Let’s start with the conclusion: Pixar’s new film "soul", like the previous works "Flying House" and "Dream of Dreams", is a logically confusing and even hypocritical work. The joke involves workplace bullying (this The style is not more advanced than the sketches of the Spring Evening), and the main story line is even talking about the back door. Of course, it has many advantages, but the advantages are all technical. There are very touching snippets of family relationships, perfect Xinxiang street scenes and the sensationalism that makes people realize the beauty of ordinary life. But in essence, it is a commercial production that will greatly increase the cost of public communication. This article will make some logical analysis around this, let's take a look: Why do good commercial blockbusters promote communication between different people, and this type of chicken soup blockbuster makes people full of suspicion?
-Why didn't I see that the description of accounting is suspected of workplace bullying?
I feel sad that so many viewers don’t feel that Soul is ridiculing accounting very politically incorrectly. This is bullying. The management of other departments teamed up to disrupt his work and make fun of him. I just told him how you opened up. No joke. Soul on the main line of the plot (note that it is the main line) is already a film that promotes the righteousness of going through the back door. It is neither fair nor just. Business scripts need to have squares and negatives. Pixar can clearly write this accountant as a critical spiritual mentor, causing students to find no sparks. In fact, Snape is this kind of person, who tossed Neville like that. Need to grow. The problem is that he is an accountant. Isn't the job of an accountant just to balance the accounts? If the accounts are not reconciled, you say that others are not capable. If you want to reconcile the accounts, you say that they are not open to people. This is not a PUA?
I really hope that people will not treat conscientious grassroots employees like this in the workplace, "being born to be kind to you". In addition, why emphasize that this treatment of accounting makes him look cute? Isn't that the way to bully nerd in school and workplace? Don't everyone get together and say "you are so cute"? By the way, this type of accountant in the American Emperor’s workplace is generally of East Asian descent, especially Chinese.
-Why is Pixar's writing style of scripts bad? Isn't it true, good and beautiful?
Disney Pixar's play style is a typical "moral critique" to perfection. A script that pays more attention to the layout, even if it is a popcorn action movie, it will be built on a realistic basis, that is, the pros and the opponents are essentially different in interests and starting points, and the opponent’s personality is also written logically based on this. , It will not be bad for the sake of bad. For example, the theme of "Flying House Tour" is environmental protection. Is environmental protection okay? Of course it is good; however, the specific implementation of environmental protection requires costs. Even if you read the TOEFL GRE, you will also say that it involves the livelihoods of local fishermen and hunters. Taxpayers’ expenditures and whether the research and development of various expensive technologies can be effective. If you think it’s good to not harm animals, then the cost is actually paid by the local fishermen and hunters rather than the environmentally enthusiastic keyboard man . They don’t want to give children better It's definitely not a one size fits all life.
But in Pixar's thinking, if the theme of the film is environmental protection, then environmental protection is the most correct (and environmental protection here is not sustainable development, but does not harm animals). A character that is inconsistent with the protagonist's interests will make him completely bad. This kind of narrative can easily give viewers who are not so keen-thinking an impression that villains are really bad, people who are not environmentally friendly are really bad, killing animals and killing people — the question is whether environmental protection means not killing animals, a non-environmentally friendly person. Will he definitely kill people? Soul also has a similar problem. Accounting in the quantum world, his interests are inconsistent with the male protagonist, but does this inconsistency mean that he is ridiculous? After reading it, I really feel that the business line executives of Quantum World are teasing the grassroots accountants. The corporate culture is quite poor. No wonder they will not be able to enter the information age in 2020.
This kind of moral critical thinking is very annoying. A well-structured script should say that the interests of all parties and all parties are different. Through cooperation and struggle, everyone can come up with a solution that is beneficial to more people (the Toy Story series is like this) and make the pie bigger. NS. Therefore, I don’t think that some scripts in which the villain is completely dead and the protagonist walks through the back door are really promoting truth, goodness and beauty. In essence, people who like moral criticism are more likely to PUA others (and do not realize it), because it is difficult for people to switch positions under this kind of thinking. Thinking about it, you can't see that in many cases, morality is also the language of vested interests, or some kind of conventional solution for economic benefit. It is just habitual to engage in moral criticism. If you are immoral, you will be bad. The three animations "Flying House", "Dream Traveling", and "soul" should actually be watched under the guidance of parents.
-Where is the logic of "Flying House Around", "Dream Around", and "Soul"?
If several Pixar scripts (except the Toy Story series) can be transformed into a group, it is like this: growing up in a middle-class or above family, pursuing the quality of life, loving flowers, plants and small animals, advocating environmental protection, but will not feel yourself There is a logical inconsistency in the behavior of eating beef-despising hunters for hunting and flying by yourself-that business owners who are not environmentally friendly are greatly bad. If a walking Pixar sees a hunter carrying a deer that has just been beaten on his shoulders, TA may accuse the hunter of “being kind to you”; seeing a small business struggling on the edge of survival for failing to implement expensive environmental protection The standard is to talk about "do not love the earth, either is stupid or bad." Pixar doesn't feel that there is a problem with the conscientious and responsible grassroots accounting by the executives who promote "smart brains", and that it doesn't matter if you open the back door, you have to make sacrifices for happyending.
But if hunters cry that they have children and must hunt to make money, small companies cry that they cannot pay wages if they have installed the environmental protection system. Grassroots employees are investigating workplace sexual harassment, and Pixar will make a completely different judgment from before.
So suppose we make a script, put the two paragraphs before and after, different aspects of one thing together, let's see how to solve it? Sorry, Pixar never thinks about this problem. It’s bothersome and ugly. Pixar is the most truthful and the most beautiful. We move the things with hot eyes to the invisible places. If we don’t see them, they don’t exist~ ours. The work is to make you feel particularly kind and noble when you look at it~
The result is that, based on the two paragraphs before and after, and the same thing, two Pixar films with diametrically opposite value judgments can be taken (I have even drawn the storyboard in my head). What influences the value judgment? It depends on who is using rich details to tell you that you are a disadvantaged group. Whether the same behavior is morally noble or on the line depends on his mouth. Like Mi Meng, he just wants to intensively display the superficial skills that can mobilize people's sense of justice. The main selling point of the product is actually to make the audience feel that they are very good. Noble, and reach the pinnacle in this regard. This kind of film actually raises the cost of public communication.
Therefore, the level of Pixar's drama is actually seriously overestimated. This company is very smart. It is very good at creating clips about dreams and family relationships. I cry when I watch it, and I love watching it too. But when it comes to the overall structure of the script, they start to play tricks. From a logical point of view, there are many points in it that are unreasonable, but they deliberately ignore it and pick some of the most righteous clips on the audience’s faces. . The baggage of DreamWorks's primitive series is not high-level, but it is obviously not smart; like "Paddington 2" and other very classic family movies, the sincerity and exquisiteness of the script are also higher than Pixar. Pixar is really a little sorry for the good chapters that make people cry. It's really not real, too shrewd.
-It’s fun to watch cartoons, for kids, and cartoons can’t carry so much depth. Pixar is a storyteller.
This matter can be seen on several levels. First of all, the standards for Pixar’s work cannot be the same as those for small productions and literary films. For mainstream large-production movies, if you really have the courage to go down with a budget of several hundred million, you can still ruin your taste and pioneer experiments. Courage), but if you take the truth, goodness, beauty and healing as your selling point, with such a large capital power, should you assume some at least logical and self-consistent thinking? In the past few years, Pixar's production is no longer even the protagonist lying flat and willing to make waste. The protagonist also says that the murderer is blocking him, and he has to go through the back door. This is too boring.
Secondly, it has been 2020, and the development of screenwriting techniques for a hundred years, literary and artistic works have long been able to promote mutual understanding between different people. For example, the Toy Story series and the first part of Crazy Primitives are very good. At the beginning, the starting point is not the same party or the show of morality. These films have been seeing the different starting points of the pros and cons, and they all have shortcomings and demands. Cooperation, resistance, and solutions will come naturally, and the realm of the work will be high, and the characters will stand. The detailed logic of How to Train Your Dragon is not very good, but he is also talking about how the community changes its concepts and gradually realizes peaceful coexistence with the natural world.
Feiwu Travels, Coco, and Soul, who promotes the back door, are very preaching. The problem is that you have swung your moral stick to this level. What do you want to criticize? The villains in Flying House and Coco are killing people. Are you criticizing the killing? Why not be a detective film about Criticism of Murder? In the play, people who don’t agree with the protagonist’s interests will arrange them to do things that are inconsistent, but will people who don’t agree with your interests in life be so wicked? 99% did not. If your opponent did not kill, do you have other legitimate reasons and techniques to play against him? This is where Pixar is very irresponsible as a big family carnival. It is full of "people who are not in line with my interests are immoral and they are so bad." Because I can't think of the reason why the other party is so bad, I can't convince myself. , Just write it as a murderer to the other party. Isn't this giant infant thinking?
-Are you deliberately having trouble with Disney Pixar? The thoughts are gloomy, and Shangzun goes online.
I didn't mean to have trouble with Pixar Disney. First of all, I like the Toy Story series; in 2013, Monsters Power released the second part, "Monsters University". I was in tears when I watched it in the cinema, and later I watched it twice with my friend's child. Monsters University perfectly explained my mood at the time. I was not confident and was suppressed by strange people. The college entrance examination was abandoned. I had always been a self-esteem and struggled force. Suddenly I felt that the meaning of life was collapsed. What I did was stupid and outrageous than what I did. Whoever did not make a mistake when he was in college-but the final result is really impressive. Good friends go together, have the courage to face life, and make mistakes. Acknowledge, do things for yourself, even so, don't give up trying to grow up (I'm half spoiled, the protagonist himself is confused and greedy, the school is opened, there is no back door to go, there is no easy word in the adult world).
Monsters University watercress score only 8.2 points, it should be said on the moral criticism, which was far less respect he is very good looking I dislike the "flying Pixar", " dream Central Travels " and "spiritual odd journey" three The work, it really has no back door to go, no murderer-level evil person to deal with, but it really creates a situation where we ourselves rely on our own strength to roam in this dark night, we may be very lost, but We brave the wind and waves, dare to act.
Who ever thought that just seven years later, works with creative methods like "Monsters University" and "Toy Story 3" are already products of the last century.
Guess what went wrong?
-Why are you so picky about an animation?
The study of films on Pixar's scale is not so much the study of films as the study of phenomena . In the last generation, we all said that the protagonist’s genre in the face of difficulties was chicken soup. Now it is difficult to look at hard work. Hard work is very tiring. The audience does not like this set so much. They all say that inspirational is chicken soup. But there must be more chicken soup when you walk through the back door. When Pixar was planning it, they had more than one version of the script, but they had the numbers and data themselves. Monster University and even Toy Story, etc., are not as good as Flying House and Xun Menghuo. Their next film will definitely be like this. This is a compliant. Market behavior.
There is a trend behind this, that is, in the areas where Pixar’s main audiences are, education is getting longer, housing prices are getting higher, and solidification is getting more and more serious. Home, hard work is useless, can't stand the elite narrative. Of course, it’s a personal goal to be a disused house, but the problem is that the disused house has to bear the costs and consequences of building a disused house on its own. You can’t let others bear it, and imagine that you can solve it by going through the back door. The society is developing to a stage where everyone is striving to be the weak, requiring the system to be tilted according to their own subjective wishes and giving up the spirit of resistance. But Pixar has obviously gone too far to please the audience (so I don’t use words like Bai Zuo to generalize, you see, there are many logical problems in it because Bai Zuo, really Bai Zuo adopted orphans in Africa, it is pure pure It’s exquisite and self-interested), the protagonist in the world it creates basically does not have to bear the responsibility, it is the world’s fault.
It is understandable that the requirements for riding the wind and waves in the current environment are too high, but I think that no matter when, dare to behave should not be a luxury, and people should communicate and play games as much as possible. It's time to regain the golden spirit of the movie drama. Thinking of Hirohiko Araki's creation, "The spirit must go up, otherwise the readers will find it meaningless."
———————————————————————————————
The controversy is relatively large, so I will reply in a unified manner. First of all, Pixar itself is a social phenomenon. They used the world’s most advanced technology, the most meticulous market research, and the largest publicity system. It was not the same time as the little director begging grandpa to ask grandma to raise money to make a literary film. thing. From the changes in his plays, many changes in audience preferences and mentality can be reflected. This is not a study of movies. Of course, it is not necessary to use this method to analyze it if it is only a small-scale film.
Secondly, why should we seize the problem of accounting being bullied? In fact, the accountant may not have any feelings when watching the plot. But no matter how dull or strong he is, the things that people from other departments join to disrupt his work cannot be changed. He is objectively bullied. This is a very serious matter in the workplace. Pixar takes this kind of thing as a joke, and of course it's not suitable for a family fun. The more the audience emphasized that he was not bullied and that he was not unhappy, the better we could understand why a lot of bullying in the workplace/school took place with integrity-because everyone didn't think they were bullying.
In the end, I am not unmoved by Pixar in the technical sense, but the film technology of this kind of investment is good. If you just want to repeat it from related articles after watching this movie, and you can’t accept other perspectives, then it actually corresponds to the point of view in my article, that is, Pixar-style drama thinking essentially makes people constantly find themselves. Agreeable, one-sided, and well-understood point of view, and at the same time imagine people who are not in this area extremely excessive, and do not try to communicate, understand, and make the cake bigger.
View more about Soul reviews
