Pixar execs "yank" Gnomeo and Juliet!

[2099net]

It complicated, but I think Disney has had far too much unfair critisism over the past few years, while Pixar has had far to much similarly unfair critisism, but skewed the other way. Of course, not every Disney film is a home run hit, but none have been as bad as critics would have us believe.

I think the reasons for this are many - people are excited by "newcomers" such as Pixar and Dreamworks taking some of Disney's success, in a way that they weren't with, say, Don Bluth's films. You can groan if you want, but I think the reason for this is because the "challengers" were in CGI, while Disney was still traditional animation. Lots of people mistake Bluth's films for "Disney", but this happens much less for Pixar and Dreamworks films.

I also think people were tired of the Disney "formula" and still continue to bash it, despite the fact it's not been used for years - there seems to be some illogic there. I also think that, generally, Disney has taken more risks recently, while Pixar's films are fairly generic in their ideas and Dreamworks seem to have taken ownership of a more edgy, satirical film.

With the possible exception of The Incredibles, most people can tell they are watching a Pixar film within a few minutes - not from the designs, not from the animation, but from a certain.... something - just like people used to be able to do so with Disney. Now that Disney have experimented and have no "house style" which can be indentified from production to production, or matches their older "house style", it leads to critical confustion. Ironic, when the same critics claim to be hungry for originality.

As you probably know, I'm with T/P Fan when it comes to hatin' Nemo. I mean look at it.

* Its a buddy rescue movie, just like Toy Story/Toy Story2 and Monsters, Inc. to a certain extent.

* It involves the characters exploring and encountering a “world” that they normally don’t venture into (such as the toys in the Toy Story films)

* One Character (Marlin) is sensible and practical (just like Woody in the Toy Story films, or Sully in Monsters, Inc,. while the other is somewhat wacky, (just like Buzz in the first Toy Story or Mike in Monsters, Inc.)

* Once character has a mental problem (memory) which makes the quest harder, just like Buzz’s mental problem (thinking he was real) did in the first Toy Story.

* One of the characters meets a group of “scary” people, who turn out not to be scary and actually help them (the fish in the tank), just like in the first Toy Story (the damaged toys in Sid’s room)

* Talking of Sid in the first Toy Story, he’s just like Darla in Finding Nemo.

* And all of the films Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Monsters, Inc. and Finding Nemo have some sort of countdown at the end (the rain stopping Sid’s experiment for a day, the countdown to the collector going to Japan, the search for Boo and the day of Darla’s visit)

All Finding Nemo was, is a Pixar’s greatest hits package, with pretty undersea graphics. I really cannot, in a month of Sundays, see why such a self-derisive film has become their most popular. I am totally mystified. After seeing it once, it just makes me yawn now.

And then looking at their other films, Toy Story 2 is basically a now traditional Disney sequel flip-flop of Toy Story (Buzz rescues Woody) and the climax of Toy Story two on the airport conveyer belts is remarkably close in concept to the “door store” climax of Monsters, Inc. (MI just ramps up the action a little more).

And then, if you look at their other films – A Bug’s Life is just a version of Seven Samurai/The Magnificent Seven mixed in with a dash of Three Amigos and The Grasshopper and the Ant, while The Incredibles “homages” The Fantastic Four so closely I’m surprised Marvel didn’t sue!

I’m not saying that any of the Pixar films are bad movies, but I think Pixar are, on the whole orver rated, and nowhere near as “original” and “fresh” as most reviewers and critics make out.

When it comes to ideas, the initial concepts for Chicken Little, Home on the Range and, to some extent Brother Bear beat Pixar’s. But I’m not saying any of these are better movies, just that Disney is trying hard to do something different, and no matter what you think of the final films, you should give Disney some credit for not falling back on “the Disney formula” too much.

I don’t agree with Pixar dabbling too much in other films. Isn’t the point of Pixar’s success that they are a small company, with staff totally dedicated to the each and every film that they make. Having too much input into Disney’s current projects will only stretch the “mighty” Pixar further, and, ironically, make them function like the Disney that they like to criticize – a finger in too many pies, resulting in too many cooks spoiling the broth..

I don’t mind various management busy bodies being removed, I don’t mind Pixar being sought for advice, and I don’t mind the release schedule slowing down a bit (but Disney is still a big company, so should be able to create a new film so that there is a release every 10-18 months independent of Pixar’s work).

This news, along with others makes me think of plain, simple arrogance on Pixar’s part. And, forgive me if I’m wrong, but the purchase of Pixar hasn’t been signed off yet has it? Doesn’t it still need federal approval?

[KinOO]

Why is it that only hardcore Disney fans CAN'T see what insiders realise? That Pixar, no matter what YOU think, is the new studio that carries the best of Walt's philosophy! IGER gave Lasseter the powers to save Animation and Theme Parks which were decreasing in quality over the last years, that's a FACT, poor numbers at the box office and crappy theme parks (California Adventures...). The audience just LOVES the Pixar characters, they're everywhere, because they have been carefully built from the start, as were the stories they were in. Woody, Buzz, Jessie, Ham, Potato Head, Flik, Mike & Sully, Boo, Nemo, Marlin, Dory, Mr. Incredible, Dash, Violet, Frozone... How many Disney characters created in the last years have been as memorable as Pixar's? I only see Stitch who can compete . The others are already forgotten (Treasure Planet? Atlantis? Home on the Range?...)

I'm glad Pixar now can oversee Disney's projects, it's a guarantee of quality!

[Wonderlicious]

But Disney still created much more than that. I mean consider the "Golden Age" of Disney(1988-1994, just to pick one) they made 5 successful animated films (I'm including Roger Rabbit), several successful t.v. shows, and a lot of theme park ideas and revamps, I could go on.

What did Pixar do besides movies?(and the Pixar merchandise was done by Disney, so that doesn't count)

Perhaps TM2-Megatron was referring to something like in the 50s. A lot of people consider that one of the golden decades for animation, yet only five feature films were made in this decade.

And Pixar has made numerous shorts (PixarFan mentioned this), and also bonus materials for DVDs (both animated and live action), specially created teaser trailers (not really like the Disney ones which are essentially short snippets of footage; not offending Disney here, just making a point).

Also, remember that Pixar has a much smaller staff than Disney (though its ever increasing), so that's why there's been less films. And Pixar is also essentially just an animation studio; not a gigantic film/TV studio (in both live action and animated mediums), worldwide theme parks/holiday resorts operator and mass toy manufacturer rolled into one. I can understand why some could call Pixar overrated, but needless to say, I think that it's best to look at things in context.

Back on topic, I've liked a good number of Disney's films post-Lion King (Tarzan, Mulan, Pocahontas and Fantasia 2000 come to mind instantly, and I also liked Lilo and Stitch and Home on the Range), but I have to admit that there have been a few mixed films (The Hunchback of Notre Dame was too varied in terms of tone and The Emperor's New Groove started off excellent, yet ran out of steam) and clunkers that are cause for concern (Treasure Planet, Atlantis, a number of DTV sequels and TV shows), and I'm glad that they're trying to stop things like that happening again. I thought that the idea for Gnomeo and Juliet was a bit ludicrous for my liking (garden gnomes in a Shakespearian tragedy? Erm, okay... ), so I'm not bothered that it's going to die. I can't really comment on Meet the Robinsons, since I don't know that much about the film, but since Pixar have generally produced better films than Disney in the past few years in my opinion (their films may not all be totally perfect, but there's been no real clunkers unlike at Disney with Treasure Planet and Atlantis), I have hope that they're making it a better film.

[Disney-Fan]

Good; it's about time someone beat some sense into Disney.

I agree. It's about time someone knocked them back to their sences, Pixar or not. Enough with chicken movies made on little budgets! And to be frank, I've had enough of all the Disney yes-men, inside and outside of the company. Disney has needed a Lasseter for a long time.

who remembers the Pixar commentary where it was mentioned that they would make a movie about lawn gnomes

It was a joke made on the Toy Story II commentary. Nothin' to worry about... I think...

[kbehm29]

Wow! I'm out sick for a few days and come back to big news.

I feel it would be a majorly bad business decision to cut Meet the Robinsons at this point - it actually looked like a decent movie, and it seems to me they've spent a lot of money on it already at this point. If they want to "tweak" the movie.....I guess that wouldn't hurt too much, but for Pete's sake don't axe it all together now!

I feel Pixar should leave Disney's current plans alone, and start working on the projects that follow....

[Karushifa]

A few different arguments going on here but I will try to share my thoughts on most of them as best I can...

I see the period Disney is in now as being remarkably similar to the late '70s/early '80s period when Disney as an animation studio went from revered and respected to day-old fish in a relatively short period of time. Truth be told, you are NEVER going to get all, or even most, Disney fans to agree on what movies are just not that good, even with critically reviled films such as The Black Cauldron or Home on the Range. However, the mediocre films of the previous "dark ages" do have something in common with recent efforts such as Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Chicken Little, etc., and that is that you can tell there's something not quite there. The movies may be satisfying on some level, but are far from being the knock-out, iconic films that made Disney the entertainment powerhouse that it is. Disney films have slipped from "event" status (I can still remember the theatrical release of Aladdin being a HUUUUGE deal) to being just another movie option no more special than the latest flashy Dreamworks CGI-palooza.

There are a lot of things one could place the blame on for this: laziness, over-marketing, too much reliance on focus groups, lack of creativity, you name it. But one thing is clear: Disney sorely needs a jump-start. If Lasseter and the rest of the Pixar crew are the ones to do this, then so be it. Concepts that slip into "development hell," no matter how much potential they have, sometimes just need to be dropped to make way for better ideas. And this isn't necessarily about exercising control just for the sake of being in a position of power; the desire to find a good story and make it into a great movie might just have a role in this, too.

[singerguy04]

I'm ok with dropping Gnomeo and Juliet. I thought it could've been interesting but i'm not sure if it really would've settled with audiences.

As for Meet the Robinsons, I'm pretty sure that the original post said that Pixar was just calling it back for more work. Why are people now assuming it's going to get cut? a lot of films go back for more re-tooling. And if Lassater was looking at the project with an uneasy eye, then i'll trust the guy.

What i've noticed with Pixar is that EVERYONE likes Pixar, whereas mostly kids want to go see Disney. Pixar's movies bring in the whole family. My whole family asked me to bring The Incredibles to Easter because they wanted to see it because people at work told them it was good. I'm not hearing about adults talking about any of the disney films since The Lion King except Fantasia 2000. I mean of course this doesn't incorporate everyone, i'm well aware that there are people on this site 13+ and LOVE some of these films but i'm talking about what I feel is the general attitude of people our ages. In that respect, Pixar's involvement with Disney's new projects could stop them from being too kid-friendly and maybe they'll be accepted by a much larger audience.

I think a problem with disney is that they get stuck on a single track. It seems that Disney can only do Musicals, Comedies, or Adventure stories at a time. Typically the musicals will make the most money, i think this is obvious because Disney still captilalizes on them after years and year of being out. An example is how Disney is releases this films on Broadway. Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Tarzan(just opened this month), The Hunchback of Notre Dame(currently in Germany), and Mary Poppins( in the UK). And now there are talks about bringing The Little Mermaid and Hercules to Broadway. The problem with disney's musicals is that they go into overkill and people just get tired of them, which is what i fear for Disney Broadway. I think Disney should focus on making different types of films in a not so predictable manner. Instead of having a line of 6 musicals then 6 comedies, make a musical then a comedy then another musical then a adventure film then a comedy and so on. I've always thought that would bring more variety.

My overall point to the whole paragraph above, in case you all don't want to read it, is basically i think Disney needs to release a good ol' musical soon. I'm REALLY hoping that Rapunzel will be a musical, and also a CGI musical hasn't been done yet, and i'd love to see Disney do it first because i think Disney is the only company who could really do it right!

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Enough with chicken movies made on little budgets!

Oh yeah, "stupid" Disney to make Chicken Little, I can't believe it. Tat's teh wosrt idae EVER!!!

(just so you know, the spelling errors were intended )

Why is it so bad for Disney to have made Chicken Little? If you look at history, it would've sounded like a good idea.

I mean Walt actually intended to make a "Little Mermaid" short, but he decided against it to make a "Chicken Little".

If it was such a great idea to make The Little Mermaid into a hour and 35 minute movie, why was Chicken Little any different?

I'm glad Pixar now can oversee Disney's projects, it's a guarantee of quality!

Oh I wouldn't be sure of that.

Pixar takes time with their stories which, in a result, they only make 6 movies.

Now that they are owned by Disney, I wouldn't be surprised if they had too much "time" on their hands with the theme parks, movies for both Disney AND Pixar etc.

Perhaps TM2-Megatron was referring to something like in the 50s. A lot of people consider that one of the golden decades for animation, yet only five feature films were made in this decade.

And Pixar has made numerous shorts (PixarFan mentioned this), and also bonus materials for DVDs (both animated and live action), specially created teaser trailers (not really like the Disney ones which are essentially short snippets of footage; not offending Disney here, just making a point).

But yet Walt was also starting to build Disneyland, so right there, Disney still did more than Pixar.

Also, all that you mentioned, doesn't make a profit.

I mean sure they made shorts, but it was the movies that made the box office scores, not shorts! As for DVDs, actually, I think Disney is most responsible for those 2-Disc sets, I mean, ever wonder why we see Disney previews on all of them?

Since when do trailers make money?

Overall, I understand Pixar is not the company Disney is, but you can't blame Disney for some of those "cheap" ideas.

[Disney-Fan]

Oh yeah, "stupid" Disney to make Chicken Little, I can't believe it. Tat's teh wosrt idae EVER!!!

(just so you know, the spelling errors were intended )

I actually wasn't talking about Chicken Little specificly, but for some reason you chose to jump the gun. I guess even you know deep inside yourself that Chicken Little is an average movie that needs defending of the fans in order to be acclaimed.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

I actually wasn't talking about Chicken Little specificly, but for some reason you chose to jump the gun. I guess even you know deep inside yourself that Chicken Little is an average movie that needs defending of the fans in order to be acclaimed.

Well how many "chicken" movies had Disney made?

The reason I'm defending Disney is that they get way to much thrown at them these days. I mean whether it's Chicken Little, Treasure Planet or those thousands of DTVs.

Disney shouldn't be blamed for some of those moves, and I don't think Pixar is ever going to "stop" or "improve" these moves.

[MickeyMousePal]

Man, this sucks!!!! By the way was it going to be animated hand drawn or CGI like Chiken Little?

I really loved the title Gnomeo & Juliet sounds better then Meet the Robinsons.

Is Meet the Robinsons going to have Meet the Fockers humor?

[Karushifa]

What i've noticed with Pixar is that EVERYONE likes Pixar, whereas mostly kids want to go see Disney. Pixar's movies bring in the whole family. My whole family asked me to bring The Incredibles to Easter because they wanted to see it because people at work told them it was good. I'm not hearing about adults talking about any of the disney films since The Lion King except Fantasia 2000. I mean of course this doesn't incorporate everyone, i'm well aware that there are people on this site 13+ and LOVE some of these films but i'm talking about what I feel is the general attitude of people our ages. In that respect, Pixar's involvement with Disney's new projects could stop them from being too kid-friendly and maybe they'll be accepted by a much larger audience.

That's a very good point. I recently read a review of Ice Age 2 in which the reviewer made the distiction between "kid's" movies and "children's" movies, the latter including movies safe for the youngsters that everyone could sincerely enjoy, such as The Wizard of Oz, The Incredibles, etc., and the former being the type of film created primarily for the easy entertainment of kids with not a whole lot of regard for how other types of audiences would receive it. Like them or not, Pixar films have consistently been able to attract not only children but adults on their own as well, because they stand up as not only great family movies, but great movies period.

Not that one can't enjoy a movie rife with CGI and pop culture references. I know that people do. I guess a good analogy would be to say that popular animated films of today like Shrek, Madagascar, Chicken Little, etc., are sort of like the Seinfeld show: entertaining and funny, but lacking heart. There's little to nothing there to make me sincerely care about and connect with the characters. Pixar films have this. Studio Ghibli films have this. The Iron Giant has this. An American Tail has this. And earlier Disney films have this. The unfortunate thing is, when animated films are made primarily with profit in mind, filmmakers may see a mediocre film still rake in at the box office and decide that all they ahve to do is emulate that formula, instead of creating something wonderful and different.

The issue here is to not let Disney permanently fall into that trap. Their legacy and their fans deserve better.

[2099net]

Well, I enjoyed Chicken Little a lot, although that was down mostly to the voice work rather than the actual story as such. But hey, the only bright spot of Finding Nemo (in my book, anyways) is Ellen's Dory, which again is down to voice work.

Chicken Little is - or should be - a character with more appeal than Marlin, Nemo or lots of other Pixar characters. He's designed well, animated well (as somebody else has mentioned on another thread - full of fluid squashing and squeezing) and voiced to perfection, and character wise, he's well scripted (or well ad-libbed at the case may well be). The problem is, based on the box office, there's a lot of people who haven't even given Chicken Little a chance. Chicken Little (the character) deserves to be bigger than Stitch, IMOHO.

As for the story, well, it's a mark of genius in my book - Fables, family and alien invasions. BUT, it isn't something that can be summed up in one quick short concise bit of 'blurb', like most of the other Pixar films can, with the possible exception of Monsters, Inc. (which ironically - or not so ironically - is my favourite Pixar film, but bottom of a lot of Pixar polls). Its also a little "out-there" for people, strangely enough.

In all honestly, does anyone think Chicken Little would be "marked down" as much if it was released by Dreamworks or another studio rather than Disney? It's not brilliant, but its not even close to a disaster in my book.

No doubt if Pixar came in earlier and were consulted on Chicken Little, Abby would be kidnapped by the Aliens, and Chicken Little would have to save her (teamed up with the "wacky" and sometimes not helpful Runt of the Litter).

Voiceover guy: Nobody believed Chicken Little, and now as a result his best friend Abby has been taken! He and his mismatched buddy Runt of the Litter have to save Abby and make the town believe him when he says: "The Sky is falling and the Aliens are coming!"

Yes, it may have given the film a "focus", but woud it be as original or anarchic?

[Karushifa]

2099net, it seems to me as if you're harshing on Finding Nemo a bit much, at least with respect to how well it was received compared to Chicken Little. If you want to blame a Pixar movie for CL's un-success, The Incredibles would probably be a better target. Now that movie DID have a very original story, great voice cast, lots of humor, etc etc. And it was a very hard act for Disney to follow. Plus, it didn't help that Chicken Little had to compete with the 800-pound gorilla that was Harry Potter (not to mention the 500-pound gorilla that was the hotly anticipated Narnia) during its run in theaters. Had it been an early summer release, when the other studios rolled out more adult fare such as Star Wars, I think CL's numbers would have been better.

[Disney-Fan]

Well how many "chicken" movies had Disney made?

OK, here's the translation:
Chicken movies = 'Hip' and 'cool' movies that base themselves on a sure formula, that are created only to cash in a few bucks. No artistic risk involved, hence chicken...
Little budgets = Eisner has reported many times that these movies are made for half the budget of past movies, yet "retains the same level of quality". Yeah right...

The reason I'm defending Disney is that they get way to much thrown at them these days. I mean whether it's Chicken Little, Treasure Planet or those thousands of DTVs.

Disney shouldn't be blamed for some of those moves, and I don't think Pixar is ever going to "stop" or "improve" these moves.

Disney shouldn't be blamed? Then who should?
I agree that Disney is being beaten up by critics for no major reason nowadays, but I bet ya that if it weren't for all those cheap productions and thousands of DTVs, people would lighten up with Disney. But when all everyone sees is the cooperate-giant-who's-interested-in-the-bottom-line, what would you have the public think when judging a movie? I would presume that Disney is just trying to make a quick buck on my expense. And that's what the general public and critics think today.

[2099net]

2099net, it seems to me as if you're harshing on Finding Nemo a bit much, at least with respect to how well it was received compared to Chicken Little. If you want to blame a Pixar movie for CL's un-success, The Incredibles would probably be a better target. Now that movie DID have a very original story, great voice cast, lots of humor, etc etc. And it was an very hard act for Disney to follow.

Well, it depends on what you mean by original. Like I say, Pixar ripped off so many generic superhero characters (with special note of the Fantastic Four) I'm surprised Marvel didn't sue!

The story itself was well written and plotted, but hardly a revelation to dedicated comic book readers, covering as it did several well-known and often written topics. However you could argue it was as original as a superhero story could get without resorting to Warren Ellis like shock tactics (which of course is not an option for a family film). Syndrome, despite still being - in my opinion - a Dr Doom type character certainly made the film more "original" that it would have been had the same team been battling a less defined villain.

But is my point again.

Pixar does a story with a foursome, most of which share the same powers as the Fantastic Four to some extent, including the fact the the baby is the most powerful of them all and outside the "team" while battling a technological/scientist based villain with a personal history with and hatred for the team's leader - and people are saying its original! It's the Fantastic Four people! When does a "homage" become a copy?

Even some of the more original topics - superheroes being outlawed for example have been more then touched upon in great works of art like Watchman and Marvel's "Mutant Registration Act" storylines etc. The same with the concept of a villain/organisation who's motivation is to destroy other superpowered individuals, and a self-teaching robot is a copy of Marvel's Sentinals.

I'm not saying Pixars films are not well written and plotted (but I personally don't think Finding Nemo is either of those), but they give an illiusion of being "Original" when they are really very conservative with their story ideas. But I can still enjoy Pixar films, but I do feel Disney is having a lot of unjust critisism for most of their most recent films (as well as, some perfectly valid critisism).

[Karushifa]

2099net, it seems to me as if you're harshing on Finding Nemo a bit much, at least with respect to how well it was received compared to Chicken Little. If you want to blame a Pixar movie for CL's un-success, The Incredibles would probably be a better target. Now that movie DID have a very original story, great voice cast, lots of humor, etc etc. And it was an very hard act for Disney to follow.

Well, it depends on what you mean by original. Like I say, Pixar ripped off so many generic superhero characters (with special note of the Fantastic Four) I'm surprised Marvel didn't sue!

The story itself was well written and plotted, but hardly a revelation to dedicated comic book readers, covering as it did several well-known and often written topics. However you could argue it was as original as a superhero story could get without resorting to Warren Ellis like shock tactics (which of course is not an option for a family film). Syndrome, despite still being - in my opinion - a Dr Doom type character certainly made the film more "original" that it would have been had the same team been battling a less defined villain.

But is my point again.

Pixar does a story with a foursome, most of which share the same powers as the Fantastic Four to some extent, including the fact the the baby is the most powerful of them all and outside the "team" while battling a technological/scientist based villain with a personal history with and hatred for the team's leader - and people are saying its original! It's the Fantastic Four people! When does a "homage" become a copy?

Even some of the more original topics - superheroes being outlawed for example have been more then touched upon in great works of art like Watchman and Marvel's "Mutant Registration Act" storylines etc. The same with the concept of a villain/organisation who's motivation is to destroy other superpowered individuals, and a self-teaching robot is a copy of Marvel's Sentinals.

I'm not saying Pixars films are not well written and plotted (but I personally don't think Finding Nemo is either of those), but they give an illiusion of being "Original" when they are really very conservative with their story ideas. But I can still enjoy Pixar films, but I do feel Disney is having a lot of unjust critisism for most of their most recent films (as well as, some perfectly valid critisism).

First of all, in terms of The Incredibles being original...well, virtually EVERY movie that comes out nowadays is going to contain some element that was used in previous films. I mean, look at basically all of the Disney "princess" films: pretty girl falls in love, gets into trouble, meets goofy comic relief, gets out of trouble, gets married, lather, rinse, repeat. And yet no one really faulted Disney for going to the well with this concept until the movies themselves started to not work so well, i.e. Pocahontas. But, this is a time-honored storyline that kids and families enjoy, so you can't really blame Disney for all of its various iterations, no more than you can blame Pixar for dabbling frequently in the art of the buddy picture.

What's most important now is being able to take these already-used elements and make them work in your own world. Personally, I think the concept of a superhero family, as opposed to a Justice-League-type group, is a very clever idea, and Brad Bird certainly made it work by adding his own elements to the film.

The best film-makers are going to be influenced by other things they see. This is inevitable. You can call Brad Bird's obvious affinity for classic superhero stories "ripping off," or you can see it as something that he wants to express through his own films. And, considering how much John Lasseter admires Hayao Miyazaki, it would not suprise me if future films he is involved have stylistic elements that resemble something not unlike what Miyazaki-san would have created.

As for Disney's criticism...I think at least some of this (definitely on this board) is from people who grew up on Disney and have associated them with great, legendary films. To see them aparently reduced to trying to emulate the latest works of the likes of Dreamworks, etc., I think hurts on some level. They probably feel that Disney shouldn't have to try to copy someone else when instead they should be leading the American animation scene. In addition, when non-Disney studios like Pixar release quality films, people start to wonder why Disney isn't doing the same. People wondered the same thing in the '80s when Don Bluth started making movies that Disney was expected to, and this in part led to the animation revolution that gave us The Little Mermaid et al. If Pixar shouldn't be directly supervising what Disney does, Disney could at least try to take the hint that they should be more like them instead of like Dreamworks.

[MichaeLeah]

A few comments and observations, if I may....

The conversation has grown to cover so many subjects the conversation lack continuity. There is a lot of talking around people but not to them. (I hope that makes a little sense.)

There is no sense in arguing whether or not a movie is a good movie or not is such general terms. If you are going to say you don't like a movie, especially in this conversation, you must say why you like or dislike a film. Generalizations aren't really useful.

2099net, wonderful analysis of the Pixar films. I appreciate your observations and I think they are rather brilliant. His earlier post is a good example of a specific explanation (point by point comparison) as to why he isn't especially fond of those films. I agree with 2099net and I also don't care much for Finding Nemo. I found the plot to be overly predictable, formulaic, and just a plain bore. Therefore, I didn't care much for the film. However, I do see cause for people really loving the film. Some people are more concerned with the characters than the plot. There is certainly a lot to admire in Nemo's father and he is a character anyone can appreciate. For this reason, many people may love Finding Nemo. My point is that we all like different Disney films for different reasons. We all approach Disney films with a different criteria in mind and that is why there is disagreement in here. It is foolish, in my opinion, to just argue that a movie is good or bad unless you are going to be more specific and be willing to let people affirm and cricize a film on their own terms. Before disagreeing with a person about the quality of the film you have to understand where they are coming from.

One other comment...we must stop thinking of Pixar and Disney as separate. If a former Pixar employee says a movie needs changed it is now a Disney employee who is making the change. I realize I am not completely familiar with all terms of the agreement but Disney owns Pixar. They are not a dichotomy, they are one unit. I don't think any student of Disney films could possibly like the present state of the animation department anyway. Despite what you think about the recent films, we all know that the animation department of the company has had major personal changes and problems for years. They have fired tons of animators and the company was just a big mess. If you ever visited saveDisney.com you know what I am talking about. Anyway, even if the last several pictures were terrific, the animation department needs major surgery anyway. Who would be better qualified than a former Pixar employee to change things around? Would you prefer if a nobody came in changed things? What if it was a famous live-action producer or director? Would that be any better?

Just be patient. I think we can expect wonderful things from the studio in the next several years. The disaster of Eisner will take years to fix. Give it time. And remember, it is a DISNEY employee who said Meet the whoevertheyare. The film was going to be released in March so I doubt Disney thought very highly of it anyway. They release their good stuff during the summer and Christmas. It all looked like a Jimmie Neutron or whatever he is called rip off to me anyway.

[Luke]

One other comment...we must stop thinking of Pixar and Disney as separate. If a former Pixar employee says a movie needs changed it is now a Disney employee who is making the change. I realize I am not completely familiar with all terms of the agreement but Disney owns Pixar. They are not a dichotomy, they are one unit.

Not really. One of the most important stipulations of the acquisition was that Pixar retain its unique brand identity. They're not being swallowed up and labeled "Disney." Thus it is not only valid but most accurate to refer to Disney and Pixar separately.

[Karushifa]

One other comment...we must stop thinking of Pixar and Disney as separate. If a former Pixar employee says a movie needs changed it is now a Disney employee who is making the change. I realize I am not completely familiar with all terms of the agreement but Disney owns Pixar. They are not a dichotomy, they are one unit. I don't think any student of Disney films could possibly like the present state of the animation department anyway. Despite what you think about the recent films, we all know that the animation department of the company has had major personal changes and problems for years. They have fired tons of animators and the company was just a big mess. If you ever visited saveDisney.com you know what I am talking about. Anyway, even if the last several pictures were terrific, the animation department needs major surgery anyway. Who would be better qualified than a former Pixar employee to change things around? Would you prefer if a nobody came in changed things? What if it was a famous live-action producer or director? Would that be any better?

Good points here. I think that there were probably some very qualified people associated with Disney before the merger who could have set things right, but unfortunately it appears as if Disney burned their bridges with those folks, especially when first WDFA-FL was shut down and then when traditional animation production in CA was axed.

Whether or not you see Pixar as the Second Coming of Walt or not, you can't argue with the fact that they have some very capable people working for them who care about animation a great deal. I'd rather have folks like that making movies for Disney instead of the marketing department.