You know the fable from Aesopus (or La Fontaine) with "The Ant and the Grasshopper", the ant works the whole summer gathering food for winter while the grasshopper idly sings and enjoys the sun and when winter comes, he realizes, a bit too late, that Karma is a bitch, and so is the ant. Loosely (very loosely) translated into Disney language, the grasshopper becomes the villain who forces the ant to offer him food for winter in exchange of "protection"
from termites or bigger ants. But the story must sustain the movie format, let's make it a colony of ants versus a gang of greedy grasshoppers, and then work on a script à la "Three Amigos" and you get "A Bug's Life", Pixar's second film.
So, if "Toy Story" was to 3D what "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" was to traditional animation, well I guess that makes "A Bug's Life" a little bit like "Pinocchio", at least as far as chronology and technological improvement go, this comparison is valid, but while "A Bug's Life" didn't hold up as well as "Toy Story" 18 years, for the film's defense, it has nothing to do with quality. Indeed, this is a marvel of animation and entertainment and the technological accomplishment it represents says a lot about the progresses made in three years.
Drawing toys is one thing and I said about "Toy Story" that it had the merit to put the setting in a very cozy and familiar environment instead of the usual forests and castles. In "A Bug's Life", we go back to the forests, but on a smaller, smaller scale and the level of detail is so phenomenal, each frame must have required a lot of hours of works and remember there are 24 frames per second, and many frames contains dozens of character, because, hey, they're insects, small creatures.
"A Bug's Life" is the result of thousands and thousands of hard working and the animators deserve all the credit for not having surrendered to the 'easy way', during the mass scenes, I closely looked at the ants in the background, you never have the feeling of a block or repetitive shots, and from what the trivia said, they used a computer program that would animate several group of ants randomly placed in each part of the screen, and it contributes to convey a realistic mass effect. And that's how we imagine ants.
Of course, the film is not just about ants but is a tribute to that underworld (literally) that inspires a constant fascination and revulsion. I hate insects but for some reason, I'm fascinated by documentaries about them as if the best way to finally look at the forms, the shapes, the colors, the interactions with other insects or the outside world or fights is to make sure they're not here. Not that "A Bug's Life" has a documentary-like value like the great "Microcosmos" but even on a documentary, I would have had a hard time enjoying the sight of cockroaches or grasshoppers. In "A Bug's Life", insects are cool to watch, and from their standpoints, rain doesn't play a salvation role anymore and cute birds are like scary monsters, time have changed since "Bambi".
But if "A Bug's Life" had everything to please the eyes, and to entertain, so why don't we celebrate it like "Toy Story"'? I guess it was released too soon without having the privilege of a sequel younger audiences could appreciate, it's hard to carry a reputation when you're made just between "Toy Story" and "Shrek". And it's all justice that "Antz" suffers from the same fate, the two films, from rival studios were released the same year, and it's obvious there was some leak, but let's accept as a happy ending that they didn't go to court (although it did terminate some friendships) and that both did well at the box-office but I think I would paraphrase the Emperor Joseph's quote by saying "there were too many characters" and I'm not saying that was the problem within the story, but about its appeal.
Take the ants, they are a colony where each one has a role to play, some carry the food, some guide them etc. they can't think of individuals, except for the queen, her heiress, princess Atta (Julia-Louis Dreyfus) and her sister Dot (young Hayden Pannetiere) but apart from this podium, all ants are just ants, the one who emerges from the mass is Flik, the outcast inventor who always fail (one of his last inventions will cause the destruction of the offering for the grasshoppers, forcing them to prepare food again hence depriving themselves from winter food). Flik is an individual yet the story can't allow us to root for one individual, they're insects and they all work as group, even the mercenaries he's supposed to hire, in reality circus workers covering different personalities, there is not one to stand above.
The film is a triumph in characterization and high-scale animation, but take all the movies that succeeded after "Shrek", "Finding Nemo", "Monsters & Co", there was a core of significant characters, Shrek and Fiona, Woody and Buzz, the more you identify with one, the more positively you respond to the spectacle. In "A Bug's Life", we do empathize with the ants as a whole, but it's hard to feel any stronger toward them. You admire the artistic design, the set of colors, the little jokes here and there, but the only real lesson is that there is strength in unity, but this is a message you can respond to in a war or a sport movie and even then you have the main protagonist.
Animation is a world of magic and dream, to be enjoyed in a more individual way, where you can hook your heart on one person. "A Bug's Life" should have been called "Bugs' Lives", it's great animation but not necessarily a great film.
So, if "Toy Story" was to 3D what "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" was to traditional animation, well I guess that makes "A Bug's Life" a little bit like "Pinocchio", at least as far as chronology and technological improvement go, this comparison is valid, but while "A Bug's Life" didn't hold up as well as "Toy Story" 18 years, for the film's defense, it has nothing to do with quality. Indeed, this is a marvel of animation and entertainment and the technological accomplishment it represents says a lot about the progresses made in three years.
Drawing toys is one thing and I said about "Toy Story" that it had the merit to put the setting in a very cozy and familiar environment instead of the usual forests and castles. In "A Bug's Life", we go back to the forests, but on a smaller, smaller scale and the level of detail is so phenomenal, each frame must have required a lot of hours of works and remember there are 24 frames per second, and many frames contains dozens of character, because, hey, they're insects, small creatures.
"A Bug's Life" is the result of thousands and thousands of hard working and the animators deserve all the credit for not having surrendered to the 'easy way', during the mass scenes, I closely looked at the ants in the background, you never have the feeling of a block or repetitive shots, and from what the trivia said, they used a computer program that would animate several group of ants randomly placed in each part of the screen, and it contributes to convey a realistic mass effect. And that's how we imagine ants.
Of course, the film is not just about ants but is a tribute to that underworld (literally) that inspires a constant fascination and revulsion. I hate insects but for some reason, I'm fascinated by documentaries about them as if the best way to finally look at the forms, the shapes, the colors, the interactions with other insects or the outside world or fights is to make sure they're not here. Not that "A Bug's Life" has a documentary-like value like the great "Microcosmos" but even on a documentary, I would have had a hard time enjoying the sight of cockroaches or grasshoppers. In "A Bug's Life", insects are cool to watch, and from their standpoints, rain doesn't play a salvation role anymore and cute birds are like scary monsters, time have changed since "Bambi".
But if "A Bug's Life" had everything to please the eyes, and to entertain, so why don't we celebrate it like "Toy Story"'? I guess it was released too soon without having the privilege of a sequel younger audiences could appreciate, it's hard to carry a reputation when you're made just between "Toy Story" and "Shrek". And it's all justice that "Antz" suffers from the same fate, the two films, from rival studios were released the same year, and it's obvious there was some leak, but let's accept as a happy ending that they didn't go to court (although it did terminate some friendships) and that both did well at the box-office but I think I would paraphrase the Emperor Joseph's quote by saying "there were too many characters" and I'm not saying that was the problem within the story, but about its appeal.
Take the ants, they are a colony where each one has a role to play, some carry the food, some guide them etc. they can't think of individuals, except for the queen, her heiress, princess Atta (Julia-Louis Dreyfus) and her sister Dot (young Hayden Pannetiere) but apart from this podium, all ants are just ants, the one who emerges from the mass is Flik, the outcast inventor who always fail (one of his last inventions will cause the destruction of the offering for the grasshoppers, forcing them to prepare food again hence depriving themselves from winter food). Flik is an individual yet the story can't allow us to root for one individual, they're insects and they all work as group, even the mercenaries he's supposed to hire, in reality circus workers covering different personalities, there is not one to stand above.
The film is a triumph in characterization and high-scale animation, but take all the movies that succeeded after "Shrek", "Finding Nemo", "Monsters & Co", there was a core of significant characters, Shrek and Fiona, Woody and Buzz, the more you identify with one, the more positively you respond to the spectacle. In "A Bug's Life", we do empathize with the ants as a whole, but it's hard to feel any stronger toward them. You admire the artistic design, the set of colors, the little jokes here and there, but the only real lesson is that there is strength in unity, but this is a message you can respond to in a war or a sport movie and even then you have the main protagonist.
Animation is a world of magic and dream, to be enjoyed in a more individual way, where you can hook your heart on one person. "A Bug's Life" should have been called "Bugs' Lives", it's great animation but not necessarily a great film.