[QUOTE=Cisco]
… but Finding Nemo was just awful. Toy Story I’ve never seen, but I haven’t heard even its most ardent supporters call it a great work of cinema.
[/QUOTE]
Whaaaa???
Took a couple of times to fully appreciate Nemo, but I put it 2nd in Pixar’s library, only behind Toy Story, which I call A GREAT WORK OF CINEMA (and so do many others).
And let’s not forget Toy Story Requiem.
Apologies for the non-Bakshi hijack.
So, is it not allowed to like both Pixar and Bakshi in this thread? 'Cuz I do.
[QUOTE=GuanoLad]
You like movies with dogs in them? Maybe you’ll like Bolt.
[/QUOTE]
Watching that crap gave me an idea of why Pixar flicks might seem so good…
…because Disney cartoons suck such shit. Big CGI-animated, anthropomorphic, pieces of shit.
[QUOTE=Bosstone]
So, is it not allowed to like both Pixar and Bakshi in this thread? 'Cuz I do.
[/QUOTE]
Which makes you half right. 
As I recall Bakshi used rotascoping to save money. He ran through a lot of cash trying to make an animated Lord of the Rings in the Seventies. Sure, seeing the same rotascoped fight scene multiple times in this LOTR took something away from the movie for me, but that was what he could do with the technology available at that time, and with his budget. As if making LOTR into a single 90 minute film wasn’t challenging enough.
Aren’t we here to explore the reasons behind the critical success of Pixar?
Here’s an anecdote I find very illustrative.
John Lasseter said in an interview (included in the bonus materials on one of the Pixar movie DVDs) that when he showed Luxo, Jr at SIGGGRAPH a fellow who was one of the giants of computer graphics at the time (the guy’s name escapes me, but Lasster mentioned him by name in the interview) came up to him afterwards to talk. Lasseter was expecting technical questions about the graphics generation and tools. Instead the guy asked “Was the big lamp a Daddy Lamp or a Mommy Lamp?” Lasseter made one of the world’s best computer graphics people care more about an animated lamp as a character than he cared about any aspect of the computer graphics to animate that character, and Lasster accomplished that in a 2 minute short.
I think the attitude that Lasster brought to Luxo, Jr has informed all of Pixar’s work since. Story and characterization are primary, the computer animation is just a support for that. Not the other way around (e.g., Tron :rolleyes: ).
IMO, Pixar films could be in flip books instead of state-of-the art computer animation, and most people would still enjoy them. At least, I would still enjoy them.
I am looking forward to seeing Wall-E in the next 24 hours.
Well, as to rotoscoping, there’s some of that in Disney — and Don Bluth — and Bakshi — and Heavy Metal — and “He-Man” — and I’m not going to be one to say that a technique is enough to decide that an artist is a “hack.” I have no opinion on Bakshi, having never seen any of his works.
As to Pixar: so far in 8 tries (not counting just-released Wall-E) they haven’t made a feature film that has grossed less than $350M worldwide, with their highest $864M (Finding Nemo). Their average is $539M). Three times they have won the Oscar for Best Animated Feature.
Compare that to Dreamworks Animated. They’ve released 5 animated films (never made more than $218M, average $124M). There are also 9 Dreamworks CGI films, not counting Kung Fu Panda which was just released; of the 8 already released, only 5 managed to make it past that $350M mark. Their highest is $920M (Shrek 2) but the average is only $486M. They have won the Oscar for Best Animated Feature only once for their own production (for Shrek, and another Oscar for Curse of the Were-Rabbit, which they distributed for Nick Park during a year when Pixar released no features).
So yes, it’s very fair to say that Pixar is a successful studio who manages to do a few more things right than the average movie company. You might not like any individual Pixar film, but it can’t be denied that they haven’t had any clunkers at the box office, for whatever that proves.
What makes Pixar different? I have no idea. Generally I think of animation being such a time-consuming process, where even a shot of a few seconds might take days to arrange and perfect. This means that in the right environment, with the right creative atmosphere, you have plenty of opportunities as a filmmaker to correct any defects in lighting, color, humor, character, design, or plot. Pixar seems to embrace those opportunities to polish its film, to correct its defects; perhaps other animation studios are more interested in meeting deadlines and pleasing shareholders?
DreamWorks Animated has released 16 films since 1998 (not counting new Kung Fu Panda) and send 1 film straight to video; Pixar, only 8 films (not counting new Wall-E) since 1995. Dreamworks (a publicly traded company) appears to be designed to crank out at least 1 film per year on a schedule; Pixar appears to be geared at releasing a film when it’s done — I can’t tell if they are on the NYSE or not.
[QUOTE=silenus]
The Incredibles was not made for kids, any more than the classic Bugs Bunny cartoons were. Sure, kids could watch and enjoy them, but they were made for adults. The entire “A” and “B” plots of The Incredibles are much too adult for kids to really appreciate. The “C” plot was for the kids.
I think that may be the key to Pixar’s success. They make animated movies for adults.
[/QUOTE]
First, The Incredibles is my favorite film of recent years, as in “made in my lifetime”.
Second, you under-rate the kids.
Kids appreciate a good plot, & often are far more sophisticated the adults give credit for.
The secret of Pixar’s success? Good scripts. And respect for the audience.
[QUOTE=gaffa]
They make films for themselves, not what a focus group says they want.
They cast for talented actors, rather than for marquee value - Holly Hunter and Craig T. Nelson are not box office draws, but they were perfect in “The Incredibles”.
.
[/QUOTE]
I think that these are the main reasons.
I’d add one other, though; they care about the story. With most other studios, effects substitute for an actual plot, but not at Pixar. There, it seems to me that the story is paramount (although I have to say that I thought “Cars” was one big cliche…)
I dunno about this idea that they cast for talented actors, rather than for marquee value. I mean, sure, to some extent that may be true; but if they really went whole hog with that principle, I have to imagine they’d usually get professional voice actors who few have heard of in any other context, rather than people who are visible celebrities of a sort from non-voice gigs, even if minor league.
[QUOTE=PharmBoy]
…although I have to say that I thought “Cars” was one big cliche…)
[/QUOTE]
Generally agreed; it was a remake of “Doc Hollywood.” But to Lasseter, it was not cliche- or formula-motivated. The “Cars” theme came from his own experience driving down Route 66 to get closer to his family and the contrast it made from his previous career-driven lifestyle (or so he says one of the “Cars” DVD extras, and given Lasseter’s body of work, I have no reason to believe he was throwing out bullshit).
So maybe that counts for something.
I think the biggest reason for Pixar’s success is that their development process is much longer; they work on it until they get it right (and clearly they have the core of storytellers that are smart and collaborate well). Apparently, they aren’t hampered by deadlines in the same way most production companies & studios are. IIRC, they spent three years developing Toy Story. I read an early version of the script and it was nowhere near the finished product. Woody had a real edge, was something of a dick.
Eh, I consider WALL-E a swing and miss, myself, and can’t say I care for *A Bug’s Life * or Cars. None of them are bad films, but I wouldn’t go anywhere near calling them outstanding. Incredibles, Ratatouille, and Monsters, in that order, yes.
But hey, I thought Chicken Little was hysterical.
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
Wow, really? I thought Ratatouille was awesome, but I’ve worked in the fine dining industry for more years than I’d care to admit and my brother is a chef at an upscale country club, so maybe I’m utterly biased by the connection I made with that movie. It is also one of my favorite Pixar movies.
[/QUOTE]
Ditto. I’ve been in foodservice, mostly as a cook, for 25 years, and after seeing it I recommended it to the chefs where I work now. All agreed that it was excellent, with probably the most accurate representation of a restaurant kitchen they’d ever seen in a movie.
I just couldn’t get Ratatouille at all.
[QUOTE=Fish]
Pixar appears to be geared at releasing a film when it’s done — I can’t tell if they are on the NYSE or not.
[/QUOTE]
Pixar started out as the computer graphics division of Lucasfilm. It was privately held from 1989, when Steve Jobs bought it from George Lucas, until 2006, when it was purchased by Disney.
They always hire John Ratzenberger - what else do you need to ensure the success of a movie?