Monsters University or "dammit prequels!"

Hey guys, sorry for not blogging for a while, I was in West Cork (ie. down where the wifi don't shine). While I was there, however, I saw three movies and will probably review all of them here, because I have opinions and stuff. I'm starting with Monsters University because it's the most recent and I think I have the most to say on it. I'll cut the intro and begin... now.

Monsters University: Because everyone loves prequels, right?

I'll be honest here, I wasn't expecting much from this movie. I saw the ads and people freaking out over "OMG they're bringing back Monsters Inc!". It was quite clear that Pixar wanted to replicate Toy Story 3's success by targeting that same audience as the first film(s) only now that they'd grown up. When there were the first rumours of a "Monsters University" movie, I though it was going to be the children of the original protagonists (because sequels have a tendency of doing that) and despite the Disney sequel "tell the same story with the kids" (ahem, little mermaid 2, ahem ahem) I was intrigued by the idea of this because of the ending of the first movie. This is where my main source of disappointment stemmed from.

In going for a prequel angle the makers of this movie effectively nullify all the revelations from the end of the original. A quick recap for those of you who haven't see Monsters Inc in a while. The movie is about a world where power is generated by the screams of human children, which they collect by going through door-portals into their closets. It centres around Sully and Mike, two monsters who work in generating this power, whose lives are turned upside down when a child escapes into their world, as everyone believes that children are toxic to monsters. It's a really clever idea, a great world, so much creativity went into the first movie. At the end of Monsters Inc, they come to the realisation that human children are not toxic and that
their laughter creates more powerful energy than their screams. The human girl, known as "Boo", is sent back to her world and they think that they will never see her again, but in the final scene we see her closet door has been pieced back together by Mike and Sully sees her one last time. The film ends here. It is practically begging for a sequel. This is why the prequel annoyed me so. The first movie had some really strong messages, it was a story about acceptance, about questioning the norm, about growing and about letting go.

The prequel? It's a buddy comedy.

While I'll accept that it's maybe not the most fun approach to take (which is what I think they were going for with MU) I for one would have been really interested in seeing the world adjust to laugh energy instead of screams. There's still comedic potential, as well as room for some of the strong moral messages we saw in the first movie, though in slightly different forms. You have the potential for new antagonists in the form of rival energy companies who are dubious of the newfangled laughter energy and even a chance for Mike and some of the monsters who were outcast in the scare orientated world to shine, because they can excel in making people laugh. Sully, who doesn't strike me as a talented comedian, could have somewhat of an existential crisis now that his life up until now has essentially been flipped and he has to deal with not being the best at something. See, I've pretty much written this movie and I'm sure that the clever folks down at Pixar could add to such a concept, especially since they already have such an interesting and relatively unexplored world to work with. When they hit the reset button and went with a prequel it really just felt like they were being lazy and playing it far too safe.

Now that I've got my biggest qualm out of the way, let's get the the movie itself. This is something I tend to say a lot before I spend a long time complaining about a movie: I didn't dislike it. I did enjoy myself watching this movie, as I do watching most movies because I love the medium and what can be and is done with it. That said, I have many problems with this movie. I've already made clear my thoughts on the decision to make a prequel, they were playing it safe in sticking with the same damn premise of the first film, when they had a perfectly good new premise to work with. I've also expressed my dislike for the downgrade in message. That's not to say that the message of this movie isn't heartfelt or thought provoking, it's just been done to death in every coming of age story. We're desensitised to it at this point. It's the whole "be yourself because you're awesome just the way you are" spiel from every TV special and family movie you've ever seen. And it's not a bad message to be sending. In fact, the story of this film gives it an interesting perspective and raises interesting questions about the world they live in, where, essentially, your whole life depends on your appearance. There's a lot of potential in what they can explore when it comes to that kind of world, and that angle is very distinct from that of the first movie. But they didn't do that. I question whether they could have, because it's a prequel.

I don't mean to sound like a broken record here, going on about prequels, but I'm going to drone on just a little longer, please bear with me. Prequels are very tricky territory to be getting into. As a writer (who may or may not currently be working on something resembling a prequel, at least in part) I recognise this. Writers are very constricted when it comes to prequels because the story's ending is already decided. They can only learn so much and no matter how much they do learn they will always be less than the character at the end of the original film. Any characters who show up in prequels must be carefully placed, backstories must fit with any established in  the original, characters must not be more wise than they were at the beginning of the former. It's hard, catastrophic if not handled well. Consistency is key.

This. Movie. Failed. At. This.

And it did so rather clumsily. Pixar, I expected better of you! Prequelville is full of pitfalls, falling victim to any one of them can doom your movie in the eyes of the critical viewer as soon as it is triggered. This movie fell into three prequel pitfalls which I shall address in order of appearance. (Warning, SPOILERS begin here):

1. Blunted Stakes:

This is the most common prequel pitfall, and the most difficult to avoid. As I've already stressed, the movie has to end up where the last began and so the viewer already knows where their protagonist is going to end up. It's kinda like reading a book where the hero is dangling from a cliff in chapter one with no apparent means of getting to safety. The thrill is blunted slightly by the fact that the reader knows they'll survive, otherwise there's no way the book would be that long. This is made up for by creating interesting ways for the protagonist to get out of the jam.
("Timothy used all of his gymnastics training to open his backpack with his feet and pull the scarf his grandmother had given him from it. He was thankful he hadn't left it behind like he had his grappling hook and proper climbing gear as he used it to snag a nearby rock and pull himself to safety")


In MU, little Mike Wazowski dreams of being a scarer for Monsters Incorporated. The viewer knows from the first movie that he does not in fact become a scarer. This would be alright if this dream wasn't the main focus of the movie. The fact that it is the primary focus makes the story fairly redundant in the eyes of the viewer. The whole film is framed like an "underdog" sports movie but so much of the excitement is dulled by the fact that you know they lose in the end. Some of this is sidestepped by the introduction of "The Monster Games" an inter-frat competition in which Mike, a reluctant Sully and a ragtag band of misfits compete against much stronger, scarier and capable teams with the power of teamwork! This didn't really work because everyone's seen it a hundred times before. To it's credit, the challenges are very inventive and enjoyable to watch.

One of my favourite scenes in the movie is a maze challenge where the monsters are faced with cardboard cut outs of either children or teenagers; they must scare the children and hide from the teenagers. It sounds mundane but here's the thing, when the teenager cutouts swing out there's a "typical teenage" catchphrase to accompany them. These are some of the best jokes in the movie, they're hilarious. You have things like "Ugh, you don't understand!", "Like, whatever" and my personal favourite, "But Daddy, I love him!". The delivery really makes it, so it's hard to capture on a page, but believe me, you'll laugh. I love the tongue in cheek nature of these jokes (though I don't know if this was amplified by that fact that I'm a teenage girl myself) and I wish there were more of these, considering it's a college movie.

Here they did adequately avoid the problem of the "children are poisonous" with some handy substitutions but it was still annoying to the viewer when they're making a huge fuss over something you know to be nothing and what's more, they can't realise it's nothing because they don't until the original film. It really does take a lot away from tense scenes when you know the danger isn't real. This wasn't a huge concern though, on to pitfall two.

2. All your Favourite Characters!:

One thing that prequels need to be extra careful about is characters. Obviously in the original you can have as many colourful characters as you want consequence free as long as they remain consistent over the course of the story. That much cannot be said for if you want to bring characters back in a prequel. First and foremost, it needs to make sense to have them in the prequel. Sure, you can have throwaway characters make appearances if they wouldn't be referenced in the original film.

BRINGING BACK YOUR MAIN ANTAGONIST FROM THE ORIGINAL IS A NO NO. 

This guy. Pretty scary right?

While I'll admit that this can work when done well, if you're going down this road it needs to be the focus. Wicked proves as much. If Wicked was about Glinda and Fiyero's love, leaving her friendship with Elphaba as a mere footnote, the story would suffer. Props to Gregory Maguire for good judgement. They feature Randal in this film. Remember that creepy purple guy who hated Sully for being better than him in the first movie. D'you know what he needed? Another reason to hate Sully. Some kind of vendetta. Because his existing reason isn't at all relateable or strong enough. Who's ever been angry and jealous of someone more talented than them? No, we need to ham-fistedly create a pointless second reason for Randal to hate Sully. This will never be referenced in the original movie because the filmmakers pulled it out of their asses. Seriously guys, does it really make that much of a difference? Randal's fate is decided one way or another, you did not need to make it so that he already hates the protagonist by the end of the prequel. It does nothing for the plot, nothing for the character, why is it here? Also, the reason he holds this grudge isn't even directly Sully's fault! In the final round of the Monster Games, Sully and Randal are against each other in a scare off. They are scaring separate children, in separate rooms, each one totally unaffected by the other. Randal falls and accidentally camouflages with a heart patterned rug, doesn't scare the child very much and he is humiliated in front of the popular kids. That's it. That's the stupid, unnecessary second reason he hates Sully. Why, filmmakers? Just... why?

They made him this. Just... no.

They also make Randal Mike's original roommate, which seems pointless because when Mike joins the frat he starts rooming with Sully anyway. Couldn't that step have been skipped? Make them the typical odd couple of roommates? If the filmmakers wanted to be slightly less predictable in doing this... no, you do it anyway, this route simply delays it. They have a subplot about Randal becoming one of the popular crowd and leaving Mike in the dust but it's difficult to care about this when you know how much of a dick he is in the first movie. The film tries so hard to make him likable at the start (he brings cupcakes to a frat party, daw) but then his subplot is so heavily sidelined that it feels like an after note, like the makers decided they wanted him to appear but weren't sure how it would be relevant. Also, it's distracting that he and Mike have a relationship in this movie when there was no evidence of this in the original. This is a plot hole that can't be overlooked, it comes across as really sloppy. It's a stupid pointless cameo, it cheapens things.

There are some other annoying and unnecessary cameos, don't worry. The abominable snowman from Inc is back as head of the Monsters Inc mailroom? Why? Again, they don't know him in the first movie so why put him in there? I know there's a running Pixar thing where the voice actor (John Ratzenberger) has been in every Pixar movie but you could easily put him in as a random college student, no one will mind that he's the same voice. This just doesn't... ugh. Roz from the original comes back too in a little head nod to the end in which she turns out to be part of the CDA. She has a distinctive voice and look, would they not remember anything in the original? Stupid. The third pitfall?

3. Haven't I heard this before?:

The third pitfall this movie succumbs to is repetition. This is so head-wreckingly common in prequels and so easily avoided. You literally have the material you're working from in front of you, you wrote it, how hard can this be? You see, the third pitfall this movie succumbs to is repetition. In Monsters Inc Mike and Sully have numerous fights about their respective selfishness. In this movie, Mike and Sully have numerous fights about their respective selfishness. Is there an echo in here? I'm not going to go into too much detail on this flaw because it's just more of the same; laziness and unoriginality.  A lot of the jokes are recycled (they have that one joke from Flushed Away with the slugs being slow, but it doesn't work nearly as well because the context is nonexistent) the storylines are tired and this brings nothing new to them except the world which I still feel is wildly underutilised and underexplored. 

Did I mention her design is pure epic?

Now time to talk about the positives. I really liked the villain in this film. Allow me to clarify, as there are two. One is the obligatory school related film's Jerk villain. This is the popular elitist douchebag who is bad because he's douchey and mean spirited. This is not the villain I like, though he does seem somewhat real as a character because we all kinda know this guy. The second villain is the University dean, Hardscrabble. She's voiced by Helen Mirren and she is arguably the best thing in this movie. Here's what I liked, they didn't make her a full out evil villain. Her main "villain" qualities stem from the fact that Mike wants to be a scarer but he's not scary so she discourages him from continuing in the scaring programme. She is not sitting in her black leather chair chuckling to herself that Mike Wazowski and his little friends will never succeed. No, she's being realistic and doing her job. Now, I generally feel a bit uncomfortable when movies, particularly kids movies, villify people for doing their jobs. More so when these people are teachers. I have a lot of respect for good teachers, they have hard jobs. So unless the character in question is Mickey Rooney from Ferris Beuller or Ms Trunchbull, lay off teachers. They're just doing their jobs. 

Hmm, what else did I like? Despite myself, I did like some of the frat banter between the main characters and the new doofy fraternity brothers. Yeah, they're annoying at times and stereotypical as hell, many of the jokes are hanging on the fact that they're "not cool" but there is some good stuff in there. There's one joke with the two headed character that really made me laugh, where one head is like "I'm a dance major!" and the other's all "and I'm not (complete with grump face)". Also, their names are Terry (with a "y") and Terri (with an "i"). There's one gag after the guys sneak into Monsters Inc for motivation where they're escaping in Squishy's Mum's camper van, and she's driving. The guards are on their tails and she's still concerned with "does everyone have their seatbelts on?", "does anyone want gum?". Let's be honest, we've all been there. 

Overall? I think this would have been better as a stand alone movie. It's fun, it's somewhat creative, it has good characters. It's just the clear downgrade from the original that makes it so disappointing to a fan such as myself. It has its merits but not as a prequel and all the plot holes get frustrating after a while. A lot of the time it felt like more of a high school movie than a college one and it was obvious they were aiming at a much younger audience than college students. The blunted stakes are a constant concern in your mind watching this and it's difficult to wish Mike well when you know what his future holds. I don't think we can expect a sequel to Monsters Inc and at this point I don't know if I want one. It's too late, in my mind and while I'm still interested in seeing what they would do with the sequel I had envisioned, the disappointment of this movie would discourage me from getting my hopes up. Again, I didn't hate it. 

Embrace the Madness