"Cars" -- Can Pixar do it again?

Cafe Society
61

:sigh:

This seems to happen almost every time a Pixar, or animation thread comes up.

Somebody always comes barging into the discussion to slather their uninformed opinion all over it, and only making themselves look ignorant. Let me attempt to dispell some myths…

Myth 1:
All animations is intrinsically for kids. Animation studios have to spike their film with “adult humor” or celebrity voices in order to attract older audiences.
I can understand this one. Really. You’ve been conditioned all your life with cartoons which has been, historically, a genre aimed squarely at children. However, just like everything else, there’s a lot of room here for appealing to a wider audience. Do studios still make animations aimed squarely at children, of course. It just so happens that Pixar’s films are aimed at everybody. And I mean this quite literally. They make stories that appeal to you if you’re human. You can take this as a negative thing, but Pixar has proven themselves so far, as making movies that appeal to a universal audience, without giving up anything in the way of quality or dignity.

Myth 2:
Pfft. It’s just another gimmicky CG movie.
I feel strongly that CG has come well into it’s own. It’s single-handedly replaced 2D (i.e. cell, hand-drawn, or traditional) animation in less than a decade. I think it’s this reason that a lot of people, unfortunately, misunderstand the craft, skill and art that still goes into making quality animation. There’s a lot going on underneath the hood. There are those that think CG is somehow not as ‘respectable’ or ‘painstaking’ as traditional animation. This is 100% wrong. Like anything else, it’s just another tool, and extension of the artist. The fact that Pixar films are so beautiful to look at, and it looks like it was done so effortlessly is a testament to how good they are. In fact, a lot of the animation process still envokes some of the principals paved by Disney.

Myth 3:
It’s just a cartoon, why get all worked up about it?
I’m not sure why animation gets in the way of a great story to some people. I really think this one goes back to the conditioning that cartoons are for kids. It’s simply an unfortunate generalization. I contend that any story could be told through quality animation and it could still hold up, if not be better than a live action film. As long as it was done sincerely and competently. So, when a movie like Finding Nemo comes out, and is dismissed out-of-hand, that can be infuriating to those that appreciate, not just the movie at face value, but can see it for all the work that went into creating such a grand illusion. I think to most, this attitude is just demonstrative of a closed-mind. And I think that’s why some might get a little worked up.

Myth 4:
Ahh, another CG animated movie… Looks like Disney wants to cash in on yet another franchise.
While this one can get dicey, and yes, they’re out to make money, but believe it or not, there are people in this profession that LOVE to make these movies. They have a real passion for it and feel that this is what they were put on earth to do. Any studio can pound out another crappy franchise, but it’s not going to be quality if the people in control don’t love it and get it and make something that THEY themselves would love to see. And I’m totally with Pixar on that front.

That said, if animation, in and of itself, just isn’t your bag… then just move along. There’s no sense coming into these discussions with your tidy little myths and trying to trivialize why we love this stuff. And yes, there IS a lot of formulaic, pop-culture referenced, trite, crap out there. It just hasn’t shown itself in the Pixar fare. Those of us that can actually appreciate the distinctions between a Pixar animation and a DreamWorks notice the difference quite intensely.

and for what it’s worth, I can’t wait for Cars.

62

Pixar owns Disney now.

Disney was in the process of making Toy Story 3 without Pixar’s input, but now it’s in limbo. I heard (no cite) that the animators working on TS3 worshipped the ground Pixar walked on, and were trying to do it justice. They (on their own apart from Disney) DIDN’T want to make it just a cheapass knock-off. I haven’t heard anything about it since Pixar bought Disney, but my hope is that Lassiter looks at what they’ve done, finds it does hold up to the first two, and lets the same guys continue.

Kiros, you HAVE to see Toy Story 2! That’s the best one! IM(informed)O, of course.

Toy Story 2 has one thing that would appeal very much to older adults, and that’s all the references to 50’s toy mass marketing. When Woody discovers he actually used to be famous for a brief period of time, with a TV show, and all kinds of products were made with his likeness (which are now “collectables”), that will bring back memories for a lot of people. I was a baby/toddler in that rough time period, so I don’t remember myself what it was like to want to own Daniel Boone coonskin caps or other popular merchandise from the TV icons. My era came later, with Partridge Family lunch boxes and such. Still, I could understand what it must have been like, and just grinned from ear to ear. When Woody sees the games, record player, lunch boxes, party favors, oh so many items, it’s just delightful. The look of sheer wonder on his face is something that only Pixar could convey.

And I don’t care what anyone says, that Sarah McLachlan song/Jessie montage has me in tears every time. It tells a sad story of a girl growing up and leaving her childhood playthings behind. How could that girl know that her doll Jessie was alive and hurting because of it? Jessie knew what it was like to be discarded (choking up at the thought of Jessie being left in the recycle bin), and decides that kids are bad, and it’s better never to be loved than to be loved then unloved. She has to learn that that’s not the case, but it’s an understandable emotion.

These films have EMOTION, and that’s rare in kid’s films. How many animated characters have actual emotional arcs that aren’t put in just because it would further the plot?

63

Excellent post cmyk.

64

I don’t know if this is just hyperbole (“owns” meaning “kicks Disney’s ass” “pwned”-style) or in the actual corporate sense, but since you mention Pixar buying Disney again later, I’m guessing the latter. Disney actually purchased Pixar (although this does now make Steve Jobs, Pixar’s president, Disney’s largest shareholder, and perhaps he could plan to make a takeover in the future). So sayeth Pixar’s own website:

65

you too, Equipoise. :smiley:

mobo85: I think the general feeling, after this whole Disney buying Pixar thing, is that while Disney did indeed buy Pixar, those that make up Pixar are the ones truly holding the cards. It almost looks as if Disney paid for Pixar to come in and take them over. Of course that’s probably not the case, but the price was so hefty (7 Billion was it?), it’s obvious Disney was looking for a brain (or is it heart?) transplant.

66

Then again, in some sense, Pixar “owns” the relevant parts of Disney. As a result of Disney’s purchase of Pixar, Lasseter and company have more or less taken over Disney’s animation division.

67

Thanks.

Ok, I was confused. I heard wrong.

68

Nope, it was launched by Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen (the full name of the company is Dreamworks SKG). It’s Disney’s competitor. Katzenberg is formerly of Disney but Dreamworks was founded after his forced resignation from the company.

Wikipedia’s entry on Dreamworks

Oh, and I would definitely agree that Dreamworks is as thoroughly guilty of the accusations of celebrity stunt-casting, overwhelming amounts of pop-culture references, and so on as Pixar is innocent of them.

69

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-disney-completes-pixar-acquisition-pixar-disney-animation-studios-/2006/05/05/1639537.htm

In a very real way, Pixar just devoured Disney. John Lassiter’s position as Imagineer is going to lead the company into the future. Jobs on the Board of Directors is going to change a lot of things, and Catmull means that all future Disney animation products are going to be Pixar as well.

This means that a lot of the crap that was being shoveled to DVD is getting canceled. Bambi III? No more.

How can I say this… Sure, Disney was the one who paid Pixar the money… but it was only accepted because Pixar took control. Disney couldn’t survive without them.

70

Yes, Lasseter, Catmull, etc. are going to be running things at the animation group of Disney, but today that’s a small part of the whole thing. I don’t know what influence Steve Jobs is going to have on ABC television, ESPN, the theme park business or even the live action film business.

71

What he’ll influence is how they play in the game of new content delivery options. And the importance of that cannot be overestimated.

Jobs now has his hand in the entire chain, from: content production with Disney, including animation and movies and TV shows; to distribution through ABC, ESPN, the Disney distribution behemouth, and ITunes (which you may have missed is now in the video distribution business); to the devices to view content with IPods and increasingly media capable Macs. HDTVs with Mac inside cannot be far behind. He will most certainly leverage what each part does to aid in the others successes. IMHO, it was his ability to manage that future that made the Pixar deal so much of a must do for Disney. Disney’s attempts at adapting to the new realities have been dismal failures til now.

72

Jobs pretty much stole a page from his own book with the Disney-Pixar merger, too. After he left Apple, he founded a computer company called NeXT that had innovative hardware and a killer OS, but ran into the emerging Microsoft hegemony (among many, many other factors). Back at Apple, their next-generation OS project is being run into the ground and eventually cancelled. Finally giving up on an in-house solution, Apple likes what they see at NeXT and gobbles it up.

So what happened to the NeXT OS? It became OS X. Apple effectively became NeXT. And Disney will effectivelly become Pixar (and not a moment too soon).

I’m an Apple and Pixar devoteé, but after reading DSeid’s post… damn, Jobs has a scary amount of power, doesn’t he? If he’s not ranked no. 1 on Entertainment Weekly’s next list of the 100 most powerful people in entertainment already, I’m sure he will be next time.

73

Regarding the CGI looking the same… well, I’ve always thought Disney movies all look the same.

Yeah, it’s unfortunate. It doesn’t take too much away from the movie itself, but I think it might already have been too ingrained in our culture’s understanding of what a good animated movie looks like to be changed. To see an animated movie that is starkly different from Disney (and a couple other styles that we have) you often have to go to another country. But then you’ll often think it looks stark and uncute (i’m thinking of styles i’ve seen in Russia/USSR). Maybe there’ll be something like Japanese Anime that’ll come and shake things up and become popular. However, kids are often too particular about how they like things for the market to tollerate a shake-up in style.

Also, most styles that are different from current CGI would also take a bit more effort to create. Ok, so maybe you can use a different shader. But besides a photoshop-type effect or weird textures/shapes, you can’t change too much the fact that you’re dealing with 3D models. You make them one way and then look at them from different angles. It is much more restricted than traditional animation, but it’s also perfectly reasonable for traditional-type “manual” animation with reworking of every frame to be mixed with 3D rendering. Something like Sin City is obviously possible, but just takes more manpower. Ever notice how South Park has been losing its paper-cut-out look as its animators have gotten a little bit lazier?

74

I always figured that that was the basis for a lot of the jokes and visual gags in Shrek. After all, the kingdom is basically Disneyland (I heard a mother have to explain to her daughter why it was so funny) and there are several other little digs at Disney and Disney properties in the movie. Farquaad looks kinda like Eisner.

75

Relevant quote:

“Hollywood looks at [Pixar] and sees that traditionally animated films haven’t made any money but computer-animated ones have. So they assume computer animation is what people want to see. But I don’t think people get any more excited about digital animation than they do about movies made with new Panavision cameras. Why should they? You’re going to see a billion CGI animated features in the next 10 years, and the vast majority will stink. No, traditional animation has become a scapegoat for bad filmmaking and lousy stories.”
–John Lasseter

Better bring a box of tissues to Cars, then – I hear it’s got a scene that makes Jessie’s flashback look tame by comparison…

76

And considering the main message of Shrek was that “looks aren’t everything,” the constant barrage of Farquaad-is-short jokes seemed wildly inappropriate IMO.

77

After this thread, it’s definitely on my list of things to see very soon. I think I have an automatic prejudice towards sequels for this sort of thing - they so rarely turn out to be worthwhile. Given the recommendations here, though… yeah, it’s on my rental list for the near future :slight_smile:

78

err, make that against and it’ll make a lot more sense!

79

Toy Story 2 amazed me, because I had never seen such emotional depth from an animated movie before. Even the original Toy Story storyline is fairly traditional: New kid on the block shows up and the old guy in charge resents him, they have a rivalry, and then realize they have to work together. But Toy Story 2, particularly Woody’s storyline, has a moral ambiguity that is almost always absent from animated fare (and from film in general). Woody has a very real, complicated choice to make in that movie. Were it not for the typical Academy bias against animated films and comedies, I bet TS2 would have gotten a Best Picture nod.

And, yeah… I’m a grown man, but the room sure gets awfully dusty during that Jesse montage.

80

UGH!!! Larry the Cable Guy is in it? I may have to rethink my previous “I want to see it” position. I can’t stand that guy.