5 ms·

I adored Flow. It's hard to say it was truly "better" than Inside Out 2. I think part of the calculation has to be that everyone expected Pixar to deliver somet

by tootie 2y ago

I adored Flow. It's hard to say it was truly "better" than Inside Out 2. I think part of the calculation has to be that everyone expected Pixar to deliver something top notch so it only really met expectations. Flow was made by a no-name team from Latvia and was really something unique and interesting. I went into it kinda blind with no expectations and was blown away.

riffraff 2y ago
I didn't think inside out 2 was a very good movie. It had good ideas but didn't do very well with them (contrary to the first movie, which was great). I'm not surprised a movie which wasn't "just a sequel" managed to beat Moana and IO2.
- autoexec 2y ago
  I was also disappointed by inside out 2. I thought it followed the story beats of the first one a bit too closely. Flow was the better film.
  - tootie 2y ago
    This is my point though. Inside Out 2 suffered from high expectations. If Pixar never existed and Inside Out 2 came from an unknown studio it would have blown you away.
    - bombcar 2y ago
      Exactly. Pixar is somewhat a victim of its own success, but in this case Inside Out 2 is just Inside Out again - none of the additions or developments are really surprising. And that's not bad! Sometimes you really do just want more of the same - after all, many wildly successful TV shows are just the same story, told differently each episode. Flow wildly beat expectations which already gives it a leg up, but it was "new and weird" enough that I bet more of the reviewers actually watched it vs Inside Out 2 or other big-name movies. Even the tagline of "feature length movie with no dialogue that's actually good" is enough to get people interested.
    - whatevertrevor 2y ago
      Eh not for me. It was just meh, nothing to do with expectations, which were already low from my side.
- brookst 2y ago
  The title of the movie is perfect. It’s more of the same. Which is still very good, but lacking in anything novel.

by tootie 2y ago

riffraff 2y ago

I didn't think inside out 2 was a very good movie. It had good ideas but didn't do very well with them (contrary to the first movie, which was great). I'm not surprised a movie which wasn't "just a sequel" managed to beat Moana and IO2.

autoexec 2y ago
I was also disappointed by inside out 2. I thought it followed the story beats of the first one a bit too closely. Flow was the better film.
- tootie 2y ago
  This is my point though. Inside Out 2 suffered from high expectations. If Pixar never existed and Inside Out 2 came from an unknown studio it would have blown you away.
  - bombcar 2y ago
    Exactly. Pixar is somewhat a victim of its own success, but in this case Inside Out 2 is just Inside Out again - none of the additions or developments are really surprising. And that's not bad! Sometimes you really do just want more of the same - after all, many wildly successful TV shows are just the same story, told differently each episode. Flow wildly beat expectations which already gives it a leg up, but it was "new and weird" enough that I bet more of the reviewers actually watched it vs Inside Out 2 or other big-name movies. Even the tagline of "feature length movie with no dialogue that's actually good" is enough to get people interested.
  - whatevertrevor 2y ago
    Eh not for me. It was just meh, nothing to do with expectations, which were already low from my side.
brookst 2y ago
The title of the movie is perfect. It’s more of the same. Which is still very good, but lacking in anything novel.