Disney+ Soul (Pixar) (2020) (1 Viewer)

[Mike Frezon]

I fail to see why this is a problem. Are you saying that Pixar is not allowed to make a film for adults?

I'm not a kid now, but I was a kid once and back then, as now, I liked films that didn't talk down to me as an audience member. If kids don't fully grasp the concepts now, they will later. I didn't fully grasp the sexual undertones with Frollo when I saw The Hunchback of Notre Dame at age 7, but I still loved the movie. There is nothing inappropriate in Soul that a kid can't watch. If kids come to have a deeper understanding of it as they grow up, that's fine. The film is in no way invalidated because it might not be kids' favorite Pixar title.

It's great that you don't see it as a problem, Jake. And, no, I'm not saying Pixar can't make films for adults.

So, is that what this is? A film for adults?

Because I'm fine if it's a film for adults. Just surprised. Is it a problem that I'm surprised by that?

My daughter and son-in-law were certainly surprised that the new Pixar movie had little to entertain their children. I think it's safe to say that most people look to Pixar fare as smart, adult-friendly kid movies. And if that's not correct, it's the reality I live in--especially when I review the list of titles they've produced over the years.

If Pixar is going to start making movies that are for adults, I would think they might be smart to change their branding a bit (think Disney/Touchstone).

 

[Jake Lipson]

Is it a problem that I'm surprised by that?

Of course not, but I think it underestimates Pixar's track record a little bit.

Pixar has made films with adults in mind before. I would not call them adult-friendly kids movies. I would call them movies which are appropriate for children to watch and enjoy -- of course we're not going to see something obscene in these films -- but the idea that Pixar has not dealt with serious adult issues in their films before is incorrect.

WALL-E is the most obvious example as the first section of the film is largely dialogue-free; most of the human characters are portrayed as morbidly obese blobs; like Soul, it deals with very weighty ideas; and the songs featured in it are from a film that preceded WALL-E by 39 years and which kids are unlikely to recognize.

Pixar also independently greenlit a film (Ratatouille) in which the protagonist is a rat who wants to make fine cuisine. That doesn't sound like it is very merchandisable to kids. But Pixar essentially forced Disney to distribute it as a condition of their sale. The Incredibles includes a plot point where Helen thinks Bob is having an affair and clearly demonstrates that their marriage is near a breaking point. Toy Story 3 has a climax in which the toys join hands in acceptance of their own mortality.

Carl, the protagonist of Up, is an senior citizen who spends the movie mourning the love of his life. Yes, he is accompanied by a spunky kid (Russell) and a colorful bird (Kevin), but they are not the center of the film. Carl is, and he watches his childhood hero attempt to murder him. Inside Out deals with similarly heavy issues as Soul. The difference is that the designs of Joy, Sadness, Anger, Fear and Disgust are more colorful, cuter and more plush-friendly than the blue soul things in Soul. Onward, which was released earlier this year, had the overlay of fantasy action and comedy, but it was about two young adults trying to deal with the death of their father.

Disney Animation, too, has dealt with serious themes in their movies. The Lion King involves the Simba's uncle Scar murdering his father, Mufasa, and framing him for the act. The Hunchback of Notre Dame features Frollo, a priest, having forbidden sexual feelings toward Esmeralda and trying to arrange her murder for not sleeping with him. Zootopia is an allegory about systemic racism. Frozen II is about the concept of change and having to reckon with bad decisions made by other people. Although these films often include bright colors, bouncy music and characters who kids will want as toys, mature storytelling has been part of the work for decades. Both Disney and Pixar have demonstrated again and again that they are willing to include elements that work for adults which the kids may or may not fully appreciate.

So Soul has a bit more of the adult themes than usual. I don't think that requires a branding switch. I also don't think Soul lacks elements that will appeal to children. I also think that if I were a kid I would appreciate the movie for its intelligence.

Disney tried the branding switch you suggested in 1993 when they decided to release The Nightmare Before Christmas under the Touchstone banner because it was seen as too intense for children. Now that it has become a success, they have retroactively claimed it as a Disney film, they merchandise the hell out of it and the Blu-ray substitutes the Disney logo in place of the original Touchstone one. So the branding change ultimately didn't stick.

You can feel any way you want to feel about the film. I'm not here to tell you otherwise. But I don't think the content of this film is unusual in a negative way or that it requires Disney to change course. I think it fits in nicely with what Pixar usually does.

 

[Mike Frezon]

but the idea that Pixar has not dealt with serious adult issues in their films before is incorrect.

That is not a claim I made.

As to all your examples of adult themes in Pixar/Disney movies, I believe those back my "smart, adult-friendly kids movies."

I think it fits in nicely with what Pixar usually does.

This is where we diverge. I do not think there is much here for kids to enjoy. To me, this is a movie for adults.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I do not think there is much here for kids to enjoy. To me, this is a movie for adults.

This is a serious question for the board as a whole and not meant to be argumentative or to diminish your perspective. But I seriously want to know: Does anyone here have kids who enjoyed Soul? And if so, what did they enjoy about it? How difficult was it for them to understand the concepts in the film?

I know @Sam Favate has mentioned he has kids before who usually like Pixar films. Anyone else would also be welcome to chime in too.

I don't have kids and never will, so I am by no means claiming to be an expert in child rearing. However, I don't think that explaining the afterlife concepts in this film to a kid would be significantly more challenging than explaining Mufasa being murdered and seeing his ghost in the sky. They might not know who all of 22's previous mentors are, for example, but I think a smart kid would be able to follow what's happening.

 

[Joe Wong]

Ah Hah! Someone else who thinks Die Hard is a Christmas movie, as do I. He thought it was too slow, jeez. There’s no wasted time in the movie leading up to the first shots. Everything on the screen is moving the film forward. He should watch it again to see what the beginning accomplished. There are some movies I will skip some of the beginning on a rewatch, but not Die Hard.

Not to divert the discussion... but of course Die Hard is a Christmas movie!

I love the relative calm of the 1st 15-20 min. Very efficient in establishing time, place, and character. Then you see the menacing approach of the terrorists' truck as the first sign of what's to come. But even then, director McTiernan skilfully and meticulously crafts the action, starting with smaller confrontations, then upping the intensity with each subsequent action setpiece, before the 1st peak with the rocket attack on the armoured vehicle, and the explosion that levels the whole floor. Then it takes a relative breather, before ramping up again with the furious fistfight with Karl and the climactic rooftop explosion. What a classic!

We had shown the kids Speed last year, so my son may have been expecting action from the get-go. That, or he's too easily distracted.

 

[Tino]

This film also owes a lot of its inspiration to the terrific Defending Your Life.

 

[Joe Wong]

This is a serious question for the board as a whole and not meant to be argumentative or to diminish your perspective. But I seriously want to know: Does anyone here have kids who enjoyed Soul? And if so, what did they enjoy about it? How difficult was it for them to understand the concepts in the film?

I know @Sam Favate has mentioned he has kids before who usually like Pixar films. Anyone else would also be welcome to chime in too.

I don't have kids and never will, so I am by no means claiming to be an expert in child rearing. However, I don't think that explaining the afterlife concepts in this film to a kid would be significantly more challenging than explaining Mufasa being murdered and seeing his ghost in the sky. They might not know who all of 22's previous mentors are, for example, but I think a smart kid would be able to follow what's happening.

My kids are now teenagers, but they grew up with the likes of Cars, Ratatouille, Wall-E, Up and Toy Story 3. Both enjoyed Soul, for what that's worth.

I would say that many Pixar films do tend to have "heavier" themes (Inside Out, Wall-E, The Incredibles and Incredibles 2, etc.), but is frequently interspersed with sequences that could be regarded as appealing to children. For example, the colourful visuals, frantic action, and clever humour that are some of the hallmarks of Pixar's output. Obviously every child is unique, so what one child may find less interesting in Soul, may appeal to another.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

most of the human characters are portrayed as morbidly obese blobs; like Soul, it deals with very weighty ideas;

I saw what you did there

And I agree that Pixar movies are, for the most part, adult-oriented, but with elements kids can enjoy as well, rather than the other way around.

I also find it interesting seeing the Pixar journey, starting with toys and small kids, then monsters as the kids get older, cars when they go on vacation, sadness when their old relatives have perhaps died, feelings when their kids become teenagers and now looking back, assessing their own lives and what makes a fulfilling life.
Maybe I'm over-analyzing, especially since they are not all written by the same person, but I see an overall theme of growing and learning in different phases of life in the themes they address. Brilliant.

 

[Tino]

I agree with @Mike Frezon that Soul is the most adult oriented Pixar film to date. Not to say kids wouldn’t enjoy it.

 

[Sam Favate]

My kids really enjoyed it. Maybe not to the degree they liked Onward, but they definitely enjoyed it and have been talking about it.

 

[Edwin-S]

I think it is funny how nobody questions the type of films a line action studio makes. They can make any type of Iilm from G-rated to R-rated and no one asks are.they making an adult or a kids movie. However, let an animation studio make an adult orientated film and it is why are they making films that kids won't like. It's always boils down to animation is meant for kids so.why are they making films for adults.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Checkout Rango for an animated film for adults that kids can still enjoy.

 

[Jake Lipson]

@Edwin-S hit the nail on the head. It is not often that the two of us agree on things, so I'm just going to let that sink in for a minute and say again that we are in complete agreement on this. Because the vast majority of animated films are appropriate for children to watch, there is a mindset that everything animation studios do must be for kids. That view is wildly incorrect and inherently limiting to the animation medium.

Soul is the kind of film that you get to make when your other films have been phenomenally successful.

Pete Docter previously directed Monsters, Inc., Up and Inside Out for Pixar. All of those were about as successful as films can get. They received huge acclaim from critics, were equally loved by audiences and generated big box office returns.

If he wanted to make a film that was more adult-oriented, of course Disney would let him do so as long as there's nothing obscene in it. I don't know him personally so I can't speak to his mindset, but I doubt very much that he decided "I want to make a film for adults." I think he probably thought, "This is the film that I want to make next" and they let him do it. Why wouldn't they?

During production of Soul, he also got promoted to Pixar's chief creative officer following John Lasseter's dismissal.

 

[Mark Booth]

I know you've seen the movie already, Mark, but I can't see how anything I wrote can be considered a spoiler. I didn't think I spoke to any specific plot point or event that would ruin anyone's first-time film-watching experience.

And I even gave that careful consideration before pushing "post reply" (and again after your complaint).

Jake nailed it...

Spoiler

The body swap was a surprising and humorous moment. You even revealed that the cat was involved.

Perhaps your dislike for the film is clouding your judgement whether other people deserve a spoiler-free discussion?

Mark

 

[Sam Posten]

So good:

 

[Sam Posten]

Jamie Foxx on Voicing Disney-Pixar’s First Black Lead in ‘Soul’ and Being Unapologetically Black in Hollywood

Jamie Foxx talks about voicing Joe in Disney-Pixar’s ‘Soul’ and explains why he’s never been asked to 'turn his Black down’ in Hollywood.

variety.com

 

[TravisR]

So good:

One thing that's cool is that you can hear Watchmen in Reznor and Ross' score but it's a evolution to something more upbeat and fun than that show was.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I find it unfortunate that Disney hasn't deemed the Soul score worthy of a physical CD release. Onward didn't get one earlier this year either, so it's not entirely surprising but remains disappointing. They've put out vinyl releases and the digital version that Sam linked, but not a CD. I would buy one if such a thing came out later, but I doubt it.

 

[Edwin-S]

For tne record, while I think the themes in the film will.resonate more adults than children, I also think that it is accessible to kids. It is still basically a family film as it doesn't really explore the darker side of life that people can fall into. It maintains an upbeat, positive, attitude to life whereas we know that for a lot of people, IRL, life is a.bleak existence. I think the film doesn't talk down to kids by dumbing down the story to some mediocre, easy digestible, Pablum.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Perhaps your dislike for the film is clouding your judgement whether other people deserve a spoiler-free discussion?

I'd hate to think that my judgment has been clouded.

My point was that I didn't think my original post contained anything that amounted to a spoiler.

@Edwin-S hit the nail on the head. It is not often that the two of us agree on things, so I'm just going to let that sink in for a minute and say again that we are in complete agreement on this. Because the vast majority of animated films are appropriate for children to watch, there is a mindset that everything animation studios do must be for kids. That view is wildly incorrect and inherently limiting to the animation medium.

Again. This is a claim I never made. All I said was that based on the studio's track history, Soul does not seem to fit well into Pixar's canon. In my opinion, it's a departure from Pixar's norm (to me, that seems obvious). But I never said that was a bad thing.

However, I don't think that explaining the afterlife concepts in this film to a kid would be significantly more challenging than explaining Mufasa being murdered and seeing his ghost in the sky.

This amounts to a straw man response to my critique. The plot of The Lion King vs. the plot of Soul have nothing to do with one another. You can't manufacture weak arguments to bolster your own position. My point about Soul was that the construct of all that was going on in the "other world" activities was extremely complex and disjointed. To me, the various creations within the "great before" (personality badges, earth badges, sparks, zones, counselors, mentors) were extremely confusing, making it difficult for kids to understand. But, frankly, I think you would have a harder time explaining to kids all those myriad contrivances versus "Mufasa is dead. He's now up in heaven (the stars)." I was not at all making a point that since Soul dealt with afterlife it was a taboo or difficult-to-accept topic for kids to handle--or, in any way comparable to the Disney film The Lion King. After all, Disney movies have been successful dealing in the business of parental death for decades.

They might not know who all of 22's previous mentors are, for example, but I think a smart kid would be able to follow what's happening.

Teenagers, maybe.

==============

It's a pretty simple thing. For the reasons I stated, I am not a big fan of this film. And that's okay. I don't need to be proven wrong about it. Nor does my "perspective need to be diminished." I am quite comfortable in my opinion and that of my adult kids and grandkids (who love most other Pixar films). I didn't think much of Onward, either. <gasp!> But I certainly don't think my opinions on films are definitive (I'm not smart enough on the topic.). I just knows what I like and I likes what I know.

And for anyone who thinks Soul was a great picture, I'm really quite happy for you and will neither try to convince you otherwise nor attempt to prove you wrong.