Is Iron Man IMAX Enhanced worth rewatching on Disney+?

In late 2021, Disney+ offered a new way to watch several of their classic Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films: IMAX Enhanced versions. These versions put back the IMAX expanded aspect ratio of 1:90 of the original IMAX release of the film to the streaming version, so plebs like you and me can see the entire frame as it was filmed, unchopped. 

They even released marketing graphics! You know it's serious then.

 For some, this'll be the first time they saw it this way since the theatrical release, and for others that didn't see the film in an IMAX screen, this'll be there first time ever.

But is it worth watching the IMAX Enhanced version of the MCU films? I decided to try it out with the one that launched it all, the first MCU film: Iron Man (2008). 

We were so young... with questionable fashion sense.

Would the few sequences they filmed with the expanded IMAX ratio be enough to make it worth a rewatch? Would I even notice it? Or worse, would the "IMAX Enhanced" version of Iron Man actually be distracting with the swapping back and forth of aspects ratios, and be a worse experience than just watching it normally?

So how do you even watch Iron Man in IMAX Enhanced? Don't just press play expecting Disney+ to default to it. You have to go to the main film page, then tab over to "VERSIONS", then press "IMAX ENHANCED"

r/UselessRedCircle? Maybe, but I'm trying to be thorough.

 

I won't red circle this one. But oooo, look how much bigger the IMAX Enhanced frame is!

I clicked IMAX Enhanced, Iron Man started playing... and how weird to see the Paramount logo play.

This... I... where's the castle?!

Yes, Disney had nothing to do with this film. Disney didn't buy Marvel until a year AFTER this film released. 

 The next thing I noticed is that the aspect ratio was decidedly... not expanded.

Yeah some of the dialogue has held up... not great.

Iron Man only had select scenes that were filmed in IMAX way back when, so you'll only get the expanded aspect ratio during those scenes. 

 Usually, they're the big budget action set pieces. The first one is about 3 minutes in (around when Tony decides to just stare at a rocket that landed right next to him).

The dangers of texting while warfighting.

But hey, look at the difference in aspect ratio! It's like what, 25% more image?

Okay you know what, close enough.

And just as importantly, it wasn't distracting. IMAX Enhanced isn't like the Snyder Cut where you're watching a film in an Instagram square the whole time. 

Complete with all the glorious thirst traps.

Iron Man basically goes from widescreen, to occasionally full screen. Personally, I didn't find this distracting. Most of the time I would notice eventually "hey, we're in big boy mode now!" during an intense action beat.

Oh, and a lot of this movie is still just as cool.

And having it be bigger I think does add. You're seeing the film as the director truly intended, the most it could be. 

The surprising thing was it even improved the non-IMAX Enhanced scenes. When it switched back, it made those scenes feel more intimate, more mature perhaps. 

There's a connotation between widescreen and cinema, where widescreen was the "cinematic experience" for so long, and full screen was where news and TV lived. Those neural links still hold strong today.

My favorite first date question.

It was subtle though. Rewatching Iron Man with the IMAX Enhanced version wasn't like watching a whole new movie.

Instead, it made the action scenes a bit more engrossing and enormous feeling, and the non-action scenes a bit more intimate and mature feeling.  All while never being distracting.

Pretend this is me watching Iron Man on Disney+

So the question remains: Is it worth rewatching Iron Man on Disney Plus with the IMAX Enhanced version?

I would say if you were already thinking about rewatching it: yes.

And who wouldn't?

It's a great film and IMAX Enhanced does nothing to hinder that.

I would say if you were considering rewatching it because of IMAX enchanced: yes.

Hell yeah.

 Disney+ IMAX Enhanced switches things up just enough to make things feel interesting again. 

It's the same film, and worth a rewatch.

I would say if you weren't considering rewatching it and the only selling point to seeing it is IMAX Enhanced: no.

Uh oh.

Like I said, it's the same film. Same great film, but an extra 26% of screen in certain scenes isn't going to convert many people. It was well made, never annoying, but never earth shattering either.

 

If you still aren't convinced, or are confused about the aspect ratio differences: u/Kynch did a great in-depth comparison between the normal version and the IMAX Enhanced version, so you can see just how much more frame you're getting.

Hope you enjoy!

The Silence of the Lambs (1991) is a perfect movie

 That is all.

The Evolution of Toy Story: Pixar's Pivot to the Sentimental (Toy Story 1-4 Retrospective)

 Where do I begin?

An empire.

Recently, I re-watched all four of the Toy Story... quad-rilogy? Four-logy? (what's more than a trilogy?) The Toy Story tetralogy. And what struck me, beyond the quality of the films, was the evolution of the type of storytelling happening in them.

Also the animation quality. Left sheep looks ROUGH.

Toy Story is not just the story of... Toys, but also the story of Pixar. The company that, in some ways, saved Disney from a period of cultural decline. And undeniably, brought computer animation to storytelling heights it had never seen before.

To track the evolution of Toy Story is to track a company coming into its own. A company discovering what stories it wanted to tell, and how they wanted to tell them. The evolution of Toy Story tracks a ragtag group of artists from their days of dreaming of a new form of storytelling, to seeing that form dominate the world, and for them being the kings of it.

Whew, that was heavy. Here's a picture of Hamm.

Let's begin.

Toy Story (1995): Your Standard (Revolutionary) Buddy-Comedy

Going back to Toy Story, the first thing I noticed is how funny it is. 

Okay, the first thing I noticed is how horrifying the human characters looked. 

therapist: toy story 1 Andy cant hurt you
toy story 1 andy:

But really, this movie is funny! Pixar knows how ridiculous a premise of talking toys was, and they ran with it, making as many jokes as possible. We'd see this technique of poking fun at the world they created used in everything from Monsters, Inc. to Onward. In Toy Story, it's couched in early action scenes of Andy's birthday party, making the film really fast paced and fun. 

And then: Buzz

Once Buzz gets introduced, the film settles into its groove of the standard buddy comedy. Two frenemies who don't want to work together but have to is a tried and true dynamic that Toy Story neither invented nor revolutionized, but it's working flawlessly here. The jealously from Woody makes perfect sense, Buzz's clueless superiority is hilarious, and their slow friendship is both rewarding and natural. 

If I had a nickel for every time I was in this exact situation...

As I was watching the film, it hit me that this film was just really funny. Like, it was JUST funny. Pixar's brand is practically making you cry, and yet their first film is near straight comedy. 

Now there are definitely emotional moments: Woody seeing Buzz gain in popularity, the catharsis of them making it onto the moving truck, and the biggest: Buzz's literal fall from grace to realizing he's just a toy. But those are quick, and to me seem there as an obligation to the story more so than for a desire to cram as many emotional sob-fests as possible. 

Watching all my 2020 plans slip away due to COVID

Buzz HAD to realize he was a toy for his arch to make any sense, and so that scene had to be there. Then quickly, it's back to comedy with the Mrs. Nesbitt scene. And while I'm sure some people would rank his fall as their top Pixar tearjerker, personally it's pretty far down on my list. 

I'm not criticizing the scene, just saying, by percentage, Toy Story is one of Pixar's most comedy driven films they've ever made. And that discrepancy starts the tale of how Pixar evolved as a storytelling company. 

Toy Story 2: Jessie's Song

The success of Toy Story, and Pixar's follow-up A Bug's Life showed Pixar to be a powerhouse in CGI family movies. Both movies were hits, though neither was known for being tearjerkers. (I Googled "bugs life sad scene" and just got a picture of the ant looking kinda sad)

The sequel to Toy Story, released 4 years after the original, begins in much the same comedy-centric way as the first film. While the animation is already improved dramatically, the focus on comedy to me felt pretty similar to the first. It might have been even more funny and refined this time though, which is impressive given how great the first film was.

Can I take angry eyes through TSA?

Everything pointed to another amazing comedy from Pixar. Up until Jessie looks out the window with Woody, the scene fades away... and Sarah McLachlan starts to sing.

I'm OUT

"When She Loved Me", Jessie's backstory song, is, in my view, revolutionary to Pixar. Beyond the fact that this sequence singlehandedly made the movie top 3 on many lists of saddest Pixar movies. What's most interesting to me is how this sequence almost feels... out of place.

You said what about my song, punk?

This is not to criticize the scene at all, I think it's an absolute highlight. But for 3 minutes, Toy Story 2 becomes a pseudo-musical ala Tarzan. While Buzz's "I Will Go Sailing No More" was a quick 90 seconds, this is double that length. And to force kids to sit still for 3 minutes is a LONG time; Newman (the composer) thought it was a bad idea as the studio had a fear of "slowing down films too much and losing the audience's interest in the process". This is also the only flashback in the film. All this, for a supporting character.

(to be fair, one of the best supporting characters!)

So why did Pixar decide to risk so much for this scene? Initially, Jessie was supposed to tell her backstory through dialogue, but the filmmakers didn't feel it was strong enough. I think Jessie's song was the moment Pixar let themselves value emotional moments just as much as comedy. It was a huge risk to essentially pause the film for 3 minutes... and the payoff was enormous. 

Yes, this happened.

Many people have already pinpointed Jessie's song as the turning point of the Toy Story franchise. And I think in some ways, it was also the turning point for Pixar as a company. If Toy Story was "comedy > sentiment", Toy Story 2 was "comedy = sentiment".

Toy Story 3: Pixar's Sentimental Heights

Oh boy. Here it is. Disclaimer: This is my favorite one. While I'll try not to factor that into my analysis too much... Isn't this movie just DAMN GOOD?

Citizen Kane who?

So Toy Story 3 was released over 10 years after the sequel, and by this point, Pixar had taken the spark of Jessie's Song and established themselves as the kings of critically acclaimed emotional animated movies. Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc., WALL-E, and most recently to this, Up, all were gut punches in their own right, and the 1-2 punch of WALL-E and Up had Pixar in an untouchable status.

And Toy Story 3 somehow lived up to all that and more. 

Except to this guy. We don't talk about this guy.

If Jessie's Song was the spark, Toy Story 3 was a whole bonfire. There's not just one big heart-rending moment; there's like 7.

Here's gifs of a bunch of them:
An act 1 moment with the heartbreaking phone call.

"She don't love you no more!"
Is this a Jessie re-do? Yes. Did I cry? Maybe.

I was gonna put like 4 gifs of this scene but I'll save your heart.

I- Oh god that's enough.

The point to that spam, besides an excuse for me to relive all those moments again, is to show how much Pixar was willing to value emotion and sentiment in this film. It's no surprise Toy Story 3 often ranks on the top of lists of saddest Pixar films. A reminder: I'm not saying saddest means best. Just that at this point, if Toy Story was "comedy > sentiment", and Toy Story 2 was "comedy = sentiment", then Toy Story 3 is "sentiment > comedy".

Catch my drift?

And I think there's a reason for Pixar to value sentiment so much at this point. They had found both critical and commercial acclaim doing so. And Toy Story 3 is a film that nearly demands it. It was wrapping up a trilogy that kickstarted their company. It was the end to Andy's story. And for many viewers who grew up watching these films, myself included, we were just like Andy, about to go off to college and experience an entirely new chapter of our lives. There's so much emotion inherent to the concept of a third Toy Story, and Pixar just executed it perfectly.

Every other animation company congratulating Pixar

The only question was: Could Pixar keep this insane streak going?

Toy Story 4: Post-Golden Age Pixar

Of course not, their next film after Toy Story 3 was Cars 2!

The 2011 equivalent of finding out God is dead.

I have a whole theory on how Cars 2 irreversibly damaged Pixar from the inside out (2015), but I'll save that for another time. After Cars 2 though, Pixar's perfect reputation was harmed, and for years their films released to back-and-forth reception. One film would be great (Inside Out) the next a total disaster (The Good Dinosaur). 

If you 've watched this movie, you deserve a veterans discount.

However, I think Toy Story 4 marks the era that Pixar has stabilized. While I wouldn't say they've returned to their former golden-days, I also think it's impossible to do that. People change, or leave, or tell the stories they most passionately wanted to tell, and companies change because of that. 

And that's okay.

Toy Story 4 shows a new Pixar that is more adult in the themes it is trying to tell, more diverse, and even less focused on comedy.

While Pixar always has traded in adult (as in literally for adult humans, not as in sexual) themes, Toy Story 4 leans even more heavy into that. While the first 2 films had moments that parents would relate to more than kids, and 3 had whole arcs that seemed tailor made for college students, this most recent entry is all about Woody and deciding to leave behind his currently unfulfilling career to be with the woman he loves and experience true freedom.

Wait... this is still about toys, right?

I honestly don't know how kids would relate to that. But also, do they have to? The film grossed over a billion dollars. 

And with other films in this era like Cars 3 exploring themes of retirement, it seems clear Pixar is okay with letting their writers tell truly adult oriented stories. 

Omg, remember that Cars 3 teaser that made kids cry? Iconic.

Toy Story 4 is also symbolic of Pixar's move towards more diversity, and the growing pains in that transition. There was so much controversy over original writer Rashida Jones leaving the project citing Pixar's "track record" with women in creative roles. And of course, John Lasseter leaving Pixar just a year before the film was released. To me, 4 feels like a transitional film from John Lasseter era to the new, Jennifer Lee/Pete Doctor era. 

That's Up and Frozen for those not in the know.

Conclusion: Pixar's Pivot to the Sentimental

I love this series.

Toy Story, in my opinion, is one of the greatest film series ever made. And Pixar is one of the greatest film studios in existence. Rewatching the four films, I got to watch Pixar grow from masterful comedy to gut-wrenching emotion.

Toy Story 1 started the series as an almost straight comedy. Toy Story 2 continued that trend, except for the 3 minute "When She Loved Me" sequence. It was a huge risk that paid off in spades, and Pixar would continue to push towards valuing emotional moments like that in their future films. Toy Story 3 was the height of their sentimental ambitions, wrapping up the trilogy. And Toy Story 4 marks the end of a tumultuous era and the beginning of one of new leadership and a renewed emphasis on adult themes. 

While it looks like Toy Story as a series is over, who knows. Most of us thought the series was done after 3, so in 10 years? I could be writing a second version of this post with number 5.

Here's to you, cowboy.

Pixar Marathon 2020 - Monsters Inc. vs Monsters University

Two movies, but which reigns supreme?

Trapped in quarantine, nothing else to do, but families gotta stick together, and mine decided to stick together with Pixar movies. We're rewatching one a week. I'm comparing them to the ranking I made before the rewatch, and seeing if any change spots.

Me to people breaking quarantine

The first two weeks were the Monsters series, Inc and University. Comparing the two is a good exercise in studying prequels, and how they're almost impossible to make as good as the original. We're breaking it down point by point. While I vastly prefer Inc to University (U for short), let me start with a huge pro of University that even this watch I was blown away by.



VISUALS
The 12 years between the original and prequel did a monster good, as U is gorgeous. The palette is bursting to the seams with color, and the style fits the tone to a tee. While the overall visual are a bit more kiddy and I could see someone not liking the aesthetic as much as the original, I think it fits the younger age and mood of the film perfectly. Mike and Sully are kids, and the art designs reflects that.

Tag yourself I'm the two headed guy on the left.

Light, shadows, and water all seem to be modeled perfectly. While that may seem obvious, it's actually pretty impressive considering this movie is now 7 years old. It still looks like it could release today and I don't think anyone would bat an eyelash.

Grass so real you need to mow it.

Looking back at Monsters, Inc. now, the fur went from being "Wow this is great!" to "Wow, how could I ever think THAT was great?!"

I feel slightly uncomfortable.

Yes the designs themselves are timeless, but textures look much flatter, especially Mike. His spots honestly seem like they're just pixels with no actual bumps or height. Compare the life Monsters University has in every frame to Monsters Inc. Everything just feels much more... barren.

However, visuals are just one part of the story. And when comparing the ACTUAL story... well. Let's break that into three parts: world, character, action.

WORLD

The world relates intimately to the story, especially in a fantasy world like the Monsters series. In Inc., the world was such a part of the charm of that story. The idea that all the monsters that live in kids closets and scare them actually having their own world was brilliant. 

What... happened to him?

A lot of the humor of the first one was seeing a normal human work-place, but with monsters. It's a classic comedic set-up, take something fantastical and have them act like humans, but when it works, it works. And for Monsters, Inc. it WORKED.

Photos you can hear.

I loved seeing how the monsters feared children just as much as we feared them, seeing their prejudices challenged with Boo, and the change that made on the entire world. I loved the Easter eggs to the Abominable Snowman. We got a whole view of the world. The world was singular for its story, yet felt complete.

Me pointing out everything I love about this movie to someone who doesn't care.

Now compare that to Monsters University. It's the second, yet a prequel, so we can't see how the world has changed, yet they also can't just make the same jokes as the first one.

Enter: Binge drinking

So Pixar decided to focus on one aspect of monster society: college. While this could have led to a treasure-trove of jokes, for me... it didn't. What hilarious moments in University do you remember? Especially compared to how many iconic lines there are in Inc., there's far less.

This is the main one I thought of, and it's mostly for the tumblr post.

College is such a narrow field to see the world through, I think we lost a lot of the magic of the monster world. College is already so insular. One of my favorite scenes of the film was the group going to Monsters, Inc. and getting pumped up, and I don' think that's a coincidence. When your best setting is the setting of the last movie, that's a BIG problem.

CHARACTER
Monsters Inc. made so many iconic characters in one movie. Mike. Sully. Randal. Boo. Even Roz and Ceila. To this day, people adore these characters. And to just say it, it's the reason why 12 years later they could make a prequel based on these characters and the movie would gross over 700 million dollars.

Plus who knows how much they made from parks and merchandise.

Now Monsters University. All I have to say is... how many of these new characters can you NAME?

In before one superfan names all 34.

I'm guessing most people can't name any beyond maybe one or two. And even if you can, to me, their arcs and relationships were simply not as strong as what the original did. So why was that?

One of the reasons I think the relationships worked so well in the original was that most existed BEFORE the movie started. It's really hard to build a lot of relationships from scratch in less than 2 hrs, so Pixar already had Mike and Sully be best friends, already had Randal hate them, Ceila date Mike, etc. This made their banter organic and made us feel a sense of history.

Yes, yes they are.

Making all the relationships already in progress also let Pixar focus on the one they really had to nail: Sully and Boo. That is the heart of Monsters Inc, and seeing them progress from fearing each other to risking their lives to save each other is heart-warming.

Also Sully gives me such Dad vibes and I love it.

So instead of having to build every relationship, we get to see how relationships CHANGE. Mike and Sully's friendship nearly breaks. Randal's rivalry gets worse. Ceila almost breaks up with Mike.

Tbh, this moment still terrifies me.

And then, when the Sully and Boo have to say goodbye.. we've devoted enough time that my tear soaked pillow feels earned.

I'm okay. I swear, I'm okay.

Going back to University, not only is this an origin story of how Mike and Sully met for the first time, it's also an origin for how they met Randal, and every single other student at that college. While the minor characters already know each other, the main characters have NO relationships going in, which means the screenwriters had to build every one from scratch, making none strong enough to be the emotional core. At least, imo.

It's just my opinion bro.

ACTION

Finally, action. While I think heart is the most important part of a Pixar movie and humor is huge too, action shouldn't go unnoticed. However, I still think the original beats out the prequel.

The prequel does have action set-pieces, but they're very bluntly set up as "scare games". And even when we're given a plot-device for any crazy action to happen, what we get is... a bit underwhelming. Like you could do anything, and all we get is colored spiky balls?

I mean the lighting is BEAUTIFUL, but consider me whelmed.

Compare that with Monsters Inc. There's no games or arbitrary number of set pieces they have to go through. But the movie feels much more kinetic to me. Even just the simple act of a monsters getting a sock on them felt more dangerous than half these scare games. That's because the scare games were these scheduled things, so they really couldn't go that wrong.

This poor guy.

The best set piece from University for me was the camp scene in the human world. That was tense and had a sense of real danger. But then Inc. just blows it out of the water with the fight with Randal, the snow sledding, not even to mention the DOOR CHASE.

Ohmygosh this was so good.

The creativity, tension, visual appeal, and stakes!! The sense of danger! How they jumped in and out of doors and gravity changed and they traversed across the entire human world to run away!! This unbridled creativity is what I love about Pixar. 

Plus my stomach drops just looking at this.

In the door scene, we get great character in Sully protecting Boo, great action in the chase, AND great world in seeing how the doors are stored for scaring. That one scene is a perfect summary of, in my opinion, why Monsters Inc. is a superior movie to Monsters University.

That's all folks.

Rankings before: Monsters University 20th place; Monsters Inc 8th place
Rankings after: Same! University gets 3.5/5, Inc. gets 4.5/5