?
RiCurves();
Curves (as specified in the RenderMan Interface Specification) are curves with no thickness in 3d space. "Attached" to the curves are square faces with normals that always face the camera. Since there is no cross section of the hair, fur or whatever you're rendering (remember this is a line, not a tube or cylinder) rendering time is grealy improved.
You can literally put tens of thousands of these on a head, or in the case of John Goodman's charachter, its probably in the millions.
Curves are very simply described, and they render fast, MUCH faster than curved cylinders, which is what most people think they are. You can write shaders to make them look like they shine as hair would, or what have you.
Judging by the trailer (I haven't seen the film yet) it would look as they're not just hanging hairs either. when he moves, the hairs react. And just from the tiny amount of screen space and screen time that this hair has on the trailer, i can tell you that pixar wrote software to make the reactions believeable. they act as very clean straight hair would - it looks like it anyway - i've never seen a 7 foot tall hairy monster.
hey Taco, remember when the Holland 7 was the Quad? also, I'd say the crappiest theatre in holland is actually the Knickerbocker, although they don't actually play new releases like this, which IMO makes it an even crappier theatre
shouldn't "holland" be capitalized?
Well if you want more info on internals just look for all the Pixar papers and course notes from SIGGRAPH and the 2 RenderMan books. Besides the renderMan course notes they have also presented on several FX related courses. Here is a start:
RenderMan docsAnd those moviews are not easy, they take an average of 3 to 4 years to make. Next one will take place under the sea.
Ahh forgot another great article, this one from the best magazine about CG, CGW. Monsters Inc. is the cover story: Monster Mash
He's 2 this was his review:
"I liked it but it was sad at the end, the girl was crying. More funny than Toy Story. Can I have juice?"
This
I'm not in the movie business but I a modification of your formula.
The real equation is: 'good writing + good acting + good light, sound and camera work = good film'.
I would say:
if (good_writing && good_acting && (good_light && good_sound && good_camera_work)) {
film = "good";
else {
film = "bad";
}
What I'm trying to say here is that you need all of these things. Simple addition implies that one area can compensate for another.
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
While I want to go see Monsters, Inc. I don't want to give any money to a company that supports the DMCA, SSSCA, and any other sort of Gestapo like legislation. If you decide you want to see monsters, buy a ticket to a different movie, and then walk in to Monsters instead. That way, you give your money to someone else, and screw Disney in the process.
Pixar has this thing for procedural shaders, which is what RenderMan is all about. Most non-Pixar high end CG work is done by going out and photographing textures, then mapping them onto models which are then rendered by ray-tracing or radiosity. Pixar does most, if not all, of their textures procedurally. Textures are programmed in a C-like language.
With texture maps, if you get too close, the texture has to be blown up over multiple pixels and blurred, an ugly effect very familar to gamers. Since Pixar's procedural shaders can be computed at arbitrarily close intervals, Pixar's materials remain clear in extreme close-ups. That's what gives Pixar work that hyper-clear look.
It's tough to match procedural textures to the real world (although everbody now does water procedurally), which is why RenderMan isn't used much in work that has to match live action.
Here are some correctios to some comments posted.
1) Disney-Pixar deal is a good deal for both parties...Pixar renegotiated it after Toy Story. Current is 50-50 split after film development and marketing costs...Doubt that Pixar would be able to do better elsewhere...
2) Trailers...Film Studios are allowed 4 minutes of trailers immediately prior to film. (Often after theatres feature presentation graphic) For MI, the 4 minutes were divided into two 2 minute trailers, one for Disney and one for LucasFilms. If you saw more trailers, they were added by your local theatre and its chain...not Disney/Pixar...
I live there ... at least i live on the north side ... not as bad as south of the river ... thats where Hope college is ... damn yuppy losers ;)
"No amount of technology will turn a bad story into a good one."
Having seen all four of their films, I have to say that they do a marvelous job of holding to that. Start with a great story, and the animation is just the icing on the cake.
Hey - I'm 32 and I'm starting to like more grown up movies. (A while back I couldn't take going to "Little Vampires." My wife and son went to that while I went to see "Blow.")
:)
Anyway - this one grabbed my attention, and I'm glad it did. I loved this from start to finish. A simply great story for all ages, and the animation was superb.
Next kids movie that I'll admit I want to see - Jimmy Neutron. It likewise looks cute as hell.
For you Star Wars fans out there: If the only reason you were going to watch this is to see the trailer for the next Star Wars movie, save your money. I understand that the longer trailer is going to be on the front of the Harry Potter movie.
On the topic of the short that preceded the movie - simply fantastic! I saw a bit on this in Computer Graphics World, and wondered when I'd ever get to see it. It's another good short from Pixar that I wish I got to see more of.
I usually don't gush over films like this, but I honestly enjoyed the film that much. Oh yeah - my 9 year old son did too.
- Dave
There are two seasons in my world - Hockey and Construction
Sully is handing toys from the girl's room to her: A ball from Tin Toy, a Jesse doll from Toy Story 2, and others.
The guy behind me stage-whispers to his date: "Look, he's giving her props!"
I couldn't tell if the pun was intentional, or even realized, but it was beautiful either way.
Kevin Fox
the hair in it was amazing - hell, the lighting was great!
the short at the start - the birds - that alone was worth admission - the expressions were fantastic.
I love 3d animation and have done a lot of it, so it makes it that much more impressive.
the little girl in it was so cute - to do the cartoon feel but add some realism is very impressive.
Am I the only one that thought the character played by Steve Buscemi (sp?) was EXACTLY like the bad alien in Men in Black (the one they kill near the globe statue at the fairgrounds)??
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Holland?
You've seen the movie from a crappy warez CAM early-release, and to excuse the quality, you claim it was a crappy theater in holland...
Bulls eye on the bull-shit.
My local theatre (AMC Barrington 30, near Chicago) was able to splice their normal infographics/shorts into the feature between the SWE2 teaser and the Birds short. What makes me curious, however, is if they managed to do this in the other auditorium showing the movie, which uses a DLT projector.
In Monsters Inc., look carefully at the button console that's used to operate the doors. The top-left button, which is pressed repeatedly in the film, says "Fizt".
Fizt is Pixar's new physical modeling software. The idea of the software is to provide an easy to use interface for the animators so they can concentrate on making the characters believable and humane, and not worry so much about making them photorealistic.
Anyone else see any other in-jokes or easter eggs?
Without Gath, you are nothing. You have no hope of surviving without Gath. Humble yourself to Gath and devote your life to His teachings, and you will be saved.
If you find those preaching the word of Gath to be revolting, then I have serious concerns for your soul.
Nice troll, though.
Very nice, as my college english prof. would say, but how is Pixar's style different? You've described how they go about it, how about an example or two illustrating the process others use.
Oh, and BTW, break these things up into a few paragraphs. I, for one, cringe when I see these big chunks of text. Thanks.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Yeah it is obvious that they used RiCurves, but some people out there just don't know what they are.
You're idea about collision detection slowing rendering is not correct though. All of the modelling (all of it) is done in the modeller, or whatever plugins they've created to draw the hair. There is no renderer that does anything to the geometry of an object, other than displacement mapping. No collision detection is done in the renderer, a renderer only renders.
I'd be willing to lay money on this though: they animated Sully, paying no attention to the hair, then ran their animations through plugins (or other programs to do the tough job of hair animating automagically) then rendered it. And if the hair animation was done with a plugin or external program, doing the snow and wind interaction realistically is much, much less difficult.
--
jeremiah();
or did I catch an ad for a PowerMac G3 Desktop on the back of the magazine towards the end?
I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
So I can see it now. The MI themed ride at DisneyLand/Magic Kingdom will be a suspension rollercoaster with a "door" motif. The corridors in which avid riders line up will be decorated as MI corridors (a la the Back to the future ride at Universal). I for one am looking forward to it!
Rich people are eccentric. Poor people are strange. Me, I'd be happy with odd.
I thought MI was a really topical film; did anyone else notice the Rolling Blackouts headline on the newspaper (obviously a recent addition to the film), or the parallels with Anthrax investigations (when "decontaminating" clothes & buildings from children)?
I think you're reading far too much into things here. Keeping in mind that most of the entire plot would make no sense if it WASN'T for the Monsters' energy crisis, and their insane fear of 'our' world... well, these 2 items that you mentioned were pretty obviously included from the start. They may have embellished a bit due to recent events, but keep in mind that these types of movies can take years to make. You certainly don't re-write major plot points only a month before release.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
"I love shorts before films"
I love my men without shorts, _after_ the film.
At the Sony Metreon, you get Disney's Snow Dogs (looks awful), Ice Age, Return to Nerver-neverland (sick and wrong), Star Wars II:AOTC, Harry Potter and the For the Birds short.
That's pratically a movie in itself.
when the main characters are on the street corner waiting to cross. The large creature whose foot you can see (he is so big thats all you see) is modeled after the foot in "Bambi vs. Godzilla"