Do you think Pixar is better or equal to the Disney movies from the 1930s-1990s, or not as good? I think the Toy Story movies are classic, and I really liked Wall-E (I view it as the Tron of Pixar), and most of the others are good aside from Cars, but I personally don’t think they compare to The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, Snow White, and so on.
I would say Pixar is better most of the Disney movies made between 1970 and 1988 though!
This thread will find more traction in Cafe Society than in Great debates.
Bowel cancer is better than most of the Disney films made between 1970 and 1988.
I haven’t really seen enough classic Disney (defined as, Walt Disney was actually involved in making it) to compare to Pixar, but I think their films are generally a cut above the (often quite good) stuff that Disney was putting out in the '90s and early 00’s.
I’ll go Ghibli > Bluth > Dean DeBlois > Henson > Disney > Pixar.
I don’t like most of the Disney movies - they’re hurt by their age - but there’s a wide variety between them (Fantasia vs. Song of the South vs. Snow White vs. Alice in Wonderland vs. Bambi) and I can appreciate that fact. Pixar’s films, despite having seemed to have hit some sort of magical place for most people, to me just seem like generic fair done professionally, where most of their competitor’s films are generic fair done second-rate.
None of Henson’s films are classics by any means, but I’m rating him higher than Disney simply because I think he had more passion to make things that are good for the world.
There are only a few classic Disney animated movies, the ones from back in the day, that I like. They go south for me quite quickly, as they’re quite dated and have weird pacing. For example, I’m no fan of Robin Hood, or Sleeping Beauty, and anything they put out in the 70s.
On the other hand, the renaissance in the 90s, from Little Mermaid up to, lets say, Lilo and Stitch I utterly adore, apart from a couple of minor bumps in the road. I would equate many of those as being as good as Pixar’s output.
I generally despise Disney movies, finding them far too saccharine for my tastes. Lilo and Stitch is an exception, because it’s full of wonderful win. Pixar movies, too, manage to tap into my emotions in a way Disney pretty much never does.
There’s very few “classic” Disney films I could see myself watching through just because. A couple from the 90’s might qualify. But I could easily see myself flipping past Toy Story or Finding Nemo or The Incredibles and stopping to watch it.
On the other hand, I have little use for the “Princess” Disney genre so beloved recent-era films like Beauty & the Beast or Little Mermaid get a disinterested “eh” from me.
Pixar’s overall quality is absolutely better than classic Disney. In their prime, frankly, you’d be hard pressed to find a studio, ever, that made so many very good or great movies without screwing up once. John Ratzenberger has been in more great movies than Harrison Ford.
Modern Disney is a bit more up and down. There are truly great movies in there, and some that are, well, meh.
That said, they’re standing on the shoulders of giants so it’s hard to compare straight up. Disney’s achievements in the past were truly astounding.
Standard talking points in these debates:
I’d generally agree that Pixar has better stories and coherent themes, or at least appeal to more modern sensibilities with hip, snappy, and self aware dialogue, but I prefer the look of older Disney. The hand drawn animation in stuff like Bambi is ridiculous, though its appeal might be limited to animation nerds.
Early on, there was a very consistent tone to all of Pixar’s output because they relied on a small pool of very good directors. That’s no longer the case. One critic dismissed Wall-E as a scolding reminder to clean your room and watch less TV and he had a point.
The Pixar shorts are pretty revealing. “One Man Band” is amazing technique and music, but its message–competition gives you more bang for the buck–is barely worth the effort. Compare it to the German animated “Balance”, which has a deep and complex message about the virtues of cooperation over competition, and a lot of Pixar’s output looks like a lavish delivery of a cheap punchline.
Fantasia and The Aristocats basically were my childhood. Pixar may have better overall quality - and the majority of what Disney’s made I can’t stand - but there are a handful of classic Disney movies that reach me on a weirdly deep level.
fare*
Even just taking Pixar versus the Disney Renaissance films (roughly 1989-1999, Little Mermaid through Tarzan), I’d say that the Pixar movies are stronger overall.
However, I do think that the Disney films are stronger in certain areas - the musical numbers and animation styles, I think, definitely give them a stronger ‘atmosphere’ or feel. I get chills down my back in the opening scene of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, for example. On the other hand, Toy Story 3 makes me cry. I find them touching in different ways.
I counter with Robin Hood and The Fox and the Hound, both of which stand up as, if not classics of animation, then at least as entertaining.
If “message” is most important, I think that technically makes Soyuzmultfilm the best animation studio…
That’s logically equivalent to saying that “Citizen Kane” is just a scolding reminder not to get too full of yourself. It rather misses quite a lot of what Wall-E is about. Actually, it kind of misses a lot of what MOVIES are about.
Indeed, this sort of thing is, as always, largely created in the mind of the viewer. Seeing “One Man Band” as having the message that competition improves quality is, well, not an interpretation I’d agree with or one I even understand, to be honest. It’s certainly an interpretation that can be rather easily argued with; the film could also be viewed as an allegory for how businesses or entities that compete forget entirely about their purpose and become obsessed with the competition. After all, halfway into the film the duelling musicians forget entirely about the little girl they’re trying to impress and just go balls-to-the-wall at each other, causing the little girl to become frightened and visibly a little disgusted. Eventually the competition results in her covering her ears, and her money being wasted. It doesn’t look to me like she’s getting more bang for the buck, it looks to me like she’s sick of having to choose between “Transformers 9: Return Of More Exploding Robots” and “Fast and Furious 14: Yeahhh Man Sick Ride.” So why are any of these messages less true:
All perfectly valid interpretations based on the content of the film, and indeed I’d argue better than yours.
Interesting question that depends on what you mean by “Disney”? Most of the older Disney, while fine, were very much of their time; Snow White seems slow and humorless today, especially to people brought up on more modern animation. And 70s Disney is terrible at any level (and yes, I include the excruciatingly dull The Fox and the Hound.
Similarly, early Pixar was far better than most Disney, even after their revival, but once Disney bought them, their quality dropped.
So it’s hard to generalize, except that currently Aardman blows both of them out of the water.
I agree almost entirely with this interpretation; “One Man Band” is definitely not pro-competition in any way, shape or form.
The only thing I’d quibble with: are you sure that was a girl? I thought it was a boy.
ETA: Wikipedia says it’s a girl named Tippy. Huh. I just thought it was a boy in a hood.
That square they were in did look a bit sketchy. 