Disney Debates: #2 Are people too accepting of Pixar films?

[MagicMirror]

Maybe I'm a little overly critical of the DACs from 'Mermaid' onwards. I stick by what I said, as I did after all say 'I think' rather than 'I know'. This sort of thing is always contentious.

I freely admit that not all of Pixar's features are at the same level as 'The Incredibles' and 'Ratatouille' - I would probably place 'Finding Nemo', 'Toy Story' and its sequel beside the Fab Four, and 'Monsters, Inc.' and 'A Bug's Life' below (I haven't seen 'Cars' but, from what I've heard, it wasn't terribly good), but I still honestly think that the Brad Bird features (and I include the Iron Giant) are better than the Fab Four.

It's not an unheard of argument, by any means - it was posted on CartoonBrew a while back that Victor Haboush (who worked on 'Lady and the Tramp', 'Sleeping Beauty' and '101 Dalmatians') stated that it 'Ratatouille' was "the best animated film since 'Pinocchio'."


As for the level of soppiness, it seems to be a matter of preference and probably deserves its own 'Debate' thread. I prefer the coldness of 'Bambi' and 'Pinocchio' to the 'heart' (for wont of a better word) in 'Mermaid' and 'Brother Bear' but most Disney fans would probably disagree with me.

[BelleGirl]

I think most of the praise Pixar receives is well-deserved. I honestly think that 'The Incredibles' and 'Ratatouille' are better than any Disney animated film since '101 Dalmatians'.

So you're actually stating all of them are also better than The Jungle Book?
Honestly, I like The Jungle Book better than Cars.
But I love most of the Disney films as well as those of Pixar.

I agee with your comment on HOND that it could not decide to be either adult or kidlike. If they just had got rid of those obnoxious gargoyles and some of the 'cartoony' moments in the fightscenes it would have been a better movie. Still I like it, even with those flaws. Maybe because I find Quasimodo so utterly sympathetic and I like the voice of Tom Hulce.

[MagicMirror]

So you're actually stating all of them are also better than The Jungle Book?

I think 'The Incredibles' and 'Ratatouille' are, yes.

[BelleGirl]

I think 'The Incredibles' and 'Ratatouille' are, yes.

But not Cars?

[MagicMirror]

As I said in an earlier post, I haven't seen 'Cars', but I haven't heard terribly good things about it. So, probably not. But I'm not keen on passing judgement on a film I haven't seen!

And I defininitely agree with you on 'Hunchback'.

[PeterPanfan]

I,for one,think that PIXAR is less known than Disney. A lot of people I know don't even know what PIXAR is and just call Rataouille or Toy Story "Disney".

[Poody]

I,for one,think that PIXAR is less known than Disney. A lot of people I know don't even know what PIXAR is and just call Rataouille or Toy Story "Disney".

I think that's the problem....

[Lars Vermundsberget]

At least a few years ago it seemed to me that quite a lot of people would think that any given animated feature was made by Disney...

[KubrickFan]

Some people don't even want to see the Disney films, because they just assume it's too kiddie (don't know wherever that came from). Pixar, on the other hand, makes populair movies, no matter what the film is like. I saw Ratatouille, I thought it was good, but not great. I also noticed that Pixar is doing the same tricks over again. I hope Wall-E will break that. But isn't anyone else worried that, since the creative team of Pixar has taken over Disney, that much of the Disney-films will be looking much more like Pixar-films? Or is it just me? I really hope the 2D-animation will keep the Disney-spirit.

[GOGOinVegas]

Opinions are just that, opinions. However, the overwhelming majority of those who view Pixar films, really like them, and consider them to be great films. I disagree that Pixar, or John Lasseter, have become tired, or lazy. That's a bunch of nonsense.

I think the REAL issue is that there are those, particularly on this board, who are extremely dedicated to Disney, and see Pixar (even though it is now part of Disney), as Disney's competition. They do not want to see Disney as being anything less than perfect, and therefore do not want to see another company doing, or being perceived as doing, better than Disney.

In my opinion, Disney hasn't made a great animated film in a while. That's not to say that they won't, but, it's been a while. Chicken Little just didn't work. Meet the Robinsons was an improvement, but, that middle act really brought the whole film down. I'm not saying that the animation wasn't good. I'm saying that the story wasn't. Chicken Little suffered horribly from it, and Meet the Robinsons middle act did, as well. It's as though they can't keep their focus, and it all becomes too hectic. I am holding out hope for Enchanted (granted, it's not all animated). I'm actually very excited by that one. I'm all for Disney getting back to their roots, and making great animated films. They have made so many that I love, and my collection of DVD's is full of Disney films.

Pixar, on the other hand, has the storytelling at the heart of the film, and build the animation around it. You can always tell that Pixar works very hard on the story. It seems to me that they get it right, every single time. I have enjoyed every film they have created. There isn't one that has disappointed me. That's not to say that I will love every film they ever create, however, their record stands at 100%, for me. That doesn't mean I'm too accepting of Pixar, or not able to see faults. It's just that I haven't found anything that I consider to be a fault.

I do feel, however, that there are some who feel jealous of Pixar's success. Jealousy sometimes blinds people, and they do not want to actually accept that what they are jealous of, might actually be good. I think that has a lot to do with some of the feelings posted against Pixar, in this thread, and on this board.

Unbelievable MM1!
I could have written this whole post! . . I will add that if I ever need to hear negative comments or reviews of Pixar Films.. I can ALWAYS find them at UD. This is part of the reason I barely even lurk here anymore....
so much negative , negative , negative!. .. I will ad that I have been fair to "The Competition" and checked out "Shark Tale" and "Surf's Up" last week...
I could not even finish those movies..!. this had nothing to do with the animation.. its the whole package--Boring... Pixar is simply the best at what they do...[sigh]-- I want to start a pro Disney/Pixar website!

[toonaspie]

I knew that Pixar would reach it's peak of being overrated when I heard some friends talking about about going to see "Cars" before it came out and some annoying kid that we all knew chipped in and said "I love Cars when are we going?" LOL To love a film you never see before it even came out is the type of impactPixar's been having on people.

But I do agree that Pixar films have unfortunatly fallen, in the majority anyway, in the buddy comedy area that 95% of all CGI films are known for. The formula: Take an imhuman world (such as cars, monsters, ants, etc) and pair up two characters who are complete opposites of each other and thus there's your movie. The Incredibles was the only Pixar film that strayed away from this formula and focused more on story and less on introducing wacky characters. But then there are films like Ratatouille and Finding Nemo that use the buddy comedy formula but still put a lot of devotion into story and it shows.

Going off-Disney for a moment. Shrek sequels are going to be a big overkill and Pixar films might suffer from the overkill because people will get sick of CGI (I got sick of it earlier than others). Shrek 3 wasnt all that good and I think that the next two sequels will only help quicken the CGI nosedive. However I dont have a lot of high hopes for Disney's 2D comeback due to the fact that the films in production right now seem to be too focused on adding more princesses (Rapunzel) or adding more political correctness to the company (The Princess and the Frog) and less on actual good story.

[Disney-Fan]

(don't know wherever that came from)

Just take a look at Disney's marketing methods and there lies your answer. Disney pretty much dug their own grave when it comes to the public perception of who they are aimed towards.

[BelleGirl]

However I dont have a lot of high hopes for Disney's 2D comeback due to the fact that the films in production right now seem to be too focused on adding more princesses (Rapunzel) or adding more political correctness to the company (The Princess and the Frog) and less on actual good story.

I'm a bit worried about The Princess and the frog too. Because it's the first time there is a black heroin in a Disney 2D movie all kinds of people make complains and think they have to tell Disney how to tell the story. Just take a look at discussion board for the movie on IMDB.com People complain about the heroins name Maddy (now turned into Tiana apparently) her profession as chambermaid, her getting a relationship with an European -thererfore white- frog prince Harry, so they turn him into black prince Nazeem from some fictional African country. Next people object to voodoo elements etc.
Is there not a way for the folks at Disney to keep the concept of their upcoming movies secret, so that they can work on the project in peace? Why should they listen to all those whiners anyway? Maybe it's all just rumors and the folks at Disney will just follow their own ideas in the end.

But hey, lets try to stay optimistic. IMO even a 'PC'movie can turn out quite nicely. I'm thinking of Pocahontas right now of course (do I hear dissenting grunts ) but when you think of it, if Disney really had wanted to go for 'safe movies' back than they should never even have attempted to tackle such a subject matter in the first place.

[blackcauldron85]

But isn't anyone else worried that, since the creative team of Pixar has taken over Disney, that much of the Disney-films will be looking much more like Pixar-films? Or is it just me? I really hope the 2D-animation will keep the Disney-spirit.

Yup. When I heard that Lasseter & Friends were going to be in charge of WDFA, I was very upset. I've gotten over that a bit, since I have no say in the matter. I do enjoy the Pixar films, and I think that their stories are great, but I will always love Disney more. I think that the Pixar people should be in charge iof Pixar and that Disney people should be in charge of Disney. Or, why can't Disney people be in charge of Pixar (I can hear it now, "because Pixar films are more successful" )?

Is there not a way for the folks at Disney to keep the concept of their upcoming movies secret, so that they can work on the project in peace? Why should they listen to all those whiners anyway? Maybe it's all just rumors and the folks at Disney will just follow their own ideas in the end.

I partly agree with you here. I've always loved hearing about both upcoming movies and movies that were in the pipeline but got canceled- that's such a huge interest of mine. So, I'm glad that we know about upcoming projects and get to see concept art. But, at the same time, the "whiners" you speak of really make learning about what's coming up next seem not as worth it. I haven't heard a backlash toward Dr. Sweet from "Atlantis", and I'm not sure if there was one for "John Henry". Is it just the SOTS haters who are complaining about "The Princess and the Frog"? Or are others complaining about it? I wish Disney would "just follow their own ideas in the end"- did they have Native American consultants on "Pocahontas"? Maybe they should bring in an expert on 18-th century (?) New Orleans (I don't know when it takes place), and then they can be somewhat historically accurate, and when people complain, Disney can say that they had a historian help them out. I don't know...

[BelleGirl]

Yes they had native American cosultants for Pocahontas as far as I understand. Remember also that the movie included mostly the voices of NA actors (I prefer the term American Indians myself), including Russel Means, who was very supportive of this movie.

[Jules]

(don't know wherever that came from)

Just take a look at Disney's marketing methods and there lies your answer. Disney pretty much dug their own grave when it comes to the public perception of who they are aimed towards.

Perfectly put.

Just take a look at any Princess Merchandise. Pink, pink, pink, powdery and fluffy. Barbie's got competition. And Winnie the Pooh is made to look like a retarded yellow blob of fat only fit to entertain a developing foetus and his/her precious placenta.

[blackcauldron85]

Someone needs to stick up for Pooh! I like him and I think he's cute! So !

[2099net]

OK guys, some of us are getting a little off-topic. This isn't a "Are Pixar films better?" thread or "Have Pixar films lost quality recently?" thread.

Its about have Pixar been able to do things that Disney themselves aren't "allowed" to? Be it because the Public complains or the press complains.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame example was just one of many from my opening post. It got some response, so lets try another.

Which two films are more similar to each other?

Disney's The Lion King and Brother Bear? Or Pixar's Toy Story and Finding Nemo?

Which every way you think, does it matter if one film is similar to another if both films are enjoyable? Or do you expect more?

[2099net]

Once you get past the introduction (which praises the Fab Four, etc. etc.), he brings up a lot of points about formulas in the Disney films of the 90s. It's an old article (just after Atlantis), but I enjoyed reading it.

Thanks Divinity, I have just read this, but I can't say I agree with it. How can people complain about a formula if they are complaining about:

Feeble, ridiculous fathers
Domineering fathers
Absent fathers

Especially when for example Mulan's father is listed in two categories (Feeble and Domineering). What?

So basically, the article writer is saying Disney films are following a formula because they have a father (or have one absent).

What?

I'm not convinced - the formula's this article are listing go way, way back to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs so its not as if the formula is a new Disney invention.

So I think my point still stands. Why do people complain about a "Disney Formula" - which lets face it is pretty lax according to that article - again taking the father/mother points listed, it could be applied to almost all classic literature written since the days of greek mythology.

In my mind the Pixar formula is much more limited (excepting the films of Brad Bird - who I don't consider a proper Pixar person - he's somebody who turned up after the party had started).

1. Character gets accidently "lost", normally in a "world" they have never explored or wanted to explore before.

2. Character explores such world with "mismatched" buddy.

3. Character is mistaken for something else, or character mistakes himself for something else.

4. Character or Characters meet other characters who are at first scary, but become friendly.

5. One Character is kidnapped and held hostage, with a "countdown" to a terrible event.

All 5 points crop up in Toy Story, Toy Story 2, A Bug's Life, Monsters, Inc. and Finding Nemo to some extent, especially points 1, 2 and 5.

Meanwhile the article writer on the page linked to complains about Fathers and Mothers who maybe one of 3 things (or more at the same time).

[ichabod]

Well i first read this topic back before any other UDs had had the chance to comment and deliberately decided to bide my time before replying because I knew that eventually the thread would need to be rescued and put back on track.

I knew that the slightest mention of Pixar would get the Pixar fans on the defensive and that this would turn into a Pixar vs Disney, declining quality vs formula rant.

And hey, I was right.

Whilst we're on the subject I have noted many times the inconsistent illogical rubbish that has been spouted about how Disney supposedly "stick to the same tired formula" whilst Pixar "continue to bring us fresh formulas" and have been completely baffled for years about either how dumb these people are, particularly in the case of film critics who are paid for supposedly what is a professional opinion. And come to the the conclusion that either a) they are either having their pockets lined by someone wanting to defame Disney or give undue Pixar or b) they really are stupid and only got the job because they married the boss's wife.

Any let's get back to the actual topic up for discussion.

Pixar do seem to be in a position where they are given public acceptance and I do think the argument that we sidelined into about formula does filter into it.

If critics are forever saying things like "Don't see Brother Bear, it's a cheap lion king knock off" or "Treasure Planet is crap because it has no songs" or "The Hunchback of Notre Dame scared my daughter so therefore it's a bad film" or "Where were the jokes or cute character in Atlantis, what a crap film" then despite how nonsensical these comments are, most are things that probably would go through the head of the average theatre goer.

When the parents see a new Disney movie is released they go along with their head conjouring images of singing mice, dancing teapots and magic carpets. But when presented with a character based, action film. It's the old sqaure peg in the round hole syndrome. Now as ridiculous as the comments in the previous paragraph my seem, these are the types of opinion that do seem to sum up public opinion, thus the public thinks, my opinion matches that of the reviewer and the reviewer says it's bad so therefore it must be bad.

And it's much easier to say "sqaure peg doesn't fit, toss it aside" than to say "hang on, let me change the shape of the hole".

I see Disney's current state as a rabbit, with it's head caught in a snare of being pigeonholed. However the more Disney tried to break free and diversify, the more it struggles, the more it chokes. And thus rather than Disney being able to say "Look at how versatile we are", what has in fact happened is that through the nature of the public today and through the inept judgements of so called "movie critics", the noose has tightened and what Disney should have been praised for has in fact been their curse.

Now we come to an interesting stage at Disney. Disney seem to have accepted in some part that to stop the snare becoming any tighter, rather than struggle against it, they need to work with it. Thus to get the public to accept something they need to give them a round peg. Therefore we have a lot of round pegs on the horizon "Princess and the Frog", "Rapunzel", "Enchanted". Also previous sqaure pegs are having their corners rubbed to make them round. Like "American Dog" which due to the nature of Chris Sanders work, would have given it certain kooky qualities. Thus by streamlining these out, reforming it into "Bolt" it would appear Disney have created themselves another round peg.

Now Disney will here present the public pretty much year after year a number of round pegs. However even though the public may accept these round pegs initially. I doubt the critics will let the fact slide that these films have not been made for pure artistic development, creativity and diversity, but have been made to please the round peg loving customers. Also i predict that the public may also wake up to the fact that Disney are providing round pegs and may grow weary of them.

Now let's get to Pixar. Whereas I see Disney as a rabbit in a snare, I see Pixar as a chef with a cookbook.

Pixar start out and the think the chef makes is an apple pie. And Pixar's first offering is welcomed, the public like the apple pie. Toy Story was Pixar's first round peg. The public then says "Hey we want more apple pie". But because Pixar is new, the public have all these expectations, false ideas and a solid mindset. Also because Pixar brings something new in terms of CGI, they don't just give you apple pie that you are used to, this is apple pie with something extra added. It's sprinkled with magic ingredients that make the eater fly, change colour, glow in the dark etc. Thus throughout the early stages of Pixar "Toy Story", "Toy Story 2" and A "Bug's Life" there is naturally the "gimic" element to draw people in.

Once that gimic element has worn off though, the chef needs to get back to work. Now rather than saying. Now the Disney appraoch would be "Hey let's toss this cook book aside. Rather than making apple pie again, let's make roast duck!"

But the public want roast duck they want more apple pie.

Which is where Pixar are clever.

Pixar say, "Let's take all the ingredients from our last film and make another apple pie. Only so people don't complain they're a one trick pony. Instead of apples, this time let's use peaches".

So Pixar produces a film which is an elipse shaped peg. Now the public go along wanting their Pixar round peg. But they get thrown this elipse shaped peg. But low and behold, stick in the round hole and even though it's not a pefect fit, give it a bash and in it goes. It just happens to fit.

Then Pixar try again, and this time they say. "Hey let's make another peach pie! Only so people don't call us a one trick pony, instead of making pie pastry, let's make this one a peach cobbler."

So Pixar's next meal is slightly egg shaped, but again it'll squeeze into the round hole.

Now sometimes Pixar changes their recipe just enough to get this reputation of creativity and the subtle changes are often just enough to make please the public/critics and make them blind to the fact that there isn't a great deal of difference between the actual ingredients.

Therfore Monsters Inc, Finding Nemo, Toy Story, Cars are all made up of the same basic plot elements. At times to a laughably ridiculous degree. Yet despite the cut and paste scripts and characters from one Pixar film to the next. Because the public's Pixar hole is being slightly widened, they get a lot undue praise for originality. Now pixar do have a lot to be praised for, but in my opinion at least Pixar are praised in areas they don't deserve to be, often the same area that Disney should be praised in but aren't.

I think there has been a certain "awakening" to the fact that there is a distinct copy and paste element. particularly with the release of "Cars" where the Pixar chef seemed to get lazy and said "Oh last time we served it hot, this time just make the same again and serve it cold" and the similarlity was more noticeable.

Thus the chef thought oh crikey and made the changes for "Ratatouille" and the upcoming "Wall E" even more drastic. But even though "Ratatouille" was critically praised for being an excellent film. And because it was a bit of a creative leap, the peg had a few more sharp edges that the general public were expecting and therefore even though the public eventually managed to shove it in, it took longer than usual and was slightly more of a struggle than Mr average Joe was expecting.

"Wall E"which will probably receive huge critical praise, I predict may again prove even more difficult for the average citizen to shove into their Pixar hole.

What this all boils down to is a Catch 22 situation brought about by the current climate we live in. Don't be too daring, don't be too safe. You want the noose around you're neck, but you still need to able to breath. You're damed if you do, you're damned if you don't.

If you treat the public like they're stupid, they will become stupid. Then when you try to do something intelligent, you'll get blank expressions.

It will be interesting to watch the futures of both Disney and Pixar over the next decade. In theory it the route Pixar seem to be taking with their "diversification" strategy with projects like "Wall E" and "John Carter of Mars" seems like the logical one which will lead to success. However Disney tried this and it failed. Whereas logically speaking Disney's atcion plan of stick to the familiar and get those round pegs rolling would seem doomed to failure, yet it may in actually bring Disney back into public acceptance and take over again as the nu,mber one box office pleaser.

It could go either way.

It seems, not just in the animation field but in others as well, there are only two options which will slowly begin to emerge.

a) critical recognition and public failure

b) critical bashing and public success.