Pixar's SOUL

[TheVileOne]

Sigh..... lemme guess. Twitter?

Twitter was a mistake.

 

[Lencho01]

The pattern of non-White characters losing their bodies for part of a film understandably gets some side-eying. But, I laughed at how they straight up said 22 sounds like a White lady because that voice is annoying to people.

 

[Prison Mike]

I didn’t realize that souls had a race?

 

[Lencho01]

 

[TheVileOne]

The pattern of non-White characters losing their bodies for part of a film understandably gets some side-eying. But, I laughed at how they straight up said 22 sounds like a White lady because that voice is annoying to people.

But why does it get some side-eyeing? It's part of the story. The main protagonist goes on an uplifting inspiring journey where he gains insight about the universe, creation, and he becomes better for it.

Lencho01, my problem with remarks like that is that implies there's some sort of malicious intent here on the part of the filmmakers, when there's no evidence of that. Already for a movie that is very progressive when you get right down to it.

 

[Lencho01]

But why does it get some side-eyeing? It's part of the story. The main protagonist goes on an uplifting inspiring journey where he gains insight about the universe, creation, and he becomes better for it.

Lencho01, my problem with remarks like that is that implies there's some sort of malicious intent here on the part of the filmmakers, when there's no evidence of that. Already for a movie that is very progressive when you get right down to it.

It gets side-eyeing because it's a common trope that some people are tired of seeing. Thus, understandable.

Whether the individuals who bring it up feel it's of malicious intent by the creators or not doesn't change the fact that some people aren't fond of another story where a person of color loses their body in some way for part of the story. Basically the reaction is "Oh, here we go again" and that was after the trailers gave an idea of what the story would be about. Of course, more feelings were shared after the film's release.

 

[TheVileOne]

It gets side-eyeing because it's a common trope that some people are tired of seeing. Thus, understandable.

Whether the individuals who bring it up feel it's of malicious intent by the creators or not doesn't change the fact that some people aren't fond of another story where a person of color loses their body in some way for part of the story. Basically the reaction is "Oh, here we go again" and that was after the trailers gave an idea of what the story would be about. Of course, more feelings were shared after the film's release.

That's a rather superficial element to get hung up on.

 

[Lencho01]

That's a rather superficial element to get hung up on.

It is what it is.

 

[sueb1863]

Just got done watching this. Great stuff, the only part that didn’t sit right with me was the last minute “second chance.”

Spoiler

Apparently they had several different endings to the movie, including some versions where Joe stayed dead. I guess they chose this one because they thought it worked the best.

 

[TheVileOne]

I think it worked. It still has some ambiguity.

 

[sueb1863]

Spoiler

I thought it seemed sort of abrupt. OK, Joe says he's going to 'live every minute' of his life. What does that mean? Did he decide not to accept the jazz gig and stay being a teacher? Did he quit the teaching job to play jazz full time? Did he do both? And why didn't he suffer any long term physical effects from basically being almost dead? I would have liked to see more about his post-experience life before thing wrapped up.

 

[Arachnerd]

Spoiler

He meant that now he would appreciate the simple moments of life instead of just focusing on being a jazz musician, thus not taking those moments for granted. Whether that entails that he quits the gig or not or stays a teacher is up to the viewer.

Unpopular opinion, but I love the ambiguity of the ending.

 

[terry78]

Yeah me and my girl watched it again last night. I still enjoy the ending, she didn't care for it.

 

[TheVileOne]

Spoiler

He meant that now he would appreciate the simple moments of life instead of just focusing on being a jazz musician, thus not taking those moments for granted. Whether that entails that he quits the gig or not or stays a teacher is up to the viewer.

Unpopular opinion, but I love the ambiguity of the ending.

Yes, this exactly. Couldn't have put it better.

 

[LvtLeeTDK]

First half was amazing and definitely grab my attention.
However, the second half was quite disappointing, everything happens so fast and abrubtly, especially the ending.
Moreover, the movie contains an incredibly simple message, but the plot tries to complicate it and make it ambiguous. I have to look up on the internet after the movie to see if I miss something. I did not even think about "that message" when I watched Soul because there's no way it's that simple. Turned out it is what it is.
Overall, I'm really underwhelmed by the movie. First half was amazing and very intriguing, but the quality dropped dramatically after that. Visually, it's stunning, but everything feels so unfinished and abrupt.

 

[Kirmit]

I know this is likely an unpopular opinion but I really didn’t like Joe, 22 was the star in my opinion.

 

[:eek:]

Pandemic Streaming Pixar Pics ‘Soul’, ‘Turning Red’ & ‘Luca’ To Hit Theaters For First Time In 2024; Movies Will Remain On Disney+ During Window

In an intriguing move, yet retro, move for Disney on the 2024 theatrical release calendar which is starving for product, three Pixar movies –2020’s Soul, 2021’s Luca and 2022&#821…

deadline.com

 

[Arachnerd]

I'm 99% sure Disney wouldn't be doing any of this if they hadn't had bomb after bomb this year.

 

[Drizzle]

I'm 99% sure Disney wouldn't be doing any of this if they hadn't had bomb after bomb this year.

I had actually thought that it was because they lost a chunk of their 2024 slate due to the strikes but I think you're on the money with that, it's probably a combination of both.

Still, it's cool that Soul is getting a shot at theaters. That was the only Pixar movie where the decision to release it only on streaming was justified since most theaters were still closed at the time at the height of the pandemic, pre-vaccines, etc. Luca and Turning Red not being released in theaters was more inexcusable.

 

[psylockolussus]

It will be interesting to see the boX office numbers for these 3 films.

 

[OrbOfConfusion]

I'm 99% sure Disney wouldn't be doing any of this if they hadn't had bomb after bomb this year.

Als, this line:

"The titles will remain in play on Disney+ during their new theatrical window."

So what's the point? Sure, those movies didn't get theatrical releases, but if they're on Disney+, what incentive does a family have to get the family into the car and go to the movies when they can just watch it from home?

 

[psylockolussus]

Its basically for just anyone who want to see these 3 films, in the big screen. Good for those fans who will have this option to finally see them in the big screen.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

That's a rather superficial element to get hung up on.

It's at least an interesting, if unfortunate coincidence. While I wouldn't say there was any malicious intent, it's still a trope they should be careful to avoid in future films.

For reference, despite the fact that the vast majority of animated Disney movies with human protagonists star white-European characters, the only one (across all the studios they own) that features a protagonist who gets turned into an animal is The Sword in the Stone. But that's notably different from the usual trope, in that Wart willingly becomes multiple different animals as part of his lessons with Merlin, whereas the usual trope features the protagonist being turned into an animal against their will. Which happens in the following Disney-owned films...

Emperor's New Groove
Brother Bear
Princess and the Frog
Spies in Disguise
Turning Red
Soul

Now obviously that's across three separate animation studios, so clearly not some sort of coordinated messaging or whatever, but still, it's something they should be conscious of going forward. Especially in any future animated films with African-American protags, since they're 3 for 3 with animated African-American protags who got turned into animals.

 

[TheVileOne]

It's at least an interesting, if unfortunate coincidence. While I wouldn't say there was any malicious intent, it's still a trope they should be careful to avoid in future films.

For reference, despite the fact that the vast majority of animated Disney movies with human protagonists star white-European characters, the only one (across all the studios they own) that features a protagonist who gets turned into an animal is The Sword in the Stone. But that's notably different from the usual trope, in that Wart willingly becomes multiple different animals as part of his lessons with Merlin, whereas the usual trope features the protagonist being turned into an animal against their will. Which happens in the following Disney-owned films...

Emperor's New Groove
Brother Bear
Princess and the Frog
Spies in Disguise
Turning Red
Soul

Now obviously that's across three separate animation studios, so clearly not some sort of coordinated messaging or whatever, but still, it's something they should be conscious of going forward. Especially in any future animated films with African-American protags, since they're 3 for 3 with animated African-American protags who got turned into animals.

No one got turned into an animal in Soul. In Brave, the Scottish, caucasian queen gets turned into a bear. Also, Emperor's New Groove came out in 2000. Princess in the Frog came out in 2010. Spies in Disguise wasn't even a Disney movie.

Sorry but this point is lost on me.

To me the implication seems to be is that POCs having a weird adventure where they get turned into an animal is malicious or racist.

 

[Da-Scribe]

I would love to see a black person just be a black person in one of these movies.