And the Winner...

[MiknMinMouse]

Originally posted by MelissathePooh

Monsters Inc was a new and original story, and it was heart touching - if for nothing other than the final scene - Kitty!!

As far as animation is concerned I truly believe that Monsters was FAR superior - Shrek used some nice landscapes and colors, but Monsters was phenomenal!

That's so true. The way Sulley's fur Moved ~ that was amazing, the attention to detail. GREAT MOVIE ))

 

[Another Voice]

It’s always fascinated me that people continue the bash ‘Shrek’ for its “toilet humor”. The only toilet joke I remember actually came in ‘Monsters’, complete with a tracking shot of a blue dyed foot trailing toilet paper down the hall. I think that scene was before the “don’t eat yellow snow” scene and in the middle of many, many “kick Mike in the groin to make the audience laugh” scenes. I won’t even discuss the lurid implications of sneaking a two year old girl into a men’s locker room. Or even the “friendship” between the two main characters. There’s a reason the throwaway subplot about Mike’s “big date” was put into the movie. Humor and offense are both subjective.

If you look hard enough, you can find or imagine “R-rated” stuff in almost any children's film.

As for the Vast Anti-Disney Conspiracy of Evil: please. While this year was much nastier than normal (thanks to the growing desperation of the Weinstein kids), there was no anti-Disney plot to steal an Oscar from them. First, politics in Hollywood is all personal. There is no corporate loyalty or “our studio – their studio” mentality among the voters. Second, no one cares about Eisner or Disney these days. The current view is that they are a low-end studio and its has-been CEO who are just waiting for the vultures. It’s real hard to worked up that much hatred against someone who’s so insignificant. Third, everyone in town knows that ‘Monsters’ was a Pixar movie. Everyone likes Pixar. The only thing Disney had to do with the movie was selling off the stuffed toy rights. Lastly, maybe the voters in the academy feel that ‘Shrek’ was a better overall movie than ‘Monsters’ was. They get to vote with their little statues, you get to vote with your money.

 

[All Aboard]

If toilet humor is defined as specifically pertaining to the toilet (or a place where toilet-activities take place) there are two in the opening sequence of Shrek.

1) Shrek says from inside his outhouse "Whatta load of..." toilet heard flushing.

2) In his swamp, Shrek balls both fists, closes his eyes, grimmaces and then generates quite a volume of bubbles from his backside. Enough to kill many of the fish around him.

Never mind Donkey's "just crack on off" and "my mouth was open" comments. With pride, Shrek notes "if it had come from me, you'd be dead."

If it's a "count the potty humor" contest, Shrek will double and triple lap Monsters on its way to victory.

 

[raidermatt]

I was hoping I wouldn't have to watch Shrek again so soon, but if I do, I will...

I'm sure somebody else can be more specific, but I remember bubbles coming up while bathing, and outhouses...

I won’t even discuss the lurid implications of sneaking a two year old girl into a men’s locker room.

This takes some imagination, as the Monsters are all repulsed by humans. Sort of like bringing a female cross between a chimp and a skunk into a human male locker room. But if this strikes some as lurid, ok, I'm just glad my imagination is not so vivid.

Or even the “friendship” between the two main characters. There’s a reason the throwaway subplot about Mike’s “big date” was put into the movie.

Please.

Humor and offense are both subjective.

If you look hard enough, you can find or imagine “R-rated” stuff in almost any children's film.

Yes its subjective, and yes one can imagine a lot, but theres a difference between imagining it and being hit over the head with it.

 

[johare]

1) Shrek says from inside his outhouse "Whatta load of..." toilet heard flushing.

2) In his swamp, Shrek balls both fists, closes his eyes, grimmaces and then generates quite a volume of bubbles from his backside. Enough to kill many of the fish around him.

Never mind Donkey's "just crack on off" and "my mouth was open" comments. With pride, Shrek notes "if it had come from me, you'd be dead."

If it's a "count the potty humor" contest, Shrek will double and triple lap Monsters on its way to victory.

I think Shrek has a very slight edge on the 'potty humor', but certainly not even close to double or triple what you'll see in Monsters Inc. Other than the outhouse/bubbles in the opening scene, the "my mouth was open" scene and possibly the small world parody I can't think of anything else I would consider potty humor. That's only 3 or 4 occurrences with at least half of them in the opening credits. Monsters had the TP scene and the kick to the groin scenes. I think Jimmy Neutron was much worse with it's pooping robotic dog and those scenes with the kids saying "I'm peeing in the shower..." as they did it!

 

[Another Voice]

I’m not denying that there’s a bunch of humor for nine-year old boys in ‘Shrek’. I’m just amused by how vigorously people want to condemn the same type of humor in that movie yet completely ignore it in another film. It’s just an interesting case of how well the “Disney” brand works.

 

[All Aboard]

I'm amused by the notion that Monsters uses anywhere near the potty humor to get its effect. It's night and day. First, We went to see Shrek in the theater four times (that's right, four) and we, of course, own and watch the DVD. I think it's hilarious.

But there's no comparison of how Shrek makes use of "9 year old boy" humor v. that used by Monsters.

Voice, I'm troubled by 2 of your 4 Monsters examples. First, are you actually saying the notion that two males living together and just might be gay is an example of "potty humor"? Second, Boo had to go to the bathroom. Sully couldn't take her in the ladies' room. He had no choice. Each time I go to WDW with my 4 year old, I often have to take her in the men's room. Is that lurid behavior? Or twisted further, an example of "potty humor" somehow?

Here's another Shrek moment, and you have to listen very closely. When the dragon is first trying to charm Donkey and Donkey tries to fend off her advances listen as the focus shifts to Shrek moving in on the chain.

Donkey says, "that's my personal space" then in perfect Eddie Murphy fashion he injects "HEY, what are you going to do with that?" That's one of the funniest moments in the movie, and definitely not rated G.

How about the Robin Hood sequence with Robin's rhyming song. Forgive me for not knowing the exact words, but robin ends a sentence with a word that rhymes with "head" and the next line is: "she likes to give..." at that moment the merry men interrupt.

"Just becasue she lives with seven men doesn't mean she's easy"

"Dead broad off the table"

"I'm the talkinest damn thing you've ever seen"

The level of graphic description that Shrek used to describe what he would do to people.

The earwax candle

The catepillar inards toothpaste

The frog and snake balloons

Fiona's well-timed belch

There's plenty more examples of "grossness" and "potty humor" that Shrek used to make the film work.

And so far all that's been offered up (legitimately) for monsters is toilet paper on the foot and Mike landing on his Jewels.

None of this matters to me, it's just an absurd comparison.

 

[HauntedMansionFan]

Anyway, I think that there was never an animated category before because it would have went to Disney with no one else in contention. That is why they have never had it. I think there was a sort of anti-disney sentiment to it, that someone besides Disney had to win it to make it a "legitimate" category, and not just the "award that we give to Disney every year." Although there has been a category of animated short for years, this was the first year to include an animated feature category because it was the first time that there was a contender to Disney viewed as "legitimate."

I strongly have to disagree with this. It isn't like the award all of a sudden "popped" up so Disney wouldn't win. Only in the past few years has Disney seen any companies try and tread on their animated film territory. The reason this award was started this year is that animated films are becoming more and more present during the year. Think back about a five years ago and you will see my point. In the time before that there would really only be one animated movie a year, and it would be Disney's and it would be released over the Summer. Now a few years back animated movies began to be made and released more frequently. Prince of Egpyt comes to mind when thinking of animated movies that began to fringe on Disney's territory. So now every year for the last couple there are at least 3 to 4 animated movies being released by different studios, this year just happened to be the year they put the award into place. It's not a matter of a "legitimate" category, in years past Disney would have one the award, because it was the only studio releasing animated films. Also, someone made reference to the award being started in the same year that Steven Speilberg had his hands in an animated film. This couldn't be a more incorrect statement if I have ever heard one. The Academy is infamous for NOT LIKING Steven Speilberg, he has been overlooked for E.T., Jaws, Empire of the Sun, the list goes on. The only reason he was awarded for Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan is that the Academy would have been disgraced if they didn't award him for these films. Also, Steven Speilberg has produced animated films for Disney before.... anyone remember a film by the name of Who Framed Roger Rabbit? This film won a special techinical award for its advances in combining animation with live action.

 

[ringo]

I SUSPECT THAT SHREK WAS A BETTER FILM THAN MONSTERS INC. I DON'T THINK THAT RANDY NEWMAN'S SONG DESERVED THE AWARD THIS YEAR.I DID THINK THAT RANDY GOT THE SHAFT LAST YEAR WHEN JESSIE'S SONG WASN'T GIVEN THE OSCAR. I ALSO THINK THAT TOY STORY 2 DESERVED THE OSCAR FOR BEST MOVIE,WITHOUT QUESTION.PERHAPS,THAT'S WHY THEY CREATED THE NEW CATEGORY.ANYWHO,DISNEY DESERVES A LIFETIME OR CENTURY ACHIEVEMENT AWARD.THEY NOT ONLY LAID THE GROUNDWORK,BUT ARE WHOLLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BAR BEING WHERE IT IS NOW. DON'T BE SURPRISED IF THE NEXT QUANTUM LEAP COMES FROM OUR BELOVED DISNEY!INRE THE ACADEMY AWARDS:THERE IS NO MORE POLITICAL EVENT THAN IT.

 

[d-r]

Originally posted by HauntedMansionFan
I strongly have to disagree with this. It isn't like the award all of a sudden "popped" up so Disney wouldn't win. Only in the past few years has Disney seen any companies try and tread on their animated film territory. The reason this award was started this year is that animated films are becoming more and more present during the year. Think back about a five years ago and you will see my point. In the time before that there would really only be one animated movie a year, and it would be Disney's and it would be released over the Summer. Now a few years back animated movies began to be made and released more frequently. Prince of Egpyt comes to mind when thinking of animated movies that began to fringe on Disney's territory. So now every year for the last couple there are at least 3 to 4 animated movies being released by different studios, this year just happened to be the year they put the award into place. It's not a matter of a "legitimate" category, in years past Disney would have one the award, because it was the only studio releasing animated films.

I think you are saying the same thing here that I was saying, even though you are strongly disagreeing with me. This is the first year that there was an animated feature oscar, and the reason there was not one before was that it would have gone to Disney 99% of the time. As I said, it would have been "the award we always give to Disney." In recent years there have been other studios making animated features, and it didn't have to necessarily go to Disney, so they added it in. I agree with you. <strong>This is what I was saying.</strong>

Leading up to the AA I read a couple of articles where people said this (basically, "In the past only Disney would have won this so we didn't have one, but now there are other studios that could win it too")

And AV says basically that everyone in Hollywood considers Disney a "has been" low-end studio (is this not an "anti-disney sentiment?"), so if every one has this notion and it impacted their decision, I'm not sure how he disagrees with me, either.

I made no claims of any grand or vast consipiracy or any whispered conspiracy, I said I thought there was a "sentiment" (which means a view, opinion, or feeling). If I had meant "conspiracy" I would have said "conspiracy"... but I didn't.

Jeesh.

DR

 

[Another Voice]

Politics and hatred in Hollywood are all about power. Right now, Disney has no power in town. There’s simply no reason for a vast conspiracy because there’s really nothing to conspire against. NO ONE CARES ABOUT SNUBBING DISNEY. They aren’t that important any more. In fact, people like the way Disney is going right now because it’s helping everyone else. Disney developed both ‘The Lord of Rings’ and ‘Black Hawk Down’, only to have Michael Eisner personally refuse to make both movies. They were instantly picked up by other studios with tremendous profits. Who wouldn’t want to keep a fool in place if you can make money off his stupidity?

The award came out this year by accident, not because someone in a darkened office said “now we give it to someone else!!!”. The separate award idea was started to HELP Disney in the wake of the Best Picture Nomination for ‘Beauty and the Beast’ and Robin Williams’ nomination for ‘Aladdin’. It was realized that an animated movie, no matter how good, would never win a major Oscar. Since all members vote for the final award, you’re never going to get the support of all those actors, art directors, costume designs and others that don’t work on animated films. It takes years for the Academy to make chances – it took over twenty years of lobbying to get a Best Make-up award and the campaign for a Best Casting award has been going on just as long.

Besides, everyone in Hollywood knows that ‘Monsters’ was a PIXAR film. Everyone likes Pixar and no one would wants to snub them. And if there was a vast anti-Disney conspiracy, how does anyone explain the nominations for ‘Pearl Harbor’ (I can’t). Wouldn’t that be the bigger snub – to not give a single nomination to the film that Michael Eisner all but promised would win Best Picture?

You can spin all the grassy knoll theories you want, but the simple fact is that the majority of the Academy voters thought ‘Shrek’ was the best of the three films that were nominated. If you want to blame anyone, blame Disney. They are the ones slashing their animation efforts, they are the ones that rushed ‘Atlantis’ through production despite all its problems, and they are the ones that are putting their efforts into repackaging Saturday morning cartoons and calling it Feature Animation.

Worry about making good films and the awards will follow.

 

[iamleia2]

Allright, I'm confused. I only read the first page of posts... but everyone was talking about how Shrek has an original story. This seems a little backwards to me... All Shrek did was make fun of Fairy Tales and then end the same way all Fairy Tales end! All of the humor came from things that had already been created! Monsters inc. had the original story line if you ask me! Maybe I missed something as a child... but I never read or saw anything about the secret world of monsters who come out to scare children at night... I think it's very original! I liked Shrek a lot, but I fell in love with Monsters. Not as much as I fell in love with Toy Story... but it was still an amazing movie. And even just animation wise, I think Monsters was far superior! Anyway, that's my two cents. Monsters created a Fairy Tale and Shrek just mocked them... Whatever works...

 

[d-r]

Gosh, you know, I've been working hard lately and only checking in here on an occasional break, so I must not be taking the time to make sure that I am communicating clearly. I obviously am not, and I apologize for that.

Also, I am not a hollywood type and don't care to be, so I may not understand some lingo or buzz words or hot button words that send off some sort of signal, sorry for that, too.

AV - again, I did not say that there was a conspiracy, a grassy knoll or even a whispered campaign. I said there was a "sentiment," and I think that all of the things you are saying are really consistent with that. I think you are agreeing with what I was trying to say, while argueing against an idea or point that I never intended to make - again, I'm sorry that I'm being unclear.

DR

 

[ContempoSMT]

shrek was a little better than monsters inc. Jimmy Neutrom didnt stand a chance.

 

[dolphinlover]

I REALLY LIKE BOTH BUT SHREK HAD ALOT BETTER ACTORS PLAYING THE CHARACTERS I THINK THAT MIGHT HAVE HAD SOMETHING WITH THEM WINNING. THEN AGAIN THIS IS JUST MY OPINION.