2099net wrote:
Formulatic? How is Pocahontas like Hunchback like Mulan. And they're the three films since then which are most alike. The only similarity I can see is Sidekicks - but that doesn't really apply to Pocahontas' animal non-speak sidekicks so much. And then there's films like Treasure Planet, Lilo and Stitch and The Emperor's New Groove. Creatively, it's one of Disney Animation's strong periods.
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.
I've read the article too now. I've written a more extensive comment on this before but than I turned to be logged out! All I want to say right now is that it is overanalysing and agenda-driven. It actually says very little about the quality of Disney movies and their supposed formulas. Just wait until they begin analysing Pixar movies in the same way. It's only a matter of time.
I'm sorry if my claim that the Brad Bird films are better than the Fab Four caused the thread to descend to such an extent that it needed 'saving', but the trouble there seemed to arise when people thought I was referring to all of Pixar's films, when I was specifically referring to Bird's features (I stated it quite clearly, for goodness sake. It is clear from some of the non-Bird efforts that Pixar is far from invincible). I don't think of myself as a Pixar fan so much as a Brad Bird fan, though it's difficult to deny that the chap making good movies has something to do with it. Some on this forum seem so anti-Pixar I'm waiting for them to call it 'this Emeryville-based animation studio'.
Remember, it is possible to critisise something and still like it - or even adore it. I love my Xbox 360, but its not faultless.
There's lots of complaints; the reliability on models released in the first 18 months, the fan noise, the fact it requires (on the whole) bespoke expensive peripherals... I can say all of this, and even more, and still adore the final product.
If people here think some people hate Pixar too much, I would counter some love Pixar too much if critisisms which may or may not be valid are rejected or just dimissed lightly. This is supposed to be a debate, so I would like to see some critisisms rejected with a little thought and reasoning to back up a persons view.
As for Pixar films being "formula" I think that this is true. I'm sorry but for me the facts stand out too much. Pixar has a formula for most of their films. I was probably wrong to put some of my personal commentary in the opening post, but like Ichabod, I'm still surprised this needs to be pointed out to some people!
But having a "formula" doesn't mean the resultant films are not worth watching. It doesn't even mean that they are bad. As regular readers may know, I love Scooby-Doo. In fact, I think Scooby-Doo is the perfect cartoon. It is aimed both at young children and has a sort of post modern appeal for adults and has the perfect formula. In fact, Scooby-Doo is only good when it follows the formula. Remove the formula – like on some of the crappy post Mystery Inc. Scooby and Scrappy Doo episodes, or mess about with the Ghosts being real too much, and it is rubbish.
Formulas are formulas because they work, and produce pleasing results. Or else, people wouldn't follow the formula in the first place.
My issue is, nobody be they a critic or ordinary entertainment viewer is going to declare an episode of Scooby-Doo an all-time classic – not even an episode with a higher than average laughter count or perhaps even a semi-twist then the villain is revealed at the end. Because everyone knows it’s a formula and isn't groundbreaking. It's Scooby-Doo doing Scooby-Doo – maybe in this instance better than usual, but its still Scooby-Doo.
That's why I feel Pixar films like Finding Nemo are overrated. To me, Finding Nemo does nothing new, nothing original and nothing daring.
Brother Bear did. It was a Disney film with an unclear villain – at the start both the bears and Kenai could be classed as "villains". As the movie moves on, Kenai's family could be classed as "villains", but they only want to avenge their brother. Kenai moves from possible villain to understanding, as do the bears and the bear way of live. And at the end, there's no huge battle with the fate of the kingdom in the balance, just a decision made and an understanding reached.
No princesses, no evil stepmothers, no evil monachs, no plots, schemes or cons, no romance, nobody to rescue.
And idiots in the press said stuff like:
"Brother Bear just doesn't have the original Disney spark; rather it seems like a paint-by-numbers marketing venture."
"...for all its earnestness, its wholesomeness, and its uplifting moral values, Brother Bear is formula Disney."
"It's hard to avoid concluding that Brother Bear was pitched as Pocahontas meets The Lion King since it recycles the themes of both, not to mention a character or two."
"An uninspired recycling of themes that were far more gripping in The Lion King and countless other earlier Mouse House classics."
"You can't fault the message it wants to send . . . [a]las, the execution is 90% generic and 100% unfunny"
"The film blatantly strip-mines The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, and anything else its makers can get their paws on."
Now, I'm not saying Brother Bear was flawless. I feel it didn't make enough of the "Brother vs Brother" aspect when Kenai's family were tracking down Kinai as a bear because they believed it was responsible for their brother's death, and it also had a rather weak ending – more could have been done to explain and justify Kinai's ultimate decision.
But I do not accept at all lazy complaints about "formula" or Lion King retreads or the movie being generic at all. Especially when at the same time, Pixar was being more formulaic and receiving praise while doing so from (in some cases) the same reviewers. The Critics may object to Disney being unoriginal and generic (which in this case I don't agree) but their reviews are just as unoriginal, lazy and generic.
I think Ichabod is onto something with his "square peg, round hole" metaphor. It does appear Ratatouille hasn't been as commercially successful as previous Pixar films, but Ratatouille is doing something different. I do think people have been asked to change their "notion" of what a Pixar film is with Ratatouille, and some people have found that hard to do. Of course, Ratatouille is still a top grossing film and of course, Ratatouille is still a well made (I expect exceptionally made) film. But it has struggled in relation to other Pixar films. I do believe that is down to a "squarish peg, round hole" sort of thing, but it could just as likely be down to subject matter (Rats? Paris? The French?), CGI overkill (disappointing response to Shrek The Third?) or even the weather when it was released. Who knows? Its likely to be all reasons.
You've summed up why I think the Brad Bird films are so much better than Pixar's other films. Without Bird I think Pixar would have seriously limited themselves. 'The Incredibles' and 'Ratatouille' are also the only CGI films which I feel really take advantage of the medum stylistically.
2099net wrote: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.
1 and 2 both crop up in Ratatouille and Cars. So except The Incredibles (which I thought was actually original) all Pixar films have the same formula. But since Pixar has only been making full-length features for twelve years, the similarities must show to some people. And maybe they then Pixar realises that they actually have to make a film better and more original every time.
There is nothing wrong with a formula perse. it has worked for the James Bond movies through the decades.
And I don't see why it should be such a bad thing to make another 2D 'princess movie'. These kind of movies include some of the finest Disney cartoon features ever made. I think of Snowwhite, Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast of course. I'm sure the audience would welcome it as a change after having been treated to a long stream of "buddy/funny wisecracking animals in awkward situations" CGI movies - and return to the old feeling of Disney of yesteryears.
About the criticism of Brother Bear. Most of the arguments against this movie quoted are indeed rubbish, but what I found lacking myself in this movie was a solid story. The middle part I found a dull affair. That's a shame, because I feel that it could potentially have been so much more.
I'd like to think that the production company doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me, personally; it's really the overall quality and/or appeal of each movie on an individual basis for me. Yeah, I have a certain fondness for Pixar as I really enjoy the shorts they've released over the years, and a couple of their films (The Incredibles, Monster's Inc.) are among my favourite animated features of all time. However, I don't think I'm overly accepting of them just 'cuz they're Pixar. I certainly didn't care for Cars, nor did I have any problem letting my opinion of it be known. And the movie hasn't grown on me with repeated viewings, either. Although most Pixar films do follow a pretty strict formulaic approach, the individual stories and characters are usually so enjoyable that you can forgive that slight laziness. Cars was the exception for me.
That said, based on the (admittedly meagre) teasers we've seen for the upcoming Wall-E, I'm hoping that's as much of a departure from their usual formula than The Incredibles was. As successful as they've managed to make that formula, I think they'd do well to try slowly branching out into other types of stories. Wall-E looks like a great start.
As far as Disney goes, I've never been overly harsh on them or unwilling to at least see their new movies in the hope it would finally be one I'd truly enjoy like I had much of their pre-1995 work. And over the years there have been movies from Disney that I've found reasonably entertaining or fun (namely Hercules, Atlantis and Lilo & Stitch; all for different reasons), the only ones I've really loved have been Fantasia 2000 and Meet the Robinsons (yes, even with that frenetic pace in the middle, which I didn't mind personally, as I'm often that crazy myself )
I'm just so tired of all of this "formula" talk. All companies, not just Pixar, are guilty of this. Disney may be the "worst offender" of all time, when it comes to following a formula. That doesn't make Disney a bad company. In fact, I think it's when Disney has tried to break from their formula, that, while good in theory, in execution they fail.
Coca-Cola, for example, has followed the formula for their main soft drink, almost from the start. Then, when they tried to change their formula, with "New Coke", it was met with disastrous results. It turns out, people loved the taste of Classic Coca-Cola, and Coca-Cola quickly went back to their Classic formula. Does that make Coca-Cola a bad company? No, it does not. It shows that, in business, they are very smart.
I would say that Pixar's "formula" has worked very well. Why fix something that isn't broken? In fact, with Cars, while the formula may still be there, certain elements of the formula were changed, and the results were that the critics judged the film more harshly than they had any previous Pixar film.
Regardless, I think this talk of Pixar following a formula needs to stop. It's not as if they are the first company, nor will they be the last company, to do so. If Pixar is guilty of it, well, what of Disney? Sure, it may seem that Pixar follows a formula more frequently, but, they have only released 8 films. Disney has released dozens and dozens of animated films, and I would wager that you could find that a majority of them have followed a formula.
On top of all of this, with Pixar's next release, Wall-E, it appears that Pixar may truly be straying far from their "formula". All evidence that we've seen and heard from the film, suggests that this is the case. How will Pixar fare with this film? If people are perceptive to it, then, I believe it will do very well. However, it could be that people may find that it deviates too far from their previous films, and they may not like it. Only time will tell.
All I can say is, we each have our own opinions and tastes in every aspect of our lives. It sometimes happens that our opinions and tastes fall in line with the majority of other people, sometimes it falls somewhere in the middle, and sometimes it falls in the minority. That's the way it is.
MadonnasManOne wrote:I'm just so tired of all of this "formula" talk. All companies, not just Pixar, are guilty of this. Disney may be the "worst offender" of all time, when it comes to following a formula. That doesn't make Disney a bad company.
Absolutely not. They both follow a formula, but Pixar gets credits for it, while Disney gets criticized for doing it. That seems wrong with me. And Pixar's formula already begins to show and be repetitive, but Disney's doesn't.
Good point (about "formula"). My all-time favourites, Disney's classic animated shorts, for instance, depend heavily on a "formula" most of them. "Formula" is hardly a worthy critisism in and by itself - as long as it works. However, the formula might eventually become painfully obvious and might seemingly no longer serve its purpose. In that case the whole concept starts looking "tired" and it proves a lack of creativity.
Lars Vermundsberget wrote:Good point (about "formula"). My all-time favourites, Disney's classic animated shorts, for instance, depend heavily on a "formula" most of them. "Formula" is hardly a worthy critisism in and by itself - as long as it works. However, the formula might eventually become painfully obvious and might seemingly no longer serve its purpose. In that case the whole concept starts looking "tired" and it proves a lack of creativity.
I feel that some of the Disney movies of the ninteties could have done without the obligatory 'sidekick' element. They were not really needed in either Pocahontas, Hunchback or Mulan. Especially the 'sidekicks' inHuncback IMO served no other purpose than annoy people and detract from the story's overall tone, in particular that "A guy like You" sequence, full of anachronistisc gags; a fine example of a formula element not serving its purpose anymore. Anachronism worked fine for Aladdin but not at all for Hunchback.
Last edited by BelleGirl on Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
fortunately pocahontas scrapped the redfeather altogether if not that wouldve spelt an earlier doom for disney. sidekicks have always been a disney tradition since pinocchio. whats the fuss? according to the hero's journey book.a sidekick is part of the setup character.altho i cant remember the correct term.
BelleGirl wrote:Especially the 'sidekicks' inHuncback IMO served no other purpose than annoy people and detract from the story's overall tone, in particular that "A guy like You" sequence, full of anachronistisc gags; a fine example of a formula element not serving its purpose anymore. Anachronism worked fine for Aladdin but not at all for Hunchback.
I'd like to disagree with that. Although "A Guy Like You" might seem out of place, it does serve an important narrative purpose in the overall storyline. The gargoyles bring Quasi's feelings about Esmeralda to the forefront, and the whole thing is just a surreal show number that gives Quasi hope that Esmeralda might care for him. However, this is marvellously contrasted by the later scene where Quasi witnesses Esmeralda and Phoebus's kiss. If it weren't for "A Guy Like You", the impact of that heartbreaking scene might not have been as great as it is. The gargoyles have other important moments in the story too as they're partially motivating Quasi's actions (e.g. the very finale where Quasi decides to break the literal and metaphorical chains that tie him to Notre Dame).
Despite the fact that the formulas became more and more obvious in the post-TLK Disney movies, they didn't make the following movies any worse, because despite all the corporate meddling the movies turned out to be fine and touching for the most part. Maybe Disney could've relied less on sidekicks and done certain things in a different way, but for the most part the sidekicks had some function in the stories they were in and thus weren't simply superfluous.
I don't really have problems with formula (case in point: I love all the Donald shorts although they often rely on simple formulas, but they are compelling because of how everything "clicks" together as I watch them) as long as the creative teams occasionally make movies that break it and bring something new to the table in order to not seem too repetitious. Pixar uses the same formula in many of its movies again and again but does it in an interesting way. Although I feel their storytelling skills are a bit overrated, they definitely know how to make their movies work on the basic level as they add layers upon layers on it, and their efforts are certainly better than that of most current animated movies out there. However, Pixar movies simply lack something (I've yet to figure out exactly what it is, because it seems to be composed of many minor things) and aren't as timeless as Disney's movies have been as far as I'm concerned. I'm glad that Brad Bird is shaking things up and introduces new story ideas, and it'll be interesting to see the coming Pixar movies which seem to become bolder as far as stories are concerned.
Maybe I'll look at Pixar differently many years from now, but at the moment Pixar hasn't quite managed to capture my imagination the same way even post-TLK Disney classics managed to do. In any case the journey itself is what is ultimately the most important thing in any storyline, and you can craft a good story around tried ideas, as both Disney and Pixar have shown us.
Some things you see with your eyes, others you see with your heart.
I am a huge fan of Pixar, Classic Disney films, *SOME* of the newer Disney stuff, and some of the competition's films, as well.
I think that Pixar's films are regarded as "good" because they have good stories, good animation, and good music/voices/etc. They appeal to all ages. That may be where Disney has failed in recent years. The other CGI film-makers also have problems with this. Some of their works are juvenile, instead of "adult", with overuse of potty humor. In addition, the stories just don't stack up to Pixar.
The films that Walt oversaw were originally created for adult audiences, although children may have been in tow. I feel that Disney has abandoned some of the adult appeal, so that they would appeal more to children. Treasure Planet, IMHO, was NOT geared for all ages and sexes, but rather aimed directly at 12-13 year old boys. Then of course, the sequels to the "princess" movies are aimed directly at pre-teen girls.
As far as the Hunchback and Incredibles comparison, you can't really boil it down to "they were both Dark" and try to say that they should have fared equally in the public's eye. The Incredibles is A. a superhero tale, but also B. a tale of a troubled family, a midlife crisis, and so on. On the other hand, Hunchback is A. a medieval tale, and B. a tale of an outsider.
The Incredibles balanced the serious with the comic, while Hunchback "doesn't do a great job of mixing comedy and drama" (according to the UD review.) Some complaints say that the comedy in Hunchback was "tacked on for kiddies," and that drags down the rest of the film.
Bear in mind that I watched The Incredibles 3 times in 2005, once last year, and once this year, while I have probably seen Hunchback one time total, in the past ten years (it was on TV at some point, I think...)
BelleGirl wrote:Especially the 'sidekicks' inHuncback IMO served no other purpose than annoy people and detract from the story's overall tone, in particular that "A guy like You" sequence, full of anachronistisc gags; a fine example of a formula element not serving its purpose anymore. Anachronism worked fine for Aladdin but not at all for Hunchback.
I'd like to disagree with that. Although "A Guy Like You" might seem out of place, it does serve an important narrative purpose in the overall storyline. The gargoyles bring Quasi's feelings about Esmeralda to the forefront, and the whole thing is just a surreal show number that gives Quasi hope that Esmeralda might care for him. However, this is marvellously contrasted by the later scene where Quasi witnesses Esmeralda and Phoebus's kiss. If it weren't for "A Guy Like You", the impact of that heartbreaking scene might not have been as great as it is. The gargoyles have other important moments in the story too as they're partially motivating Quasi's actions (e.g. the very finale where Quasi decides to break the literal and metaphorical chains that tie him to Notre Dame).
I've heard this argument before, but it still doesn't convince me that there was a good reason for putting anachronisms in this song sequence. Yes, I get the refence to Tom Hulce's role in "Amadeus" with the wig they put on Quasi's head, but in dubbed versions this particular joke does not really work. Actually I think the gargoyles are rather mean in getting Quasi's hope up that way.
Despite the fact that the formulas became more and more obvious in the post-TLK Disney movies, they didn't make the following movies any worse, because despite all the corporate meddling the movies turned out to be fine and touching for the most part. Maybe Disney could've relied less on sidekicks and done certain things in a different way, but for the most part the sidekicks had some function in the stories they were in and thus weren't simply superfluous.
I agree that the movies turned out fine despite some elements that could have been better. Don't misunderstand me, I love them, but they could have even been better when the makers put a little more faith in the merits of the story itself and a little less in formula.
All I want to say right now is that it is overanalysing and agenda-driven. It actually says very little about the quality of Disney movies and their supposed formulas. Just wait until they begin analysing Pixar movies in the same way. It's only a matter of time. 
)
