Is Pixar's Run of Greatness Over?

Interesting points. I don’t even think the constraints are confined to CGI. If a Pixar or Disney film (CGI or not) has to meet the following general criteria:

G or PG rated
Targeted primarily at children
Relatively simple plot structure
…and so on…

Then there are only so many ways you can work under those constraints and make very good or great films. That doesn’t mean it can’t be done. It also doesn’t mean all of the criteria are met on every single film, or that meeting the criteria precludes adults enjoying them, or reading deeper meaning into them. I’m also not suggesting that live action films don’t work under certain constraints as well. The studio doesn’t want an R-rated “Iron Man” movie, etc.

But Pixar and Disney are going to hit a wall sometimes, especially when you add in other criteria (e.g. fairy tales, princesses, superheroes, love interests) that are sometimes also at play.

Add on top of that the industry’s taste for sequels, remakes, reboots, etc.

When the bar ends up being lowered after some mediocre stuff hits the market, then you also sometimes end up with “good, but not great” films being hyped up simply because it seems so good compared to what came before. I think “Frozen” falls under that category a bit (in addition to the films HUGE “toyetic” appeal, which goes far beyond even a typically uber-toyetic Disney or Pixar situation).
In the past decade or so, I’ve come to start enjoying all sorts of classic Disney animated films. There are so many things to admire about them, not the least of which is the fact that people sat down and drew and painted the stuff. But even going back to the “classic” stuff, there are elements of sameness and redundancy. Again, simple stories aimed primarily at children have limitations.

 

I know what you're talking about, but I disagree that there is anything inherently limiting with 3D animation. You can make pixels dance in any shape or form that an animator desires, just like you can make a pencil dance on paper. The difference is two-fold, I think. One, the visual aesthetic differences between the two mediums and two, the artistic intent of the animators themselves who operate in a different cultural setting to the legacy animators.

 

Pixar movies are made these days to sell merchandise. Nothing more, nothing less. It's the nature of the beast. A Pixar release is a major fiscal event for the company these days. You simply are not allowed to take creative risks when hundreds of millions are on the line.

 

There are pros and cons. You can put more small details in facial animation with CG but 2D gives you more scope for exaggeration.
I would take 2D over 3D any day of the week but CG does have advantage in some areas. Look at Ratatouille.

 

No, it doesn't.

 

I remember watching Cars for the first time on the big screen and the opening race scenes were just incredible. Didn't even look like a cartoon.

They need to get back to that level.

 

I don't think that's completely true. Many, many, many Pixar movies have been derailed, directors fired, and production completely redone from scratch solely for reasons of story and character. It didn't affect the toys and merchandising in the least. (Ratatouille is a good example where they fired the director and drafted Brad Bird to come in and finish it.)

But it's fair to say that all movies with budgets over $50M have to fulfill the studios' marketing department's concerns before they'll greenlight the picture. And that covers comedies, romances, dramas, action films, cartoons, musicals, everything. The three key questions are: "what is the audience for this film?", "how can we sell this film?", and "what products can we tie in to the film to help give us some relief on the budget?" These are important questions. Sometimes, films are killed because one or more of these questions have no good answers. The idea for the movie is fine, but if they can't figure out how to sell it, they shelve it.

I really believe Pixar is primarily making films to tell a good story, and marketing and merchandise is only about 20% of it. Just recently, they fired the director of The Good Dinosaur and basically started over, which pushed the movie back to next year. This is why 2014 is one of the first years in a long time that didn't have a new Pixar film. They know it's more important for a film to be right than to be on time.

 

Having spent a lot of time in recent years surveying the mass of toys in the stores, I can say that the "toyetic" appeal of these movies varies greatly from film to film.

"Cars" and "Toy Story" are no longer a case of some toys tied into the films. The toy lines (and other similar merchandise) are ongoing juggernauts all on their own, they both have their own permanent sections in toy stores. Most of the Disney stuff has of course had never-ending, ongoing merchandise as well. But "Frozen" puts everything else to shame on that stuff. "Despicable Me" has now become a toy line all on its own.

Other Pixar and Disney films have had very little, seemingly almost no toys/merchandise, and what little did exist was usually found right when the film came out. I don't see a bunch of "Up" merchandise. A few things here and there. Even "Finding Nemo" merchandise isn't found too much anymore, especially outside of a "Disney Store." You would think "Wall-E" has an obvious couple of very "toyetic" items ready to market. But most "Wall-E" merch disappeared back in 2008/2009 and didn't sell that well, with existing products going for tons of money on eBay.

Pixar has just recently put out a new line of some toys devoted to Wall-E, Incredibles, Nemo, and I think Up. But it's more of a little boutique, short term line.

Apologies for the digression. On the franchises where the toys sell well, I have no doubt the toy/merchandise angle is HUGE when it comes to planning any sequels.

 

That is exactly the point. Not every movie is going to "hit" in the toy market. You need the rare winner like Toy Story to pay for the losers, as it grows into a brand marketable beyond the films. George Lucas ended up making far more money off the toys for Star Wars than he did the films.

 

I note all the comments, especially those about these films being big business. I've enjoyed many of them, with UP, WALL E and THE INCREDIBLES being the highlights. I'm hoping that as they get new artists in over time, more classics will be on the way.

 

Cars didn't ruin PIXAR (several praised movies came out after that) but they are not as good these days. Toy Story 4 shouldn't be a thing.

 

Some more news on The Good Dinosaur. They replaced the co-director of Up with a first timer. On the surface that sounds curious as Up was an excellent film. Also Ratatouille‘s director of photography Sharon Calahan and production designer Harley Jessup are helping out.

 

Huh? Jobs was the money. From everything I've ever read, he had virtually no creative input on the films. He came along when they had to transition from a hardware and software company to being a movie studio, and his cash made that possible. For which he was handsomely rewarded.

The recent Wired cover article said that the emotional heart of Frozen, Elsa's fear of hurting her sister, was John Lasseter's invention.

I agree, especially with Wreck-It Ralph.

 

I was being facetious. It seems every time anyone has any issue with anything Apple, someone will come along and proclaim that the sky is falling and everything is horrible since Job's death. Just interpolating it over to Pixar. I realize he was a huge investor and on the board but not involved in the actual product.

 

Ah, OK. The main problem that Apple has is that he left no operating instructions for the Jobs Reality Distortion Field Generator.

 

I did note that Pixar had "creative involvement" with Disney, which figures since Lasseter has complete authority over both Disney and Pixar, though Disney is run autonomously.

 

I don't think they are incapable of making some more good films, I do think many people are burned out out much of their formulaic films. Time to give some more room to cell, stop motion and hybrid style animations.
Hiyao Miyazaki and the European cell style animation films are usually interesting to see.

 

------------------
Once Cars meets Fast and Furious, you'll know it is over.

 

F&F isn't disney though (for now at least)

 

I guess this is the next one - Inside Out

 

I'll be happy as long as they stick to this one rule!
NO SINGING!!!