Regarding "Minions and monsters", and why it was so divisive... "How could such a profitable franchise show weakness?"
Hello again. I know you all hate me; I admit I’ve been a bit of a broken record with my opinion on this. It’s just that I find people's "surprised" reaction to the cold box-office reception of *Minions and Monsters* curious—I mean, are you really surprised?
Months ago, I discussed the leaks, and you were right—I was mistaken. Not about the fact that the movie would make an impact, but about the *nature* of that impact. So, I’m correcting myself and updating my post now.
I had said the movie was shaping up to be a disappointment... well, it’s not just shaping up to be one; in terms of reception, it actually *is* one. Several of the leaks turned out to be true, and things looked bad from the start. The general description was disappointing, but now—more than just disappointing—it comes across as pretentious and self-indulgent. So, here we go.
1.- The title, *Minions and Monsters*, was completely random; it broke the established context of the *Minions* series—which gave us an origin story—and *Minions: The Rise of Gru*, which focused on his early years and loyalty.
2.- Many plot elements are a poor copy of the first *Minions* movie (2015): a group of brave little guys venturing far from the rest for a wild adventure (with four of them instead of three), the search for a boss, a setting prior to the events of *Despicable Me*, and random moments thrown in. That’s because, in essence, this movie usurps the place of the first one. Yes, it’s an origin story—the origin of how the Minions created cinema. In interviews, Pierre Coffin showed little regard for the value people place on the first *Minions* film, so he doesn't care if this movie undermines the weight of the original (which, mind you, came out 11 years ago).
3.- The movie continues the trend set by *Despicable Me 4* of turning the Minions into mere comic relief, rather than the characters established in the first two *Minions* films. The reason for making a movie about Minions making a monster movie is simply "because they're Minions and do silly things for no reason," while also using them to tell a totally random story about classic cinema.
4.- Despite copying the structure of the first *Minions* film, it strips away whatever little essence that movie had; it adds a random homage to classic cinema, then monsters, and then doesn't even bother to connect anything. The context of the Minions' existence up to 1968 seems irrelevant. It feels far removed from Gru's world (the main series), and the Minions don't seem to have a goal or a mission.
5.- It is set in 1920—a year already established in the first film—with no justifiable reason to return to that era, thereby breaking the continuity between *Minions* (set in the 60s) and *Minions: The Rise of Gru* (set in the 70s). It is a disappointment, especially considering the ending of *Minions: The Rise of Gru*, which held so much more promise.
6.- The fact that the Minions "create Hollywood" serves as a meta-commentary that adds nothing to the fictional universe—though it does speak to our own reality, confirming the sad belief that the Minions are merely a marketing strategy. Indeed, it neither adds nor attempts to add anything of substance; it seems that those who grew up with the *Minions* duology no longer matter. Instead, the priority is to appease longtime detractors with a tribute that uses the characters merely as vehicles—where their actual story doesn't matter, only the narrative they deliver and the external references the audience can spot.
7.- It feels more like a retread of the first *Minions* movie than a sequel or prequel to the saga; it is essentially the first film but with a different vision, where It’s no longer about telling a story *about* them, but *with* them. Guys... the essence here is basically an extended short film; the tribute part could have stood alone as a short, but the rest of the movie lacks any real connection beyond general film references.
8.-- It doesn't deserve to be there. It’s an incoherent interlude between the *Minions* (2015) intro and the rest of the film—which is essentially a sequel to the first installment of the saga. It swaps out the lead trio from the previous two movies, altering the series' context and alienating fans who followed the franchise out of genuine attachment.
9.--*Minions* (2015) was a questionable experiment. In a way, *Minions: The Rise of Gru* made people appreciate Illumination's attempt to contextualize the Minions as something more than just punchlines and accessories in Gru's world. This movie destroys that, reducing everything to the idea that "the *Minions* saga is just random Minion stories—haha, extended Minion shorts—and that's it." Pierre Coffin himself has displayed a terrible attitude, mocking fans who wanted a proper continuation rather than random stories with Minions in the background. This isn't a bold experiment; it's a dangerous one.
10.- Let's be honest... this isn't the sequel we wanted. I don't think I'm the only one who was hoping for a sequel to *The Rise of Gru*—one that would advance the timeline toward *Despicable Me*, showing more of young Gru living and growing up with the Minions (perhaps in the 80s) and featuring more of Kevin, Stuart, and Bob.
New points:
Why did I remind you how long ago *Minions* (2015) came out? Because the children or teenagers who grew up with it have now grown up; they love that version of the Minions—the ones searching for a master and acting as a big family. It wasn't just about kids; it was about a loyal audience that the creators literally turned their backs on.
The movie is NOT for fans; Coffin made it to relieve the stress of monotony, and Bryan Lynch wrote it without any supervision. It’s so far from being that—seriously, if you look up interviews—Coffin downplayed the complaints from fans (people who, mind you, had been around for a maximum of ten years). The movie is entertaining, sure, but it is NOT for fans; very few fans—or even casual viewers who "tolerate" the franchise—find it fun and fresh...
-To add to my previous point: most of the praise comes from people who hate the franchise—who can't stand it, who hate *Minions* (2015) and *Minions 2*. The praise is directed at *what* is being told, not *who* is telling it. That’s why they never connected with the altruistic Kevin—even dismissing him as "empty"—yet they *do* connect with the "misunderstood artist" James, because they project themselves onto him. In fact, that’s why many kids don't connect with this guy; objectively speaking, he’s an egoist who prioritizes his own aspirations over the "tribe."
- Critics applaud the homage; they aren't interested in the Minions—just as the script isn't interested in them. It cares more about the homage. That’s why there’s more focus on the Dort mess than on the actual search for a villain, and why the satire and classic movie references matter more than the Minions themselves. And before you ask... let me just remind you that the very existence of this movie diminishes the emotional weight of his depression in the 60s.
-Sorry to say this, but only a very "pretentious" cinephile could identify with James. Bruh, I’m sorry, but for me, Kevin is a better Minion figurehead than this guy who acts like a film student. Why pretentious? Because the script portrays him as misunderstood, even though at his core he’s selfish and careless... I don’t claim to be a film buff, nor am I particularly interested in cinema, but even I can see that, script-wise, James completely undermines the unity we’ve seen among these characters... The irony is that James is a "self-insert" for the directors—and not even a subtle one—whereas Kevin is a methodical altruist who remains just another member of the tribe; Kevin is altruistic but stays a buffoonish minion, while James is treated as "human" simply for having a goal—and the script feels the need to scream that in your face, as if you wouldn't grasp it otherwise (which is what happened with Kevin).
So... what did they expect would happen when they turned their backs on their fans? A round of applause? Well, they got it—from critics and cinephiles; congratulations... Except that the public could turn their backs on them, too (and no, this wasn't just about the movie itself; it was also due to comments made in interviews by Illumination CEO Pierre Coffin and Bryan Lynch.
