ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
Sing is the latest and seventh feature film by the animation studios Illumination Entertainment, a subdivision of Universal. It is the second release by the company in the year after the smash hit The Secret Life of Pets, and the second animated film of the year about a society of anthropomorphic animals. But unlike the utmost beloved Zootopia, it seems to be less about its context and more about its own story of a koala trying to save his theatre from bankruptcy. The fact it's set in a city populated by walking and talking animals seems to be incidental to the proceedings - apparently to make the story more interesting for kids.
The film got mostly positive reviews, and it’s making an excellent box office so far. But the thing that has called my attention the most about the film was its promos, its posters: no longer Illumination is just “from the creators of Despicable Me”. The posters now proudly announce above the film’s title “Illumination presents”, like a badge of quality. The company’s name arrived, and it seems to be gathering more and more steam.
Unlike Disney and Pixar, with their massive 150-200 million dollars films, Illumination manages to make its movies for less than 80 millions. From my knowledge, Minions is the least expensive movie ever to make a billion, with a budget of 74 millions – I’m still kicking myself about this, and I didn’t think this could be possible. But it was, and it was because for all their storytelling shortcomings and formulaic ideals, folks at Illumination don’t invest heavily in visuals.
They invest in characters.
They make movies with stock archetypes that nevertheless are so interesting to see. Illumination found out that the simple secret to make appealing family films is to make audiences fall for these characters, and not to throw money at such movies like nobody’s business. And this has been proved true time and time again, since Illumination has made some of the most popular animated films of this century. By comparing textures, shading, hair and other technical details between Illumination films with those by Pixar, it’s obvious there’s a difference in the budgets. But Illumination has no interest in making photo-realistic settings and characters – go see how well the magnificent visuals from The Good Dinosaur helped it at the box office.
We have been so much bombarded with this sort of imagery that people just got tired of it. To have amazing visual effects will not do the trick anymore. And artists at Illumination seem to understand that they are making digital cartoons, and not recreating reality. To me, that is a virtue in itself - one that audiences responded very positively to.
However, as the company started to become more popular, it also started to become more contested, more antagonised even. With its movies turning bigger profits for their makers, Illumination also became the target of pseudo-intellectuals, bent on trying to convince audiences (and sometimes very successfully) that Illumination is actually bad. That every movie it has ever produced is awful - even the ones that aren't. In fact, the good ones are becoming precisely their bigger targets: anyone can talk crap of films like Minions or Hop, but when you target Despicable Me, you can convince others that the best of Illumination is pretty bad actually, so all of it is bad.
Illumination is the new Michael Bay: the new enemy of egdy contrarians, film critics, YouTubers and editors who try to bring us truth with their double standards and nitpicking. To the point that you actually ask yourself: why all this hate? By observing its filmography thus far, one may have an idea of why... but it's still not much of a validation to their arguments.
The process of Illumination to reach where it is now was slow, and trust me, painful sometimes - for us and possibly for itself too. It may have started with a bang in the beginning of the decade with Despicable Me, but it didn’t arrive immediately. It was a bumpy road to reach this recognition - and backlash - it has now. So, in order for us to track how it came into the position it is now, we must first take a look at the whole picture, the context at which Illumination found itself into.
At the 90’s, computer-generated visual effects were growing in Hollywood, and a computer-animated film seemed to be the next logical step. Pixar - a former Lucasfilm company - was struggling to keep itself afloat, making CGI shorts and commercials. Pixar had its big break when it released its first feature film in 1995 with Toy Story, which dumbfounded both audiences and critics alike. Lead by John Lassater and funded by Disney, the film became a division point in the history of cinema: not only it was a technological break-thought, but it also was a genuine work of art. Everything in it seemed to have been carefully thought about, and nothing in it seemed contrived. People hadn’t seen that level of quality and dedication in decades; it was a film dripping with care and love.
Pixar started gaining momentum in the following years, while on the other hand, Disney itself started growing more dependent on Pixar. It started to fatigue, almost like becoming too comfortable in the situation. So it really seemed that Pixar would be without any considerable adversaries - not even Disney itself. But then DreamWorks Pictures surged as a contestant by the late 90's.
In case people has forgotten already, DreamWorks started as more than an animation company; it was founded by Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and former Disney chairman John Katzenberg in 1994, and it proceeded to release films like Saving Private Ryan, American Beauty and Gladiator in less than ten years. It was small but ambitious, like the Orion Pictures of its time. But as a star that shines twice as brightly and burns out twice as fast, it couldn't sustain itself against Hollywood's long stabilised big studios, leading it to focus mainly in what was indeed working out for the company: DreamWorks Animation.
At the beginning, DreamWorks Animation was noted for being highly creative and original. Releasing CGI, hand-drawn and even stop-motion animated films (in partnership with Aardman Animation), it pushed the limits of what family animated cinema could do, both visually and thematically. DreamWorks released films like The Road to El Dorado, Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, Chicken Run and The Prince of Egypt, all of these dealing with themes hardily explored by other family films, or even adult films. Its very first animated film was Antz in 1998, which was incredibly ambitious with its ideas, symbolism and social musings. It was released in the same season as Pixar’s similarly themed A Bug’s Life, and a bitter rivalry started between the two companies.
In the new century, CGI started taking the spot from traditional hand-drawn animation. Many say that Pixar is the one to blame for that swift, but truth is it was going to happen sooner or later. Even traditionally hand-drawn movies such as The Iron Giant, Treasure Planet and Titan A.E. featured heavy digital elements. As CGI was being slowly perfected, it proved to be more practical and dynamic than classic animation, easier actually. And if Pixar hadn't opened the doors, it would have been someone else. So be thankful it was Pixar: just imagine if everything had started with Foodfight!.
In 2006, Disney officially bought the company, and at first, the results weren’t immediate: Pixar still released excellent films like Ratatouille, WALL-E and Up. But with time, as John Lassater started reforming Disney from the inside, Disney was not dependent on Pixar anymore. If in the past, Pixar was the one to blame for Disney falling from grace, now the roles inverted, as Disney started to release some of the most beloved animated films of these last years, while Pixar was relegated as a secondary company, left to revisit its own materials. In the beginning, Disney's own CGI films seemed like they wouldn't amount to much, like Chicken Little, Bolt and Meet the Robinsons. But those were the baby steps to what we see from the company now.
In 2015 – and now with Universal assimilated by Comcast – the company released the spin-off Minions, which focused on the origins of Gru’s supporting sidekicks. The characters were proving to be very beloved by audiences, making a great success on merchandising and pretty much being everywhere. It wasn't something Universal foisted into audiences, for the appeal of the Minions was organic. So naturally, a sequel was wanted with them as the main stars.
Now, I have conflicting emotions about this film. In one hand, I loved how it was set in 1968, and we get to see both New York and London at that particular time – the Swinging London, mind you. I loved that the soundtrack was filled with tunes of the time, such as Happy Together, My Generation, You Really Got Me and so many others. And I loved Scarlett Overkill, voiced with charisma by Sandra Bullock (“hey, a girl's gotta make a living”). I loved that the film was narrated by Geoffrey Rush, and I loved that Michael Keaton was there too as an evil dad. Hell, I loved seeing Queen Elizabeth getting drunk in a pub among a bunch of blokes. There was a lot to love about that film… but there was also a lot to hate.
For starters, the Minions work best as supporting characters, and not as main protagonists. By their nature, putting them upfront is too much, and while the film focused on only three Minions, it didn’t necessarily toned them down. That’s why so many people hated Cars 2: because Mater is not so much a hateful character as he works better in the background. The film also had idle moments in which not much happened, and we saw the Minions just derping around. The plot relied too much in coincidences, and there were contrived moments that made absolutely no sense, such as a character conveniently not dying in an explosion, and somehow being “cured” by it. At one moment near the end, two characters just take the Imperial State Crown in a crowded event and run among the Londoners. A scene so stupid I believed the writers themselves were thinking “oh, let's just end it already! It’s just an animated film”. Something like that would never have happened in old Pixar.
Minions is a mediocre movie that faltered as much as it succeeded, and that wasn't eithet as bad as some people said, nor as good as its box office suggested. To me, it was a frustrating film, because it could have been so much better with all its functioning elements. My whining apart, it was a mega-hit for Universal, as I pointed out repetitively. And the curious thing is that before last year, Universal still didn’t have a billion-making film, and in 2015, it got three at once with Minions, Furious 7 and Jurassic World.
But quality apart, now Illumination was a proven real deal. It was making the hits that DreamWorks never did; it reached a level Blue Sky was never able to. It became a force to be renown.
Update
So, The Super Mario Bros. Movie - commonly referred to simply as "the Mario Movie" - has been a massive success. The biggest opening for an animated film, the biggest video game adaptation, so far the highest grossing film of the year, you name it. With all its success and strong public approval, it opened the doors to future similar Nintendo adaptations. But it also became the subject of heated discussions about the clash of critics and audiences. Not since Batman v. Superman we saw this conversation being taken so upfront. But given all I know, I would say this is not so much a dissonance between critics and viewers as it is a dissonance between Illumination haters and regular people who just want to see a fun animated film.
Let's rewind back to when Nintendo announced Illumination would be making this movie. Most people felt it made sense: Illumination routinely makes enjoyable movies that audiences care for. But among the pseudo-intellectuals that I mentioned in my 2016 essay from above, this was a bad idea. It was awful that Shigeru Miyamoto - a living legend in video games and entertainment in general - approved of this. Lions walk with lions, and a great like him "slumming" with Illumination must have been a stab in their hearts. Must have been an executive decision, right? But they failed to see something important: for all their differences (specially in medium), Illumination and Nintendo are very similar in that they prioritise fun first.
It is a known fact by now that Nintendo wants nothing more than making games that people enjoy playing. This has been mentioned by thousands of YouTubers who think this is not so obvious. Regardless of theme, Nintendo always want to please gamers: very rarely their games are frustrating, sadistic, or ask players to play them "by their own terms" or some crap. And as such, Nintendo grew to become the most well-known and beloved gaming company out there, and when they wanted their most famous character to feature in a movie, they obviously wanted someone with a similar philosophy.
Illumination is a hugely beloved company, so it was a match made in heaven. And their project became a love letter to Mario and the history of Nintendo that deeply connected with audiences. It's light on story, just as it should be; it doesn't try to follow modern animation trends; it feels genuine and heartfelt. It was a definite proof that the first and main component for a successful game adaptation is love for the source, which has lacked in such adaptations for years.
But the people who seem to carry such a nitpicky contempt for this film is so obviously the Illumination haters - critics and elitists who think they know better than everybody, including the ones who loved it. The Mario movie went to show just how much of an irrelevant minority they are. They can scream and be as vocal as they want, it doesn't change the fact that Illumination is, quite frankly, one of the best animation companies out there. One with a different ethos than Pixar, Saloon or Ghibli, but a valid ethos nonetheless. So yeah, cry your heart out, haters: we can't wait for the sequel.
I would also like to point out this new phenomenon in CGI film animation to go for more stylised visuals over ultra-realistic graphics. I find it curious that everybody says Into the Spiderverse is the one that started this all, when Illumination has been making these non-realistic movies for years and years. To be fair, it's not that they wanted to challenge anything: it was more of a by-product of them not wanting to spend a lot on visuals, because as I wrote all the way back in 2016, they're making cartoons, not recreating real life. And as their box-office profits proved, such recreation that Pixar, Disney and DreamWorks have always produced doesn't mean much: audiences ultimately are not there for the details on Bob Parr's sweater. But the mere fact their movies have never leaned into ultra-realism (albeit The Super Mario Bros. Movie was visually stunning) is something to be noticed and appreciated.
I appreciate you, Illumination.
The film got mostly positive reviews, and it’s making an excellent box office so far. But the thing that has called my attention the most about the film was its promos, its posters: no longer Illumination is just “from the creators of Despicable Me”. The posters now proudly announce above the film’s title “Illumination presents”, like a badge of quality. The company’s name arrived, and it seems to be gathering more and more steam.
Unlike Disney and Pixar, with their massive 150-200 million dollars films, Illumination manages to make its movies for less than 80 millions. From my knowledge, Minions is the least expensive movie ever to make a billion, with a budget of 74 millions – I’m still kicking myself about this, and I didn’t think this could be possible. But it was, and it was because for all their storytelling shortcomings and formulaic ideals, folks at Illumination don’t invest heavily in visuals.
They invest in characters.
They make movies with stock archetypes that nevertheless are so interesting to see. Illumination found out that the simple secret to make appealing family films is to make audiences fall for these characters, and not to throw money at such movies like nobody’s business. And this has been proved true time and time again, since Illumination has made some of the most popular animated films of this century. By comparing textures, shading, hair and other technical details between Illumination films with those by Pixar, it’s obvious there’s a difference in the budgets. But Illumination has no interest in making photo-realistic settings and characters – go see how well the magnificent visuals from The Good Dinosaur helped it at the box office.
We have been so much bombarded with this sort of imagery that people just got tired of it. To have amazing visual effects will not do the trick anymore. And artists at Illumination seem to understand that they are making digital cartoons, and not recreating reality. To me, that is a virtue in itself - one that audiences responded very positively to.
However, as the company started to become more popular, it also started to become more contested, more antagonised even. With its movies turning bigger profits for their makers, Illumination also became the target of pseudo-intellectuals, bent on trying to convince audiences (and sometimes very successfully) that Illumination is actually bad. That every movie it has ever produced is awful - even the ones that aren't. In fact, the good ones are becoming precisely their bigger targets: anyone can talk crap of films like Minions or Hop, but when you target Despicable Me, you can convince others that the best of Illumination is pretty bad actually, so all of it is bad.
Illumination is the new Michael Bay: the new enemy of egdy contrarians, film critics, YouTubers and editors who try to bring us truth with their double standards and nitpicking. To the point that you actually ask yourself: why all this hate? By observing its filmography thus far, one may have an idea of why... but it's still not much of a validation to their arguments.
The process of Illumination to reach where it is now was slow, and trust me, painful sometimes - for us and possibly for itself too. It may have started with a bang in the beginning of the decade with Despicable Me, but it didn’t arrive immediately. It was a bumpy road to reach this recognition - and backlash - it has now. So, in order for us to track how it came into the position it is now, we must first take a look at the whole picture, the context at which Illumination found itself into.
At the 90’s, computer-generated visual effects were growing in Hollywood, and a computer-animated film seemed to be the next logical step. Pixar - a former Lucasfilm company - was struggling to keep itself afloat, making CGI shorts and commercials. Pixar had its big break when it released its first feature film in 1995 with Toy Story, which dumbfounded both audiences and critics alike. Lead by John Lassater and funded by Disney, the film became a division point in the history of cinema: not only it was a technological break-thought, but it also was a genuine work of art. Everything in it seemed to have been carefully thought about, and nothing in it seemed contrived. People hadn’t seen that level of quality and dedication in decades; it was a film dripping with care and love.
Pixar started gaining momentum in the following years, while on the other hand, Disney itself started growing more dependent on Pixar. It started to fatigue, almost like becoming too comfortable in the situation. So it really seemed that Pixar would be without any considerable adversaries - not even Disney itself. But then DreamWorks Pictures surged as a contestant by the late 90's.
In case people has forgotten already, DreamWorks started as more than an animation company; it was founded by Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and former Disney chairman John Katzenberg in 1994, and it proceeded to release films like Saving Private Ryan, American Beauty and Gladiator in less than ten years. It was small but ambitious, like the Orion Pictures of its time. But as a star that shines twice as brightly and burns out twice as fast, it couldn't sustain itself against Hollywood's long stabilised big studios, leading it to focus mainly in what was indeed working out for the company: DreamWorks Animation.
At the beginning, DreamWorks Animation was noted for being highly creative and original. Releasing CGI, hand-drawn and even stop-motion animated films (in partnership with Aardman Animation), it pushed the limits of what family animated cinema could do, both visually and thematically. DreamWorks released films like The Road to El Dorado, Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, Chicken Run and The Prince of Egypt, all of these dealing with themes hardily explored by other family films, or even adult films. Its very first animated film was Antz in 1998, which was incredibly ambitious with its ideas, symbolism and social musings. It was released in the same season as Pixar’s similarly themed A Bug’s Life, and a bitter rivalry started between the two companies.
In the new century, CGI started taking the spot from traditional hand-drawn animation. Many say that Pixar is the one to blame for that swift, but truth is it was going to happen sooner or later. Even traditionally hand-drawn movies such as The Iron Giant, Treasure Planet and Titan A.E. featured heavy digital elements. As CGI was being slowly perfected, it proved to be more practical and dynamic than classic animation, easier actually. And if Pixar hadn't opened the doors, it would have been someone else. So be thankful it was Pixar: just imagine if everything had started with Foodfight!.
With Shrek, it seemed like everything was going well for DreamWorks. However, for some reason, the company adopted a philosophy of releasing as much films as possible; to value quantity over quality. And while this proved to be financially sound, artistically, this proved to be terrible, for the company started pumping out generic films. Some of its movies may enjoy some perennial recognition today, like How to Train Your Dragon and Madagascar. But many other outputs were works that came, made their business, and were then forgotten. Movies filled with celebrities, and lacking in soul. Tell me, when was the last time DreamWorks made the film everybody loved? When was the last time it made that film people remembered for years to come? I mean, Jesus, who's even going to remember Trolls in a few months of now? People are barely aware that such a film exists now.
Bee Movie in particular is actually curious. It immediately felt into obscurity in the months following its release, but it was resurrected recently by the online community as an internet meme. Seriously. YouTube is now filled with "dank" videos about DreamWorks' 15th animated film. And what to expect from a movie in which Ray Liotta has his own honey brand, and in which bees sue humans? I swear I feel like a fucking idiot just by describing that. If this doesn't have meme potential, I don't know what does. With a plot like this, it feels like folks in DreamWorks were doing cocaine during the whole creative process of this film. It's so dumb it's sort of brilliant.
DreamWorks adopted a strictly cold and capitalistic mentality. So far DreamWorks has released 33 animated films, versus 17 of Pixar - nearly half. While DreamWorks started tossing films at the wall to see what sticks, Pixar is a more composed and focused company, and each film it releases is an event in itself. DreamWorks makes more money, and that is logical when it releases these much films. However, so far DreamWorks' films have made a smaller average of money per film than Pixar, which has two films that grossed over a billion dollars. DreamWorks has none.
Bee Movie in particular is actually curious. It immediately felt into obscurity in the months following its release, but it was resurrected recently by the online community as an internet meme. Seriously. YouTube is now filled with "dank" videos about DreamWorks' 15th animated film. And what to expect from a movie in which Ray Liotta has his own honey brand, and in which bees sue humans? I swear I feel like a fucking idiot just by describing that. If this doesn't have meme potential, I don't know what does. With a plot like this, it feels like folks in DreamWorks were doing cocaine during the whole creative process of this film. It's so dumb it's sort of brilliant.
DreamWorks adopted a strictly cold and capitalistic mentality. So far DreamWorks has released 33 animated films, versus 17 of Pixar - nearly half. While DreamWorks started tossing films at the wall to see what sticks, Pixar is a more composed and focused company, and each film it releases is an event in itself. DreamWorks makes more money, and that is logical when it releases these much films. However, so far DreamWorks' films have made a smaller average of money per film than Pixar, which has two films that grossed over a billion dollars. DreamWorks has none.
In that sense, it seemed like Pixar was the undisputed champion. I mean, there was Blue Sky Studios from 20th Century Fox, but it never became the powerhouse contestant many expected it to become. It was always a third wheel, a company that started well, but it then proceeded into making forgettable and sometimes straight embarrassing films. Ice Age: Collision Course was the absolute rock-bottom for the once promising company (if Rio 2 hadn’t been already); the point in which they just crapped something out, and went to the bank. It's almost like if they had embraced they will never be Pixar, so they started behaving like if indeed they won't - a self-fulfilling prophecy. And a tragic fate to a company that with films like the first Ice Age, Robots and Horton Hears a Who! had everything to be the next big thing. So it was Pixar and… nobody else, really.
In 2006, Disney officially bought the company, and at first, the results weren’t immediate: Pixar still released excellent films like Ratatouille, WALL-E and Up. But with time, as John Lassater started reforming Disney from the inside, Disney was not dependent on Pixar anymore. If in the past, Pixar was the one to blame for Disney falling from grace, now the roles inverted, as Disney started to release some of the most beloved animated films of these last years, while Pixar was relegated as a secondary company, left to revisit its own materials. In the beginning, Disney's own CGI films seemed like they wouldn't amount to much, like Chicken Little, Bolt and Meet the Robinsons. But those were the baby steps to what we see from the company now.
Illumination Entertainment proliferated from this fertile soil. Pixar is not at its prime; DreamWorks is not exciting anymore; Blue Sky was a promise that never came to be; Warner Bros. is slowly coming back to the game, but Storks was a commercial disappointment. If there's a time for Illumination to shine, it is now.
Illumination was founded in 2007 by former 20th Century Fox Animation president Chris Meledandri, who was involved in some Blue Sky productions and even The Simpsons Movie. He is regarded as the responsible for the resurgence of Fox in the animation scenario, after the costly flop Titan A.E. had pushed the company out from the area. After putting Fox back on its feet in what concerns animation, Meledandri left to create his own thing, Illumination. In the meanwhile, Universal wanted to get in the animation game, as animated films were making billions, so Universal wanted a share of that market as well. It needed an animation division, its own Pixar. In 2008, Illumination was announced as NBC/Universal’s “family entertainment arm”.
Illumination was founded in 2007 by former 20th Century Fox Animation president Chris Meledandri, who was involved in some Blue Sky productions and even The Simpsons Movie. He is regarded as the responsible for the resurgence of Fox in the animation scenario, after the costly flop Titan A.E. had pushed the company out from the area. After putting Fox back on its feet in what concerns animation, Meledandri left to create his own thing, Illumination. In the meanwhile, Universal wanted to get in the animation game, as animated films were making billions, so Universal wanted a share of that market as well. It needed an animation division, its own Pixar. In 2008, Illumination was announced as NBC/Universal’s “family entertainment arm”.
Its first film was the wonderful Despicable Me from 2010 – a film that could have done somethings better, but that did nothing wrong. Like The Incredibles, it had that retro-futuristic style with a much appropriated 60's James Bond vibe. It told the story of globetrotting supervillain Gru, voiced by Steve Carell, who is assisted by bumbling yellow creatures known as “minions” and a deaf old scientist. Fearing obsolescence and being left behind by younger villains, he adopts three little orphan girls to use them in a plan to capture a shrinking device, so he can steal the moon. He is grumpy, and has no other need for the girls, but... look, you don't have to have seen the film to know where this is going. It may have been a little predictable – it was obvious the girls were going to break through his defences and warm up that grumpy guy. But it was surely very pleasant during its running time, making a glorious box office of 543 million dollars with a budget of 69 millions. And with that, the company started off in good terms with Universal.
The following film was the Easter-themed oddity Hop from 2011 – a live-action/animated film. It had quite an assemble with Russell Brand, James Marsden, Kaley Cuoco, Hank Azaria, Gary Cole, Elizabeth Perkins and Hugh Laurie. There's not a lot of films about this holiday (at least not memorable ones), but Hop was determinate to try its luck, and maybe even to make the date a thing to be explored by Hollywood. But for all its "ambition", the film under-performed at the box office: it made its money back, but it didn’t break the 200 million mark, while being panned by critics and unloved by audiences. Wisely, the company would never venture into live-action again.
In 2012, it was The Lorax, and there’s no better way to put it: it was bad. It was a bad film by itself and a terrible adaptation of the work by Dr. Seuss. The Lorax himself, voiced by Danny DeVito, was actually pretty interesting, with a laid down persona and a sense of coolness, apparently channelling Jake from Adventure Time. But the whole film was just one big misguided and hysterical attempt to excite us. It ended up looking and feeling like one of the most generic animated films one could think of. It concluded with a happy ending that betrayed the original work by Dr. Seuss, which was meant to have an ambiguous ending to get children reflecting about their world. Hell, they even called Zac Efron and Taylor Swift to voice the pubescent characters, just to pander to kids these days. The film was a box office success, making 348 million dollars… but it was still inferior to the smash hit Despicable Me.
In 2012, it was The Lorax, and there’s no better way to put it: it was bad. It was a bad film by itself and a terrible adaptation of the work by Dr. Seuss. The Lorax himself, voiced by Danny DeVito, was actually pretty interesting, with a laid down persona and a sense of coolness, apparently channelling Jake from Adventure Time. But the whole film was just one big misguided and hysterical attempt to excite us. It ended up looking and feeling like one of the most generic animated films one could think of. It concluded with a happy ending that betrayed the original work by Dr. Seuss, which was meant to have an ambiguous ending to get children reflecting about their world. Hell, they even called Zac Efron and Taylor Swift to voice the pubescent characters, just to pander to kids these days. The film was a box office success, making 348 million dollars… but it was still inferior to the smash hit Despicable Me.
So, what to do? Simple: make a sequel to the film people loved so much. And it worked like a charm: released in 2013, Despicable Me 2 was a massive hit, making 970 million dollars. For two years, it was actually the highest grossing Universal movie ever. The film converted Gru from a bad guy into a hero, but I thought this was the greatest issue of the film, since Gru should have remained as a supervillain… but one with a heart of gold (a gentleman thief, perhaps). Despite that, the film generally works fine, and it even feels like a natural sequel: we want to see what will be the next step for Gru’s new family, their new challenges. The film had some gratifying new characters like Lucy Wilde, voiced by Kristen Wiig. Also, Kristen Schaal is there as a vain valley girl, because why not? The film put Illumination back on the track, and from then on, it was a smooth sailing for the company.
In 2015 – and now with Universal assimilated by Comcast – the company released the spin-off Minions, which focused on the origins of Gru’s supporting sidekicks. The characters were proving to be very beloved by audiences, making a great success on merchandising and pretty much being everywhere. It wasn't something Universal foisted into audiences, for the appeal of the Minions was organic. So naturally, a sequel was wanted with them as the main stars.
Now, I have conflicting emotions about this film. In one hand, I loved how it was set in 1968, and we get to see both New York and London at that particular time – the Swinging London, mind you. I loved that the soundtrack was filled with tunes of the time, such as Happy Together, My Generation, You Really Got Me and so many others. And I loved Scarlett Overkill, voiced with charisma by Sandra Bullock (“hey, a girl's gotta make a living”). I loved that the film was narrated by Geoffrey Rush, and I loved that Michael Keaton was there too as an evil dad. Hell, I loved seeing Queen Elizabeth getting drunk in a pub among a bunch of blokes. There was a lot to love about that film… but there was also a lot to hate.
For starters, the Minions work best as supporting characters, and not as main protagonists. By their nature, putting them upfront is too much, and while the film focused on only three Minions, it didn’t necessarily toned them down. That’s why so many people hated Cars 2: because Mater is not so much a hateful character as he works better in the background. The film also had idle moments in which not much happened, and we saw the Minions just derping around. The plot relied too much in coincidences, and there were contrived moments that made absolutely no sense, such as a character conveniently not dying in an explosion, and somehow being “cured” by it. At one moment near the end, two characters just take the Imperial State Crown in a crowded event and run among the Londoners. A scene so stupid I believed the writers themselves were thinking “oh, let's just end it already! It’s just an animated film”. Something like that would never have happened in old Pixar.
Minions is a mediocre movie that faltered as much as it succeeded, and that wasn't eithet as bad as some people said, nor as good as its box office suggested. To me, it was a frustrating film, because it could have been so much better with all its functioning elements. My whining apart, it was a mega-hit for Universal, as I pointed out repetitively. And the curious thing is that before last year, Universal still didn’t have a billion-making film, and in 2015, it got three at once with Minions, Furious 7 and Jurassic World.
But quality apart, now Illumination was a proven real deal. It was making the hits that DreamWorks never did; it reached a level Blue Sky was never able to. It became a force to be renown.
This year, Illumination released two movies. The Secret Life of Pets, which was better received than Minions, and made a massive box office of 875 million dollars. It's been compared to Toy Story, and now we also have Sing, which is inevitably being compared to Zootopia and even Pitch Perfect. In fact, now that I think about it, most Illumination films are similar and comparable to other films. And the fact the company relies heavily in franchising proves originality is not its main focus.
The focus, once again, is in characters. It’s in Gru, trying to put those girls in bed. It’s in those girls, flipping Gru’s world around. It’s in the Minions, trying to throw a birthday party to Dracula that goes terribly awry. It’s in Scarlett Overkill, with her retro bad girl appeal. It’s in the Lorax, with his calm yet assuring personality. It’s in Rosita, who dreams of becoming a pop star after a miserable life. It’s in all those pets in Manhattan, each with their traits. It's in the characters, some of them overblown, others relatable, some stereotypical, but all enjoyable.
Yes, their movies are not perfect, Yes, they have released some bad movies. But overall, they have also made some enjoyable movies, and if you're going to nitpick them, you better nitpick everyone else. Pixar too can follow some formulas and come to obvious conclusions, but people don't attack them because they craft (or used to) better stories. Pixar and DreamWorks make use of clichés just like everyone else, and I'm not saying it so to be defensive or apologetic to Illumination - I'm merely being realistic, for I'm pointing out what they do wrong and what they do right. It goes without saying that Illumination is not a fully artistically accomplished company like Pixar at its golden age. But the fact it invests not in expensive visuals but in characters who audiences hold dear may serve as a message for the rest of Hollywood.
So keep them going, Chris. Keep this train a-movin'.
_____________
Yes, their movies are not perfect, Yes, they have released some bad movies. But overall, they have also made some enjoyable movies, and if you're going to nitpick them, you better nitpick everyone else. Pixar too can follow some formulas and come to obvious conclusions, but people don't attack them because they craft (or used to) better stories. Pixar and DreamWorks make use of clichés just like everyone else, and I'm not saying it so to be defensive or apologetic to Illumination - I'm merely being realistic, for I'm pointing out what they do wrong and what they do right. It goes without saying that Illumination is not a fully artistically accomplished company like Pixar at its golden age. But the fact it invests not in expensive visuals but in characters who audiences hold dear may serve as a message for the rest of Hollywood.
So keep them going, Chris. Keep this train a-movin'.
_____________
Update
June 2nd, 2023
So, The Super Mario Bros. Movie - commonly referred to simply as "the Mario Movie" - has been a massive success. The biggest opening for an animated film, the biggest video game adaptation, so far the highest grossing film of the year, you name it. With all its success and strong public approval, it opened the doors to future similar Nintendo adaptations. But it also became the subject of heated discussions about the clash of critics and audiences. Not since Batman v. Superman we saw this conversation being taken so upfront. But given all I know, I would say this is not so much a dissonance between critics and viewers as it is a dissonance between Illumination haters and regular people who just want to see a fun animated film.
Let's rewind back to when Nintendo announced Illumination would be making this movie. Most people felt it made sense: Illumination routinely makes enjoyable movies that audiences care for. But among the pseudo-intellectuals that I mentioned in my 2016 essay from above, this was a bad idea. It was awful that Shigeru Miyamoto - a living legend in video games and entertainment in general - approved of this. Lions walk with lions, and a great like him "slumming" with Illumination must have been a stab in their hearts. Must have been an executive decision, right? But they failed to see something important: for all their differences (specially in medium), Illumination and Nintendo are very similar in that they prioritise fun first.
It is a known fact by now that Nintendo wants nothing more than making games that people enjoy playing. This has been mentioned by thousands of YouTubers who think this is not so obvious. Regardless of theme, Nintendo always want to please gamers: very rarely their games are frustrating, sadistic, or ask players to play them "by their own terms" or some crap. And as such, Nintendo grew to become the most well-known and beloved gaming company out there, and when they wanted their most famous character to feature in a movie, they obviously wanted someone with a similar philosophy.
Illumination is a hugely beloved company, so it was a match made in heaven. And their project became a love letter to Mario and the history of Nintendo that deeply connected with audiences. It's light on story, just as it should be; it doesn't try to follow modern animation trends; it feels genuine and heartfelt. It was a definite proof that the first and main component for a successful game adaptation is love for the source, which has lacked in such adaptations for years.
But the people who seem to carry such a nitpicky contempt for this film is so obviously the Illumination haters - critics and elitists who think they know better than everybody, including the ones who loved it. The Mario movie went to show just how much of an irrelevant minority they are. They can scream and be as vocal as they want, it doesn't change the fact that Illumination is, quite frankly, one of the best animation companies out there. One with a different ethos than Pixar, Saloon or Ghibli, but a valid ethos nonetheless. So yeah, cry your heart out, haters: we can't wait for the sequel.
I would also like to point out this new phenomenon in CGI film animation to go for more stylised visuals over ultra-realistic graphics. I find it curious that everybody says Into the Spiderverse is the one that started this all, when Illumination has been making these non-realistic movies for years and years. To be fair, it's not that they wanted to challenge anything: it was more of a by-product of them not wanting to spend a lot on visuals, because as I wrote all the way back in 2016, they're making cartoons, not recreating real life. And as their box-office profits proved, such recreation that Pixar, Disney and DreamWorks have always produced doesn't mean much: audiences ultimately are not there for the details on Bob Parr's sweater. But the mere fact their movies have never leaned into ultra-realism (albeit The Super Mario Bros. Movie was visually stunning) is something to be noticed and appreciated.
I appreciate you, Illumination.
The rise and fall of J.K. Rowling
Butch Hartman was once one of the most innovative animators in the United States. Working closely with Nickelodeon, he became known for having a very distinctive visual style, today known as the "Butch Hartman style", and for creating fast-paced, visually hysterical cartoons filled with sometimes vulgar puns and loads of action, thus making him one of the most identifiable figures in American animation. Good old Butch became one of the most notorious auteurs in his craft, amassing fans across the world. He had everything to become the next Genndy Tartakovsky - another giant - but Butch slowly started to change: he published a video on his YouTube channel announcing that he was quitting Nickelodeon, and that he had a "new project" going on. In the announcement, he talked about biblical passages, about how blessed he was for his career, which was strangely unusual for him. Then one day, he revealed that his new project was a streaming platform with "wholesome" content, which apparently
The rise and fall of Netflix's The Witcher
Before I dip my toes in the conflicted relationship between Andrzej Sapkowski's The Witcher and Netflix, I would like to talk for a bit about a seemly completely unrelated movie. I know that this may seem out of place and inappropriate, but I promise it is something relevant to the theme I want to bring here. And how it's been an issue in the U.S. entertainment business for the longest time. The Garbage Pail Kids Movie is a 1987 film by Rod Amateau, and released by the Atlantic Releasing Corporation. The film was an adaptation of the collectable cards of the same name, which were a mean spirited parody of the much more wholesome Cabbage Patch Kids toys. It told the story of the titular kids arriving on Earth (because they're aliens now) and raising all kinds of hell, all while helping a pubescent boy to overcome bullying and gain confidence. The film however was savaged by critics, and largely ignored by audiences, grossing little over its budget of a million dollars. What saved it
The rise and fall of H3H3 Productions
Every once in a while, I decide to take a trip down the memory lane. I watch an old movie; play an old video game, see an old cartoon... I indulge myself. And I also watch old YouTube videos. It's a funny feeling to watch such content today, those Let's Play videos in which gamers just wanted to have fun, those early reaction videos. They're nostalgic already, and before you notice, an entire decade has gone by. YouTube has launched the careers of many people - for better or worst. Thanks to its easy accessibility, anyone could become popular, while traditional media is more selective. It's true that, as such, lots of shitheads reached stardom due to YouTube, and the world surely is a slightly worst place with Logan Paul in it. But likewise, a lot of bright minds and brilliant entertainers also made waves in pop culture starting from there. And such is the case of Ethan and Hila Klein, who run the once super popular YouTube channel H3H3 Productions. The couple had an unconventional
The dark side of Barbenheimer
I remember when the whole Doom Eternal/Animal Crossing: New Horizons thing was taking place - I believe most of us do. It was just about everywhere. It was going down hard: in Instagram, in YouTube, in Pinterest, and of course, right here in DeviantArt. It was massive, to the tune even non-gamers were jumping into it - some may very well have done so for profit, without caring much about neither IPs. And while I admit that some good content was made from that, the whole thing grew to the point it became obnoxious. So, I tried not to care about it so much. I minded my own business and carried on, as I usually do. I just patiently waited for it to die down, and it did, like all memes eventually do. But "fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony". So, years later, we have Barbenheimer: the release of Greta Gerwig's Barbie and Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer in the same day, and all the memes that came out from that. A phenomenon so massive it even got its own Wikipedia page - so
© 2016 - 2024 GusCanterbury
Comments1
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
This is starting off pretty good....
*reads to the end*
😒
*reads to the end*
😒