The "liar revealed" trope and obligatory love interest trope - the latter introduced quite artificially and gratingly with Norm MacDonald's character joking about it so even the thickest parts of the audience would pick up on it, given the complete absence of chemistry in protag's and her first scene togehter - are both done to death in the animated family film subgenre. The combination of the two are _especially_ done to death. What is this, _Aladdin?_ _A Bug's Life?_ _Shrek?_ _Shark Tale?_ Significantly older animated family films, some better but surely many more worse ones, have already dried this well and all but exhausted its potential, and that's _after_ much much older old school Hollywood films likely did this to death in the realm of live action that much earlier. Gimme a goddamned break. The mailman is not given a chance to explain himself before Klaus et al. jump to conclusions, and the love interest is only present to heighten the personal stakes for the mailman. She's by no means useless to the story, but the forced heteroness of her and protag's trajectories is the most Hollywood/Hallmark bullshit imaginable. Seen it a thousand times, done to death, to the point of being almost obnoxious - only forgivable because this film is well put-together otherwise. Teacher lady is already good enough as a platonic foil for mailman (not unlike Klaus himself), having shown what could have happened to him if he had lost all motivation to achieve his original goal. These characters could have stayed single and friends, each joining forces with Klaus and having already established mutual interest in and motivation to improve the community to which they've migrated. Would the film have been much different or worse if these characters were, for example, ace-aro, and if the mailman were allowed by the writers to call out the feuding families on their BS right then and there, instead of increasing the stakes to 11 for no reason other than slavish adherence to the Hollywood end-of-second-act/beginning-of-third-act "low point" formulation? Was Netflix _that_ worried about audiences losing interest in this film halfway through if straight parents concluded that the mailman was gay for not developing feelings for the teacher or something, or if the filmmakers didn't pull the same cheap bullshit Pixar has done habitually like a dozen times already - using cheap coincidences to get protagonists into trouble, easily their worst screenwriting habit because they've publicly bragged about teaching junior writers to use this plot device as as one of their signature staples - to keep young children invested in the film's ending? Basically what I'm saying is these redundant Hollywood bullshit elements might be holding this film back, damning a potentially all-time great film to merely be a quite good one to put on during the holidays, surely better than only 80-90% of the crap you have to wade through to find the time-tested holiday classics instead of necessarily better than 95% or 99% of such films. The stylized animation hard-carries _Klaus_ but the filmmakers don't lean into that strength quite the same way a film like _Nightmare Before Christmas_ does with a minimalist plot, agonizingly difficult/high-effort animation, and consistently interesting and memorable set pieces. If they're going to establish a Kinkade-esque holiday kitsch as the protag's newfound utopian end goal, they could have dialed it back just a bit, without compromising the effect of its stark contrast with the dystopia depicted in the first act. Why not leave the protag in a final self-actualized state comparable to that of the mailman used in the framing device of _Santa Claus is Comin' to Town?_ Did they need to show us that final shot of protag and love interest telling a bedtime story with multiple kids and a bunk bed? Do depictions of single adults who work regularly with children on a professional basis - like the teacher does after she rediscovers her passion - unconsciously trigger parental fears of child predators? Straight people have complained about much milder and subtler depictions of same-sex couples than what we see depicted here. I raise these complaints as a straight man who's just tired of the cliche bullshit and routinely avoids Hollywood fare unless a film is highly recommended like this one. This is already a somewhat ambitious freaking animated holiday film with the blessing of studio funding and a practically captive niche audience with an insatiable demand for season-specific films during the fall: they could have taken a couple more creative risks with this while keeping the affair family-friendly and easily gotten away with it without pissing off Netflix producers too much, whom I'm tempted to blame for the likely focus-tested elements.
@@fireflocs lol in hindsight this was a nuclear take, typed out in a mad fury. I...wouldn't take this post too seriously despite its absurd length. Believe it or not I actually _liked_ this film.
The "liar revealed" trope and obligatory love interest trope - the latter introduced quite artificially and gratingly with Norm MacDonald's character joking about it so even the thickest parts of the audience would pick up on it, given the complete absence of chemistry in protag's and her first scene togehter - are both done to death in the animated family film subgenre. The combination of the two are _especially_ done to death. What is this, _Aladdin?_ _A Bug's Life?_ _Shrek?_ _Shark Tale?_ Significantly older animated family films, some better but surely many more worse ones, have already dried this well and all but exhausted its potential, and that's _after_ much much older old school Hollywood films likely did this to death in the realm of live action that much earlier. Gimme a goddamned break.
The mailman is not given a chance to explain himself before Klaus et al. jump to conclusions, and the love interest is only present to heighten the personal stakes for the mailman. She's by no means useless to the story, but the forced heteroness of her and protag's trajectories is the most Hollywood/Hallmark bullshit imaginable. Seen it a thousand times, done to death, to the point of being almost obnoxious - only forgivable because this film is well put-together otherwise. Teacher lady is already good enough as a platonic foil for mailman (not unlike Klaus himself), having shown what could have happened to him if he had lost all motivation to achieve his original goal.
These characters could have stayed single and friends, each joining forces with Klaus and having already established mutual interest in and motivation to improve the community to which they've migrated. Would the film have been much different or worse if these characters were, for example, ace-aro, and if the mailman were allowed by the writers to call out the feuding families on their BS right then and there, instead of increasing the stakes to 11 for no reason other than slavish adherence to the Hollywood end-of-second-act/beginning-of-third-act "low point" formulation?
Was Netflix _that_ worried about audiences losing interest in this film halfway through if straight parents concluded that the mailman was gay for not developing feelings for the teacher or something, or if the filmmakers didn't pull the same cheap bullshit Pixar has done habitually like a dozen times already - using cheap coincidences to get protagonists into trouble, easily their worst screenwriting habit because they've publicly bragged about teaching junior writers to use this plot device as as one of their signature staples - to keep young children invested in the film's ending?
Basically what I'm saying is these redundant Hollywood bullshit elements might be holding this film back, damning a potentially all-time great film to merely be a quite good one to put on during the holidays, surely better than only 80-90% of the crap you have to wade through to find the time-tested holiday classics instead of necessarily better than 95% or 99% of such films. The stylized animation hard-carries _Klaus_ but the filmmakers don't lean into that strength quite the same way a film like _Nightmare Before Christmas_ does with a minimalist plot, agonizingly difficult/high-effort animation, and consistently interesting and memorable set pieces.
If they're going to establish a Kinkade-esque holiday kitsch as the protag's newfound utopian end goal, they could have dialed it back just a bit, without compromising the effect of its stark contrast with the dystopia depicted in the first act. Why not leave the protag in a final self-actualized state comparable to that of the mailman used in the framing device of _Santa Claus is Comin' to Town?_ Did they need to show us that final shot of protag and love interest telling a bedtime story with multiple kids and a bunk bed? Do depictions of single adults who work regularly with children on a professional basis - like the teacher does after she rediscovers her passion - unconsciously trigger parental fears of child predators? Straight people have complained about much milder and subtler depictions of same-sex couples than what we see depicted here. I raise these complaints as a straight man who's just tired of the cliche bullshit and routinely avoids Hollywood fare unless a film is highly recommended like this one.
This is already a somewhat ambitious freaking animated holiday film with the blessing of studio funding and a practically captive niche audience with an insatiable demand for season-specific films during the fall: they could have taken a couple more creative risks with this while keeping the affair family-friendly and easily gotten away with it without pissing off Netflix producers too much, whom I'm tempted to blame for the likely focus-tested elements.
bruh
How is this not a copypasta?
@@fireflocs lol in hindsight this was a nuclear take, typed out in a mad fury. I...wouldn't take this post too seriously despite its absurd length. Believe it or not I actually _liked_ this film.
@@discountchocolate4577 Honestly, I've been there.
You LuuL to Sus?