Turning Red thread

Anyone how watch the movie can confirm that the red thing is a allegory of "women hood" and there's a scene that the girl sell pictures and show everyone in the school the red thing? If yes, at least have a negative connotation or it's another cuties bullshit?
It's just a movie that missed it's mark and had poor direction. I wouldn't bother with allegories or hidden meanings because the surface level stuff falls flat.

Pixar movies usually had at least one strong strand carrying each film that you could follow through from start to finish. This just meanders in places and the pacing is bad.
 
They don't match how the humans look at all and I think the beanmouth style somehow looks even worse in motion.
A lot of that stems from the fact that the people who make that bean mouth art style never seem to bother with an underlying structure - if you ever look at the sketchbooks and portfolios of the artists 99.9% of their character art is this art style is the same 3/4 headshots - so what already looks lazy in two dimensions becomes grotesque in three. You can tell nobody who worked on this had any idea what to do with the nose outside of mashing together random triangle shapes and planting it dead center on an otherwise shapeless face and spherical jawline; I cringe every time a character in both this and Luca was shown in profile for how obvious it was that the nose just didn’t belong there or that lip sync devolved into PAC Man mouth flapping. How they went from The Incredibles to this is depressing.

That and overall it seems like Turning Red wanted to not just look like a Steven Universe knock off, it moves like cheap TV animation too. It’s not only missing a lot of animation basics like squash and stretch, anticipation, and follow through that Pixar and other 3D studios figured out decades ago and traditional animators mastered (I noticed this a lot in the hair flips and when characters jump or land), but the character acting is stiff as fuck. The worst offender is when the overall girl decks the main character in the face, but theres so little intensity or change in posture put behind it that it barely looks like a punch - much less one that could floor a bitch. It was so lazy looking I was convinced that someone must have messed with the clip when they uploaded it to slow it down, but nope it turns out Pixar animators just don’t know how to look up references to make a dynamic punching sequence.
 
The nu-disney/pixar meme edits seem to be very forced on YT and I'm beginning to wonder if Disney actually just straight up pays to have this happen. It's not like Youtube isn't willing to pull strings for old media conglomerates.
For some reason meme edits about this film kept appearing in my Youtube recommendations even though I had never heard of this awful movie or clicked on anything related to it.
turning red budget.JPG

They've gotta get that ROI, by any means necessary.
What was wrong with Inside Out? I thought it was one of Pixar's better films in recent years.
What was wrong with Inside Out was that it was literally the first Toy Story reheated and put inside a teenager's brain, so suddenly it's deep and thought-provoking or some such shit. :roll:
 
That's honestly pretty accurate. It was really mishandled.
While I don't know enough about the artist to make any judgement, in fact she might not be related to how a lot of the plot ends up at all, I do not believe for a second Pixar doesn't have plenty of people willing to push for the 'cuties' angle. I'd imagine that the company already attracted people like this since they produce media aimed mostly at children, to sell merchandise mostly to children. And with the ousting of some of the old guard like Lasseter, there was more space to fill in.
 
I would be less inclined to say that the film isn't obvious about the sexual metaphor if the kids (literal preteens) weren't constantly drawing erotic art + shaking their asses + making the grossest perv faces.

Again, not a prude irl. But these are conversations a child needs to have with their parents, not sloppily and CREEPILY explained to them through flimsy narratives.
 
Again, not a prude irl. But these are conversations a child needs to have with their parents, not sloppily and CREEPILY explained to them through flimsy narratives.
They want to take the parents out of the equation entirely, so they can molest them as much as they'd like properly educate them about their budding sexuality!
 
They want to take the parents out of the equation entirely, so they can molest them as much as they'd like properly educate them about their budding sexuality!

They do a good job since the mom is a smothering overly-attentive parent (who might I add, rightfully at one point protects her daughter after assuming she's being taken advantage of by an older man), and the dad's a spineless cuck.
 
I would be less inclined to say that the film isn't obvious about the sexual metaphor if the kids (literal preteens) weren't constantly drawing erotic art + shaking their asses + making the grossest perv faces.

Again, not a prude irl. But these are conversations a child needs to have with their parents, not sloppily and CREEPILY explained to them through flimsy narratives.
Even without the puberty metaphor it’s still a pretty bungled message. “Be yourself! … So long as people can make money off it.”
 
Even without the puberty metaphor it’s still a pretty bungled message. “Be yourself! … So long as people can make money off it.”

They even open up a panda tourist stand at the end! So basically if your daughter likes being popular and doesn't want to listen to you, feel free to exploit the fuck out of her for profit.
 
might be me but personally, this is worse than Cars 2 and The Good Dinosaur cause you can make a case that Cars 2 a popcorn action flik for the children and the character interactions between Arlo and his co-star was very well written and the background looks fantastic, despite the blah story

between the cuties-esque story, the ass-shaking, and the perv faces; this looks embarrassing
 
Anyone how watch the movie can confirm that the red thing is a allegory of "women hood" and there's a scene that the girl sell pictures and show everyone in the school the red thing? If yes, at least have a negative connotation or it's another cuties bullshit?
The panda thing is a metaphor for puberty, the period shit is separate entirely and mostly used for gags. They sell merch relating to Mei's panda form to buy tickets to go to a concert.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: SuperShibuyaFighter
might be me but personally, this is worse than Cars 2 and The Good Dinosaur cause you can make a case that Cars 2 a popcorn action flik for the children and the character interactions between Arlo and his co-star was very well written and the background looks fantastic, despite the blah story

between the cuties-esque story, the ass-shaking, and the perv faces; this looks embarrassing
At Least Cars 2 and the Good Dinosaur were movies that appealed to a general audience and felt like a movie that a family could all like. Turning Red looks like it’s not for a general audience, but rather a specific one.
 
Half the population of the planet? Coming of age movies are pretty common.

The Lion King is a coming of age film. To Kill a Mockingbird is a coming of age film. A John Hughes film is a coming of age film. These films are universal despite their concept and era. People love them.

The fact that this film failed to connect with its audience the way it has should say something.
 
The Lion King is a coming of age film. To Kill a Mockingbird is a coming of age film. A John Hughes film is a coming of age film. These films are universal despite their concept and era. People love them.

The fact that this film failed to connect with its audience the way it has should say something.
I've seen plenty of praise for the film from the audience it's actually aimed at. I'm not its target audience either but managed to enjoy it just fine, maybe it's just not your cup of tea.
 
Back