Is Ratatouille a corporate insult to the Walt Disney Co?

[BWSmith]

Now that the DVD is out and I have more of a chance to digest the film, it seems to me that the whole story of Ratatouille, from start to finish, is a grand metaphor for Pixar's own self-image within the animation industry, as they related to the Walt Disney Company (before Disney bought them, of course).

Consider the following the next time you watch the film:

Remy = Pixar Animation Studios (a play on Mickey Mouse)
Gusteau's Restaurant = The Walt Disney Company
ghost of Gusteau = ghost of Walt Disney, who speaks only to Pixar
Linguini = Pixar's distribution deal with Disney
Gusteau's egg rolls & burritos = direct-to-video sequels
Skinner = Michael Eisner, obsessed with pushing burritos and egg rolls
Anton Ego = baby boomer animation critics/fans (who have not swallowed "good animation" since their 60's childhood...)
other chefs = Disney animators unwilling to work with "mice" (i.e. Mickey)

Comments:
- The fact that Linguini is Gusteau's son highlights Pixar's claim to be the successors to Walt Disney's original vision.
- The closing down of Gusteau's restaurant in the end was probably a prediction that, without Pixar, the Walt Disney company would eventually fold, leaving little Pixar all alone in the countryside to practice their art for those who appreciate it.

(Of course, given that Disney eventually bought Pixar, should they have changed the ending to keep Gusteau's open, still serving quality food that is perpetually prepared by underground rats?)

Thoughts?

[DaveWadding]

I think you're reading into these things way too much.

[BWSmith]

You don't think that Pixar, in assembling its first film of the post-Disney era, would have had the ability and/or desire to employ a little metaphor in their choice of topics?

Consider also the swipe at motion-capture animation in the original theatrical release:

“Our Quality Assurance Guaratee: 100% Genuine Animation! No motion capture or any other performance shortcuts were used in the production of this film."

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/ratat ... triumphant

[Jake Lipson]

Oh, I thought the frozen dinner/direct-to-video angle was fairly obvious, as was the chance to spoof Mickey if they wished to in choosing a rat protagonist. (They didn't really do that since it ended up being distributed by Disney anyway.) But some of this is, I think, overanalyzing a little(though it does fit.)

[Lars Vermundsberget]

Sure, why not "read" a little into it?

[mcduck]

Even if it was not their intention to put in that way I think your comparison fits quite well, Pixar is (taken apart all things related to the shameful distribution from BVHE) in reality what W. Disney meant for He's studios to be, now the thing here is we do not have that happy ending, after Disney monopolization err purchase of Pixar the DVD distribution fell to a hole, lets hope they do not do the same with the hole vision of Pixar.

[2099net]

Well, it wouldn't surprise me. No matter what "Pixar" may think, self-congratulation is the only talent that they really have.

[purin]

I wasn't the only one thinking something like that. I'm not sure about going so far as involving the ghost of Disney, but that idea about the old has-been fine restaurant, the new owner who sells out with cheap product that sells, but isn't all that good, and fact that the restaurant is ultimately doomed and that a little bitty homey restaurant with heart would rise from its ashes did seem to me to be Pixar's view of of itself.

It was supposed to be Pixar's first non-Disney-partnership movie released when Pixar would have been a "small bistro", so it makes sense that they'd go beyond the mouse/rat bit and have a movie about quality product, tired institutions institutions, and breaking away from them. People have said it was supposed to be a razz at Disney before because it starred a rat.

[reyquila]

Well, it wouldn't surprise me. No matter what "Pixar" may think, self-congratulation is the only talent that they really have.

Making billions of dollars is another thing they are good at!!!!

[ichabod]

Making billions of dollars is another thing they are good at!!!!

So are pimps and crack dealers. But you wouldn't let them entertain your children.

[reyquila]

Making billions of dollars is another thing they are good at!!!!

So are pimps and crack dealers. But you wouldn't let them entertain your children.

WOW!!!! How many hours of thinking did you invest to come up with such non-applicable analogy!!!

[Ariel'sprince]

Wow,i never thought of that,i did thought about the frozen food like the franchises and DTV sequles.
Also maybe the La Ratatouille resterount like Enchanted and Disney's return to 2-D.
Also it does make sense becouse Ratatouille was almost Pixar's first film without Disney.

[MadonnasManOne]

Well, it wouldn't surprise me. No matter what "Pixar" may think, self-congratulation is the only talent that they really have.

Well, isn't this interesting. I now see right through you, 2099net. You are a wolf in sheeps clothing. All of your blathering on about how unfairly treated Disney is, and how people are too accepting of Pixar, in the name of sparking interesting debate on the boards, is all a lie. It's all part of your agenda against Pixar. I can't believe I thought you were truly interested in having an objective conversation! When, in reality, you were just trying to get people to praise Disney, while simultaneously inciting people to bash Pixar. Deny it all you want, you have revealed yourself with this little statement, and lost all credibility with me.

Just because you are blinded by your hatred of Pixar, doesn't make your statement of what talent they possess any truer. In fact, it is because those at Pixar have a tremendous amount of talent, have risen to the top of the animation genre, and have received praise, that you hate them even more. You are one of those types that I mentioned in your "Disney Debates #2" thread. The kind that are so jealous of Pixar's success, that you immediately hate them, without actually looking at anything they've done objectively.

I am done discussing anything related to Pixar with you, or anyone else simply wanting to bash them, because their efforts have been greater, well received, and brought them more acclaim than anything Disney (as far as animation is concerned) has done in a while.

I'm not against Disney. I think Disney is a wonderful company. I am hoping that they can get back to where they once were with their animated movies. I also think Pixar is a wonderful company. Right now, they are on a winning streak. I hope that they will continue. I appreciate both companies, despite any flaws they may have. Like it, or not, Pixar is now a part of Disney. Together, I think they can really usher in an era of great animated films that are beloved by many.

This Pixar bashing needs to stop, and it needs to stop NOW! I, as many others, are sick of it. If, every single time, we come to the General Discussion board to see someone bashing them, why should we continue to return? I am to the point that I don't even want to frequent these boards, because of the Pixar bashing. I know that there are others who feel the same way. I would rather go to the other sites on the internet, that share their love of both Disney and Pixar, without having to bash either company. Which is sad, because Luke, and many others, work very hard on this site. It's just that a few sad, pathetic people, who feel that they have to bash Pixar, to make Disney look better, ruin it for everyone.

[2099net]

Well, it wouldn't surprise me. No matter what "Pixar" may think, self-congratulation is the only talent that they really have.

Well, isn't this interesting. I now see right through you, 2099net. You are a wolf in sheeps clothing. All of your blathering on about how unfairly treated Disney is, and how people are too accepting of Pixar, in the name of sparking interesting debate on the boards, is all a lie. It's all part of your agenda against Pixar. I can't believe I thought you were truly interested in having an objective conversation! When, in reality, you were just trying to get people to praise Disney, while simultaneously inciting people to bash Pixar. Deny it all you want, you have revealed yourself with this little statement, and lost all credibility with me.

OK, so I have an "agenda" posting one sentence which is a semi-humourous remark, but Pixar, which makes a film (and I haven't seen it, but lots of critics seem to have picked up on the frozen dinner/DTV angle so there appears to be something in it) doesn't? Is that logical? Or let me put it another way while taking me out of the picture; is that professional behaviour from Pixar?

You know, I know a lot of people come here to share their love of Disney and Pixar and DVDs in general, as well as lots of other topics. But being "blinded" by fandom is just as bad as being blinded by hatred (which let's face it is a very strong word and shouldn't be banded about willy-nilly, I prefer "apathy" to describe my current opinion towards some of Pixars' latter films). Later on you say my "hatred" stops me from looking at any work that they have done "objectively". I would like to think perhaps my "hatred" (or apathy) has let me look at their films far more objectively.

Edited to add Oh and what's with all this black and white mindset? It is something that constantly aggravates me in real-life. It’s a symptom of the backwards world in which we are living. How does any criticism of anything – be it justified or not - automatically mean you "hate" it? By that thinking, if the frozen manufactured meals in Ratatouille is criticism of Disney, then by that logic, Pixar hate Disney!

But no, it's possible for Pixar to like - or even love Disney - while disliking their DTV sequels, just as I can (and do) enjoy some Pixar films while being less than impressed by others, and less than impressed by how some people at Pixar seem to behave when in the public eye. Emotions are complex and not black and white.

[ichabod]

Just playing Devil's advocate / pointing stuff out and being objective here before anyone thinks I'm having a go and being Mr anti-Pixar.

edit- just read my post through and it gets a bit repetitive sorry.

just because you are blinded by your hatred of Pixar, doesn't make your statement of what talent they possess any truer. In fact, it is because those at Pixar have a tremendous amount of talent, have risen to the top of the animation genre, and have received praise, that you hate them even more. You are one of those types that I mentioned in your "Disney Debates #2" thread. The kind that are so jealous of Pixar's success, that you immediately hate them, without actually looking at anything they've done objectively.

It could be said that fandom would also make someone unable to look at something objectively. In fact possibly such adoration could cause someone to look less objectively than dislike would. A sort of "love is blind" idea, where one could be far too accepting.

I think jealous of success is a dodgy phrase, because it would depend on what you consider success, although I do think you make a point. For example I feel that Pixar has had undoubetdly had critical success, but looking at things objectively I don't think the creative success was what it was. For example, I adored the movie "Cars", I really enjoyed it. To which you could argue that Pixar had served their purpose in entertaining. However whilst I was watching running through my mind was "They've done that before", "That's recycled", "This is the same set up as X".

It was clear in my mind that Cars did reuse a lot of elements from past Pixar films, almost to a laughable point. But still I did enjoy it. But having had both a personal and objective reaction to the film, I did find it quite confusing and yes annoying that Pixar were praised as much as they were, (despite entertainment value) for something that wasn't that original.

...because their efforts have been greater, well received, and brought them more acclaim than anything Disney (as far as animation is concerned) has done in a while.

Again in terms of acclaim and reception, yes Pixar has beat Disney hands down. But looking objectively at Disney's and Pixar's films, I think the general consensus is that whilst Disney have varied the narratives and genres of their films, Pixar's films all seem to be weaved from the same loom, and thus I for one admit I have been irritated that praise has been misdirected in my opinion.

It's certainly true that you can grow to resent something if it receives in your eyes undue praise. And I personally believe that Pixar do seem to have some sort of get out clause, where flaws have been glossed over. Pixar have made some of the best animated films out there and have are to be thanked for a rejuvination of the art form. But at times this is all that people talk about and flaws and inconsistencies have gone unnoticed in the past. Whereas the opposite seems to happen with Disney, despite any good animation, creativity etc it seems that they can do no right. And when all you hear is Disney are crap, Pixar are great, Disney are crap, Pixar are great, well it could have the adverse effect of making someone loathe Pixar and oversupport Disney.

This Pixar bashing needs to stop, and it needs to stop NOW! I, as many others, are sick of it. If, every single time, we come to the General Discussion board to see someone bashing them, why should we continue to return? I am to the point that I don't even want to frequent these boards, because of the Pixar bashing.

And yet when Home on the Range/Atlantis etc have the life bashed out of them it seems OK? You can't so much as mention either film (or some others) without post after post of how they were box office flops, badly animated etc. yet after what must be a tiny number of criticisms of Pixar is suddenly unjust?

[Lars Vermundsberget]

So are pimps and crack dealers. But you wouldn't let them entertain your children.

WOW!!!! How many hours of thinking did you invest to come up with such non-applicable analogy!!!

Bringing pimps and crack dealers into the equation might be going a bit far, since this is about animated films to considerable extent targeted at kids and families. Nevertheless, it is quite common to use hyperbole to bring a point across - in other words: it's a figure of speech, not supposed to be taken literally.

[ichabod]

Nevertheless, it is quite common to use hyperbole to bring a point across - in other words: it's a figure of speech, not supposed to be taken literally.

Thank You, although things like hyperbole, sarcasm and irony are things that aren't often grasped round these parts.

Isn't hyperbole what the winners of the superbole go on to play in?

[Lars Vermundsberget]

Yeah, you seem to be aware of the fact that we're not talking about "hyper-bowl" here.

[reyquila]

I love wit or sarcasm, but the truth is that any company's goal is making money!!!!

[Lars Vermundsberget]

The part about money is true, of course. Nevertheless, some of us tend to hope that there are "elements" within the organization that even have a different sort of motivation.