Chatting with someone about recent Pixar films compared to "golden age"(?) Pixar films... I don't really have coherent examples of this, but I feel like some of their weakest films (and weak speculative fiction generally) get too caught up in... the metaphor? The allegory? The underlying theme?
Like, I think "Finding Nemo" is a great film. And people will say, "It's not JUST a film about cartoon fish! It's also about parent-child relationships and suffocating overprotectiveness and learning to let your child be independent!" Which is true. I think that's a very true statement. That IS the emotional core of the movie.
But I also think "Finding Nemo" is great and works as a film because it also respects and explores the setting in a straightforward way. It's also a movie about how genuinely scary it would be to be a small fish in a big, wonderous, terrifying ocean. It's asking, "What would it be like to be a fish going through this experience?"
The original world of "Toy Story" is compelling and delightfully disturbing, because it's asking, "What would it be like to be a toy?" And "A Bug's Life" is similarly asking, "What might it be like to be a bug?" And "Monsters Inc." is asking, "Why might monsters scare children at night?" All of these movies have strong emotional cores and allegories and all that jazz, but they're also engaging with these speculative prompts in a forthright way.
I'm reminded of a joke post that I saw about "The Hobbit" in which Bilbo says, "Ohhh, I get it! The dragon is a metaphor for greed!" And Thorin replies, "Bilbo, it's a real dragon and it's in my house." Like, there IS a lot about Smaug that's neat thematically, for sure, but also... for the fantasy setting to work, you do have to keep in mind the dangerous, logistical realities of a big, fire-breathing, man-eating lizard, which Tolkien obviously very much does.
Like, I saw "Elemental" and I kind of thought... the movie was maybe too caught up in being a metaphor for interracial relationships, possibly at the expense of the speculative worldbuilding. I don't think the movie engaged enough with the fact that marginalized fire-person Ember lives in a city full of water features that could apparently injure or even kill her. I think that the movie pulled a lot of its punches in regards to structural racism.
I thought that "Onward" was particularly disinterested in its own setting and the logic of it. Most of the fantasy elements were gags. It's a "normal" generic modern setting with speculative elements pasted on top, rather than a new world with the speculative elements integrated in unique ways that changed the way that people did things, you know? A society disregarding clearly very powerful magic (and all magical history) in favour of mildly more convenient lightbulbs doesn't actually make sense in-universe. It's, idk, the story forcibly simplifying itself just to call modern society lazy and incurious, which isn't an interesting statement.
I don't remember "Luca" and "Soul" very well, so I won't really comment on them here. I liked "Turning Red" well enough and I think its specific Chinese-Canadian setting worked fine for it. And I think "Inside Out" generally works as well, because it's specifically about how messy it inwardly feels to be even a "normal" preteen / teenage girl; a lot is smoothed over by it all being inside Riley's head. "Lightyear" was... I don't know how to get started on that mess, so I will not start.
Anyway, my point is: I think that with speculative fiction, it IS good and important to keep your themes and messages and emotional cores in mind! I just think you do have to also engage with the reality of the world you have going on, so that the story actually feels logical and well-grounded and unique. Sometimes, a dragon has also got to be a literal dragon, you know?
