I followed my tradition of watching the new Pixar movie on the 4th of July. I was especially interested in this one because once I conclude my thoughts on Toy Story 2 I'll dive next into Monsters, Inc. For a prequel that nobody wanted, this movie had some pressure. Pixar always promises that they don't make sequels unless they feel they have a story worth telling. Lately, though, the company famous for innovation has been announcing several franchise expansions in lieu of new concepts. On top of that, prequels are very difficult to write. Being the Pixar apologist I am always willing to give them a chance to prove themselves, and I walked away satisfied and proud to say so.
What's wrong with prequels? Part of the problem lies with our preoccupation with "spoilers." If you know how the movie ends, or if you know how the next installment will turn out, your experience is "spoiled." You can't enjoy it. Along those lines, if I knew for fact that in a year I would make a million dollars, I would almost wear myself out with anticipation. If my car breaks down again or if I lose my job, I'll think to myself "Well let's just see how I get that million dollars. It will be awesome." If a movie is good it can't be spoiled by knowing the ending, only enhanced because anticipation will drive you to pay attention so you can experience the ending for yourself.
That's the potential that a prequel can have. Mike wants to be a scary monster. We know he doesn't scare anybody in Monsters, Inc. What happens to change his mind? Is he going to fail? Are we going to see a devastated Wizowski? You can see in Sully's eyes at one point he has no faith in Mike. How is he going to break the news to him? They're best friends in the next movie. How will they overcome this potential deal breaker?
Monsters U creates that anticipation very well. In Monsters, Inc. We see Mike coaching Sully, and we learn he got that drive and insight into scaring from becoming a top student at MU. Where many movies enjoy making the situation look hopeless before turning it around at the end, MU shows Mike as someone who won't back down and even overcomes his own trepidation to triumph before getting the rug pulled out from under him. And seeing the way he finally works his way to the top in the epilogue doesn't feel like a cheat but rather like an example of following the things you love to do.
MU's plot is just as relevant now as MI's was 12 years ago. MI dealt with an energy crisis. MU dealt with pursuing a career and building upon natural talents. Coaches constantly advise job seekers to figure out their talents and natural abilities, or whatever draws their attention. What if you have a pipe dream, but you don't quite have the aptitude for it? Can you find job satisfaction in a different area, still in the same field? If you lose your dream job, should you try going back to school to find another one?
Another way MU works as a prequel is that it enhances, not diminishes, the original. That's what sequels and prequels ought to do if they want to help the franchise or series along. Darth Vader isn't the same anymore because we learned in the Star Wars prequels what a whiner he was growing up. And I can't respect "All I ask of You" from Phantom of the Opera because I know in the sequel Raoul becomes a pathetic drunk and Christine decides she'd rather love an obsessive homicidal maniac.
Oh, sorry. Spoilers.
Monsters U, though, creates a depth. We learn that our heroes have a history with Randall, not just an overly competitive relationship. And when Sully discovers the power of laughter in MI it becomes a bigger discovery for him than before. He confesses in the prequel that his success came from standing on Mike's shoulders, that he had very little success through his efforts alone. Later, when he meets Boo at Monsters, Inc. It's the first discovery he ever made himself, so of course he wants to see what comes of it, even if it comes at the expense of his own career and legacy.
Both movies stand on their own at the same time. We get to see more in depth how monsters frighten children, and even get a glimpse into what's really happening in a monster movie. It's like the way the first superhero movie introduces the characters so the second one dives into the story. I counted really only one character's appearance that only worked as a set-up for the second movie and takes away a little of the effect of MI's plot. MU has it's own pacing and own setup and climax, and it's a powerful one without overshadowing the chase from MI. Indeed, Monsters, Inc. now feels just as much like a sequel as Monsters University feels like a prequel.
That sounds pretty innovative to me.
