lirik lagu why did they make sing 2? (freestyle) – music william
[verse 1]
sing 2, released in december of 2021 by illumination as a sequel to sing six years prior, is an animated movie featuring a cast of anthropomorphized singing animals partic*p*ting in performing arts. like its predecessor, the film incorporates a wide selection of popular, well*known tracks for both soundtracking and performance within the world of the movie. the first movie had a significant positive and negative reception. some critics prized it for its upbeat, hopeful attitude with an optimistic mindset on the nature of perseverance. others criticized it for its reckless stringing together of agreeable pop music into tiny, consumable moments without any cohesive substance to connect the movie together. upon the announcement of sing 2, many of these negative critics were quick to judge the upcoming film. one artist, music william, took to their mediums to express their contempt, saying “why are they making sing 2 / that sh*t was dogwater” (william). when the movie itself was released, it validated many of the complaints antic*p*ted by staunch critics, and in some regards, sing 2 is even worse than the first movie. although one character offered redeeming moments for the film, illumination should not have created the movie sing 2 because of technical issues in the movie’s production, inappropriate content in the film, the failed replication of nuanced aspects from disney’s zootopia, the repetition of elements from sing, and unrealistic aspects of the story and setting. why did they make sing 2?
[verse 2]
most pressingly for the casual viewer of sing 2, the producers have caused many technical issues while incorporating a wide array of musical numbers into a single work, which inhibits a viewer’s capacity to experience and think critically about its content. the basis of the movie is the rapid transition between traditional scenes sonically driven by dialogue or sound effects and more innovative scenes that rely on a backing of music (typically pop music) to convey moods and plot points. these critical transitions fail in every aspect. the most disruptive of all these problems is the way levels are balanced between musical and non*musical shots. the timbre of sound effects and especially of dialogue is naturally highest in treble ranges. in contrast, a majority of the music featured in sing 2 has its emphasis on bass frequencies. this stark difference is accentuated by the fact that the songs are simply played back at a higher amplitude than the other scenes. as a result, the experiences between these two types of scenes are radically different, and moving between the two significantly throws the movie into disarray. it is especially problematic for amateur movie*watching setups like home televisions, as opposed to watching sing 2 in a movie theater: in my experience, the floors and walls of the room intensely vibrate. it is impossible to adequately enjoy a movie with such significant audio problems. in addition to balancing issues, the pacing of the transitions themselves fails as well. because of the significant quantity of distinct numbers illumination decided to squeeze into a single film, no individual musical idea has room to breathe, expand, and come to a resolution on its own without bumping into other musical ideas. at its most extreme, there is zero pause between two songs: in one of the initial meeting scenes between johnny and nooshy, one pop song’s ending is immediately followed up by the next’s beginning. this poses an obvious problem for people wanting to experience the movie, especially on a first watch. the mind becomes so focused on tracking these rapid changes that it can briefly lose awareness of the other elements of the scene that need to be understood. each musical number comes with its own connotative moods that a viewer should be aware of, connotations that contribute to an understanding of the plot. the disruptive track listing messes with this process in a viewer’s mind. there were many opportunities for illumination to remedy this issue of musical dissonance in sing 2 through a more original approach to soundtracking. they in fact attempted this to a minor extent. for a montage, they explicitly created a new version of “soy yo” by boumba estéreo, but it fell completely flat in the portion of the song that changed most significantly. uplifting strings played motivating chords in an attempt to match the moods that they needed to convey for the movie, but they conflicted with the integral minor*key flute loop that makes up the iconic identity of “soy yo.” though this problem is minor (musical pun not intended), it represents a widespread, abstract phenomenon that describes why the music of sing 2 is so ineffective: the diverse music selection simply cannot fit into the needs of an animated movie, and every attempt at molding pop music into the emotional moments that illumination wanted failed
[verse 3]
beyond technical concerns, illumination’s sing 2 also features inappropriate content that should have prohibited the movie’s production altogether without alteration to these elements. though they are each small, they are pervasive from the outset of the movie. from one of the movie’s opening scenes, a song on the radio mentions a “h*rnyback toad” and, mere seconds later, a character says “poppyc*ck.” even viewers that completely understand the true meaning behind these two compound words cannot help but consider the s*xual connotations behind their root words, namely “h*rny” and “c*ck.” this inconsiderate scriptwriting is completely unacceptable in the context of a movie aimed primarily at children. mentioning vulgar terminology should have immediately halted the production of the movie until the resolution of these issues. illumination does not limit the unsuitable content exclusively to dialogue, it pervades their character designs as well. the framing of shots and the animations of the character rosita have too strong an emphasis on her posterior. on several occasions, the camera zooms into it from behind her, and the character jiggles an improperly high amount. viewers can also observe the same phenomenon of inappropriate character design in the male characters, which illumination very overtly designed with the intent to look attractive, egregiously so in the case of darius and mr. crystal. the play casts darius as the romantic partner of meena, and from the outset, his actions, mannerisms, and ways of speaking and moving purposefully accentuate his flirtatious personality and sensual interests. even mr. crystal cannot avoid the adult content, as an awkwardly paced visual gag late in the movie implies he exposed himself to his employees. despite the appalling presence of scenes and characters with overtly s*xual implications, illumination released the movie as pg, meaning that they “suggest” parental guidance for viewership but by no means require it. first and foremost, this rating is incorrect. it should not be possible for young children to watch this movie. because of this, illumination should not have released sing 2 as they did. had they wanted to solve this miscategorization in release, they should have branded it less as a sequel of similar content but more so as an adult*oriented commentary on the pressures of producing and performing in theater
[verse 4]
sing 2 takes inspiration from disney’s zootopia, possibly the most influential piece of animated animal media in existence, but this inspiration falls flat, and the borrowed elements lose their original significance. the aspects taken from disney’s film are minor but not necessarily inconsequential. they demonstrate unoriginality on the part of the writers and designers of sing 2. the most obvious similarity is the presence of an elephant character selling ice cream. in zootopia, jerry jumbeaux serves ice cream to the larger creatures of the city, and his discriminatory actions serve as a comfortable introduction to the deep*seated role that racist policies have in modern society. this character is an important jumping*off point for the film’s themes on unequal treatment. alfonso, the equivalent character in sing 2, never accomplishes anything remotely as profound. he is the shallow love interest of an unlikable (some may say despicable) character, and he lacks the unique qualities that make him relevant to the story. his relationship with meena is one*sided at best and nonexistent at worst. no critical element of sing 2’s themes of bravery in the face of challenges would have been lost had he been removed from the movie. it is shameful to take characters from important films in the history of anthropomorphic animated media but simultaneously lose those characters’ significance. it similarly builds off of zootopia’s visual representations of predacious animals becoming “savage.” illumination’s implementation is again lacking in depth when compared to disney’s. when the predators of zootopia begin acting in accordance with their natural behaviors (as seen in the real world), the resolution in the movie gets viewers to consider what this means about the actions of humans: what is socially acceptable, and why? to what extent can human behavior be altered? to what extent should the law punish violations of agreed*upon human conduct? how can a society promote equality while also managing a heterogeneous population? illumination’s example of violent actions and punishment against that behavior is nowhere near as nuanced. it is a fun visual trick that begins to depict mr. crystal as the antagonist of sing 2. a useful characterization, yes, but not as layered and important as disney’s version of predation in tension with an organized, civilized animal society. in all of its attempts to replicate the interconnected aspects of zootopia that make its animal world engaging, rich, and complex, sing 2 fails, primarily because of its goal of creating a flashy, fun world ripe for the spontaneous performances that define the sing movies
[verse 5]
sing 2, as its name implies, follows up illumination’s previous hit movie sing, but unfortunately, it relies too heavily on elements from its predecessor and becomes an uninteresting piece of media to merely be consumed instead of deeply appreciated. the similarities with the first movie begin in the visual language that illumination utilizes to express moods and story beats. in the first movie, the studio heavily uses the destruction of walls and other contexts of the characters as a prevalent metaphor for overcoming social barriers in theater. this thematic motif of triumph exists both in the performances themselves — characters pushing past their limitations towards success — and in the management of the theater — a team of amateurs performing an intricate show under difficult circumstances. sing 2, tragically, uses the same symbolism in the same contexts without iteration. while auditioning for mr. crystal, the walls surrounding buster moon and his cast visually collapse as the characters remain suspended in a cosmic void. it represents the exact same movement in the story as before, the characters surpassing barriers that have previously prevented amateurs from accessing an equal opportunity in front of theatrical entrepreneurs (although their audition only succeeds for other reasons). repetition bores an audience, especially an audience that is already very familiar with the language of illumination’s style of animation. it is a symptom of laziness and unoriginality on the part of the studio producing the movie, not a shocking statement when considering that this is the same studio that created four sequels to their first ever movie, despicable me. this one ip has held a firm grasp on the identity of illumination since the company’s beginning, and if the sing series develops similarly, it will possibly join the characters of despicable me in this role. beyond its visual language, the fundamental plot of sing 2 also rips off of the original movie. the basis of the conflict in the first movie is moon’s pathological lies, culminating in a false offer of a significant cash prize for a high*stakes talent show. sing 2 does not modulate from this concept in any way: moon lies about being in close contact with the retired musical star, clay calloway, and attempts to cover the lie for as long as possible before the truth exposes him. this violates one of the most critical considerations when developing a sequel for a well*received movie (at least, well*received to consumers with less refined tastes): how can the followup offer a unique experience while continuing and elaborating on the developments of the original? sing 2 fails in this respect: there is no unique experience. the movie may be packed with new music, new characters, and new stakes, but the driving conflict is identical. perceptive viewers will notice this and understand sing 2 for its true self, an uninspiring, bland derivative of what came before, a blatant cash grab that spits in the face of truly emotional storytelling in favor of shallow heart*warming stories devoid of unique themes and important developments. nothing grows from sing 2, it merely is
[verse 6]
the enjoyment of sing 2 is further halted by unrealistic plot points that only exist to move things along, not to develop existing ideas sensibly. these moments do not make sense for the world of sing, and they make it more difficult to process the film as it happens without rewatching segments to rationalize character motivations. the most unrealistic feature of sing’s world which disrupts the viewership from the outset of the film is the simple fact that animals don’t sing; they go “meow,” “moo,” or other noises along those lines. this issue may seem contrived, but this tension is at the heart of every animated film featuring a cast of animals. in the real world, animals cannot communicate in advanced linguistic phrases in the same way humans can, so unique movie worlds develop unique ways of rationalizing the communication of animals. sometimes, it is a sk!ll kept hidden from humans, or animal noises are reinterpreted as a developed language. sometimes, the capacity for language drives further division among animals. (notice that zootopia exclusively hosts mammals.) the movie is incorrectly targeted at kids, which may explain why sing 2 does not address this question whatsoever, but it becomes a significant barrier for any older viewers that want to fully understand the world before diving into what themes the story hopes to convey. it is difficult to understand what sing 2 is saying about the arbitrariness of power and the purpose of perseverance against adversity when one cannot even explain why animals are talking. similar thematic barriers are established when characters lack clear motivations. the worst instance is porsche’s admission into the team of amateurs, conspiring to put on a show without the permission of mr. crystal. she is the origin of the divide between moon’s team and crystal’s management: she was told her sk!lls were insufficient for the performance and overreacted, bringing crystal to her defense. however, mere minutes later, when the amateurs develop their plans into actionable, concrete decisions, they recruit porsche as if she held no resentment whatsoever. this goes against her previously established motivations, and even against her character identity. in much the same vein, shortly after enacting their plan, they announce that their play will be performed immediately, without permission from crystal or his employees. the amateurs immediately find an eager audience pouring into the seats. this is nonsensical and seemingly spits in the face of the motifs established since the first movie, embracing a passion all the way towards success in performing arts. the amateurs’ spontaneous audience did not necessitate the hard work that this motif establishes. discrepancies like these cannot be ignored, and ultimately come in the way of a thematic understanding of the film. what kind of role do people with connections to power play in an amateur’s success? how is success earned, or should it be “earned” at all? should power structures exist at all in the art world? when a character or world cannot be well understood from the inside, no *n*lysis can answer these questions without making extreme assumptions. similar misunderstandings are explored in the film’s depiction of the role that genres of music have on cultures, one of the most fascinating ideas to come from sing 2. music is a tool to rationalize the world around us. songs with motivational messages and upbeat sounds are intended to bring forth feelings of inspiration and determination to listeners. songs that reflect internal dialogue are intended to reveal truths in characters that may be difficult to realize otherwise. most importantly, songs can reflect not just an individual but an entire class of people through standardization within a culture. a simple example is the presence of music in religion. much of standardized musical notation and practice is developed from the need to codify religious performances involving music. christians, muslims, hindus, and buddhists all utilize established norms around music in their religious practices as a means of communication with unique cultural associations. tension forms when these communications are taken outside of their original cultural context, or perceived by someone that lacks those cultural associations. this is a polite description of close*mindedness and is the essence of culture shock. the final play of sing 2 explores a set of alien planets, where each visit is a new opportunity for a musical number, but the planet of war is where the idea of culture shock through context loss is at its apex: the music this planet associates with war is a sky full of stars by coldplay, an upbeat electronic dance tune with heavy use of digital synthesizers and lyrics that portray some kind of infatuation with an unspecified recipient. the play initially seems to use this to create the aforementioned tension between a foreigner and cultural norms through music. however, there is no way to justify a song like a sky full of stars as a traditional war tune. its lyrical substance is outright nonsensical as a representation of war on a planet that solely brands itself around armed conflict. the only two possible recipients of the message behind the song are klaus and nooshy. the former is unlikely, considering that this scene is in fact the climax of the struggle between klaus’ regimented, traditional, and outdated form of choreographic instruction. it could be addressed to nooshy, but she is not performing at all at this point in the play. this interpretation would disconnect the meaning of the song from the context it supposedly established for itself; all meaning extracted from the presence of a sky full of stars would be voided. its instrumental components are also troubling for any attempt at thorough *n*lysis. the level of technological advancement required for digital audio synthesis (a requisite for electronic dance music), in general, surpasses the stage of society where war is glorified as a means of acquiring power; societies develop traditional war tunes long before edm exists. this is why this scene presents fascinating ideas yet still falls flat. it has the seeds of important themes on artistic interpretation and the uniqueness of human culture, but missing elements prevent any comprehensive understanding. unrealistic story elements are not merely something to gawk at and say “this is inaccurate, this could not truly happen;” it devalues the work as a whole because any conclusions drawn from its events are less definitive. this is not an argument against morally gray actors or innovative fictional elements, but an argument against poorly defined and contradictory narratives
[verse 7]
despite all of sing 2’s shortcomings, a single character stands out, an exception to the disappointing precedents set up by all other characters, a character that makes watching sing 2 a remotely valuable experience: miss crawly. miss crawly is a funny, empathetic, and genuinely uplifting character that presents the qualities that more characters in sing 2 should have exhibited. her character design and her relationship to moon as an assistant clearly establish an expectation for her personality — passive, kind, and obedient — which the movie then contradicts through visual gags. this form of humor is best exemplified when she listens to loud music typically associated with adolescent rebellion in a sports car while driving recklessly. no character’s visual humor is at all comparable to that of miss crawly. it is simple, but significantly more effective than other characters whose personalities are too poorly defined to pull this off. at the same time, miss crawly’s character can be used in short, sentimental moments that an audience immediately empathizes with. towards the end of the film, when the amateurs are returning home on their bus with all of rosita’s children, miss crawly cares for the piglets. she makes no big deal about fulfilling her role, in fact, her nonchalantness gives insight into her past which had gone unstated otherwise within the movie. miss crawly also embodies the opposite of this sweet behavior: she enforces a strict regimen when moon temporarily grants her control over the team while he is away. her no*nonsense attitude is why porsche turned so quickly; her attitude helped close out preparations for the play at an unprecedented pace, making up for moon’s failure to meet the schedule; she stood her ground against a well*established corporate institution wielding immense power against a tiny team. she is the embodiment of sing and sing 2’s strongest themes of perseverance, teamwork, and passion. wherever moon chased dreams of great success, miss crawly constantly supported him and pushed his dreams into the real world. when moon said “when you’ve reached rock bottom, there’s only one way to go, and that’s up,” miss crawly was the force crawling the entire team out of rock bottom and into the real world of performing arts. miss crawly is an ideal representation of what success means in the framework of sing 2, and yet she is the least congratulated of the main cast simply because she does not play a performing role. her presence is the sole aspect of the film preventing its themes from being lost entirely to the repetitive, nonsensical story. if anyone commands respect, it should be miss crawly
[verse 8]
illumination should not have created sing 2. a dissonance permeates the entire movie since they forced onto it an incohesive collection of music without the room for individual songs to develop and breathe. the movie is ruined by inappropriate content, distracting from what little substance it manages to provide. it steals elements from disney’s movie of a similar genre, zootopia, but fails to adequately incorporate them because sing 2 loses all the nuance that gives those elements meaning. it borrows too heavily from the original sing movie to offer any new themes or perspectives, and the story does not significantly modulate between the two movies. unrealistic plot points prevent any in*depth *n*lysis of the movie’s themes without great assumptions on the points illumination wants to make. the flaws that drove the original movie into its infamous status were not at all addressed in the sequel, and though visual quality greatly improved, the negative characteristics that define the movie’s failure — incohesion, superficiality, and boringness — are equally an issue in the sequel
lirik lagu lainnya :
- kumpulan lirik lagu hezzydakidd › lirik lagu u know – hezzydakidd
- kumpulan lirik lagu fran band › lirik lagu how did we – fran (band)
- kumpulan lirik lagu ash sxlvr › lirik lagu rageisdead** – ash sxlvr
- kumpulan lirik lagu dam27 › lirik lagu холода (the cold) – dam27
- kumpulan lirik lagu denis naidanow › lirik lagu wonderland – denis naidanow
- kumpulan lirik lagu niah steiner › lirik lagu do you remember? – niah steiner
- kumpulan lirik lagu joseph abbas › lirik lagu bir şüşə pivə (explicit) – joseph abbas
- kumpulan lirik lagu belle and sebastian › lirik lagu do you follow – belle and sebastian
- kumpulan lirik lagu sovkət ələkbərova › lirik lagu söz olmasaydı – şövkət ələkbərova
- kumpulan lirik lagu afraid of the dark › lirik lagu a healthy dose of teenage rebelion – afraid of the dark?