Hoppers

[PatchofBlue]

Unfortunately, PIXAR don't really make those calls themselves, they and WDAS both answer to larger Disney. I don't think they really see any of the recent originals from WDAS or PIXAR that have been hit hard since the pandemic/streaming took over as "successful" aside from Encanto. The differences between their performances is negligible.

I think your conclusion is largely, regrettably, accurate. (Regrettable just because the conclusion itself is unfavorable.)

But something like the false start of this movie poses some questions. "Hoppers" had a better than expected blast-off, which both Pixar and journalists keyed on, around the time that figures like Docter were sort of publicly washing their hands of movies like "Elemental," like Pixar had finally cracked the code and "Hoppers" was going to lead them out of the pits of their mistakes.

And so the fact that their golden boy is actually going to land behind that movie puts them in kind of an awkward position. Like, they counted their chickens before they hatched. But it could also present a lesson.

There have been consistent ceilings to how well their post-pandemic films have performed. So either, they've all been just rotten films. Or, there's some kind of error with the method of delivery that they need to evaluate if they want their films to perform better. And as someone who has generally liked the output of both Pixar and WDAS since Disney+ launched, I have definite opinions about what the answer is.

[Disney's Divinity]

I use the world "negligible," because ultimately it is understandable PIXAR's performances are a tad higher than WDAS' temporarily because WDAS is the one that took the bullet for Chapek's PR issues with Strange World's entire creation (and lack of push) being built around him. Because of that, their originals will take a touch longer to grow back up than PIXAR, but ultimately the difference is minimal.

I think the company is much kinder to Raya, Encanto, Luca, and Turning Red than later originals because they were more directly hit by the pandemic--Raya worst of all. Leaving aside Encanto, which already grabbed attention back then, I think those films have grown more goodwill over time than most of the originals that followed (partly, imo, because they overdoing the course-correcting by dumbing things a little too much). We know a sequel to Encanto is a lock, and hopefully when its performance shows a similar massive jump in petformance between original and sequel at the box office that Moana and Moana 2 did (from 600 million to a billion), they'll experiment with a sequel to one of those others, giving them an opportunity at redeeming a property or two that they put a lit into. Raya makes the most sense with the world being built with a franchise in mind to begin with and feeling like most of those 2010s Revival films. I could see a sequel to Turning Red that ages the characters to teenagers possibly working, but it's not the type of film where external conflict can easily be introduced to create new story like with Raya, it's more of an internal conflict type of story. Luca, sort of the same. I guess that ties into a lot of PIXAR's recent stories being labeled "too personal" behind the scenes--they feel small and internal, which is not conducive to sequels and franchise-building which was the whole purpose Disney moved into 3D from 2D. They like that easy franchise money that comes from remakes and sequels.

[PatchofBlue]

I don't know that the personal-ness of 2020s Pixar movies would have done much to inhibit follow-ups. I'd agree that "Turning Red" and maybe "Luca" could have had a harder time. But with something like "ONWARD," they would hypothetically have no problems landing on some kind of fantasy-quest incentive tied into, I don't know, Ian applying for college. "Elio," all they need is some reason for them to beam him back up to the spaceship. And a sequel for "Elemental" was explored with Ember and Wade having a steam-baby.
https://thedirect.com/article/elemental ... -exclusive

[Sotiris]

Disney has praised Hoppers in their second-quarter earnings report.

Even as we invest in existing franchises, we know the importance of taking creative risks to build new ones. Hoppers, from Pixar, is a strong example of our focus on original IP, and we are pleased with its critical reception and the enthusiasm with which fans have embraced the story and characters.

Source: https://s206.q4cdn.com/979796730/files/ ... rnings.pdf

[PatchofBlue]

https://screenrant.com/pixar-hoppers-mo ... june-2026/

Landing on Disney+ on June 3rd

After they announced a six month window for "Fire & Ash," I was hoping this movie would have a longer window also. Maybe not even as long as "Fire & Ash," but longer than their usual 3 month span. Yet here it comes right on schedule. Oh, well.

[Disney Duster]

I waited to see this movie on Disney+ because I don’t have much money to spend on movies. I was interested in this movie from the first trailer. I loved this movie! It was very fun and funny and cute! It was not really profound like Pixar’s top tier movies, but I count it perhaps just under their very best because it is such a feel good movie. A movie that makes you feel joy can be important, too.

I was worried with the part where all the animals were together and working out with the beaver king the film would be dumb and not make sense, but everything after that made perfect sense to me. Also, I did find there to be moments of pathos, namely when George wonders what happened to beaver!Mabel after he saw her hop back into her human body for the first time, and the end with them on the rock and the “red heart”s! Also, I thought Mabel killed the insect queen accidentally, Farerb? And I had no idea that was Meryl Streep till I read it here!

I thought this was a great movie. Yes, it is different from Pixar’s usual, but a good movie is a good movie, I say.

[PatchofBlue]

I caught it again this weekend. I think it'll ultimately land at a respectable 8/10 for me, similar to like WALL-E and LUCA in the ranking.

I also really liked the moment where George sees Mabel's robot and human bodies for the first time.

I think the thing that'll hold it back will be the handling of the SJW elements, which I think could have been worse, but also could have been better. I have mixed feelings about the movie's whole "Well, businessmen and politicians are people too, ya' know, and there's always someone who's even worse, so who are we to ever say who's a bad guy?" attitude. Like, I'm all about recognizing the humanity of your political and ideological opponents, but I don't know how useful it is to try giving benefits of a doubt to proven narcissists or abusers of power. The thing that makes the movie a net gain, I'll say, is that they don't try to teach Mabel that she's wrong for being a disruptor or for swimming upstream in trying to protect the glade in the first place. But I'm very curious to know what the original vision for the movie was and how Pixar had to change things in order to make the suits happy.

I love that Pixar now has this wild child that shows how it can do bizarre things too, but I'll be more pleased to have "Gatto" show a more conventional Pixarian tone.

[Disney Duster]

Thanks for responding, Patches! Or should I call you Blue? Or no nickname at all? lol Sorry if you don’t want one.

So glad you agree that sad moment with George was a really good one! I thought that and the end were the heart of the film.

I think I am confused why anyone would have a problem with the handling of the environmental and SJW themes. I thought it was perfect. It’s not like the film ended with the highway getting built over the beaver damn after all. I do get you shouldn’t say some people are not bad guys, and I get that some people do need to be stopped, but I think the film saying we should try to see the good in all people…hm, ok, yes, I see where the problem is. Some people who are truly bad should be stopped. But, but, I didn’t have a problem with the film having a view that all people are good deep down inside. I mean, the evil butterfly king did get stopped! And the guy building the highway was actually good, it turned out, so…maybe the film should have said ‘everyone is good deep down, but it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t stop what is wrong’?

But I am glad you also like that Pixar can be bizarre. The bizarreness was so fun! I give this film 10/10. Rotten Tomatoes almost fully agrees, so I am very happy about that! But I am happy you gave it a 8/10. That’s a very good score!

[PatchofBlue]

For me, the hang-up with giving us an alternate bad guy to the capitalist/politician is that kind of feels like a red herring. A strawman. This overarching suggestion that there's always someone worse who actually deserves our hatred more feels like a really effective get-out-of-jail for free card, a distraction from demanding real consequences for people with proven transgressions.

And if we want to be really honest about the historical connections between titans of industry and real-life perpetuators of genocide, like the insect king calling to "squish the humans," they're usually on the same side. The "Schindler's List" situation is remarkable because it goes against historical precedent and how people with money and resources are generally the ones enabling the dictators. And so, in a sense, the film is paying lip service to this idea that we should be wary of power structures while at the same time leaving audiences ill-equipped to understand how they actually function in the real world--and that may or may not be better than just ignoring the dynamic altogether.

That said, when I was watching the film for the first time, I honestly thought that with so many of Mabel's support systems trying to steer her away her mission to save the glade, the film was going to see Mabel deciding that her whole nature-mania was some kind of projection, and something she needed to move on from, and that's not really what happened. The glade gets sacrificed, yes, but that was something the community of this space decided for themselves in order to protect the larger system. And the film's final trajectory predicts that the space will be restored as a larger range of people enlist in Mabel's cause. So, I remain grateful that they film wasn't trying so hard to appease conservatives that they gutted Mabel's baseline activism.

Anyways, no real preference for nicknames.

[Disney Duster]

I see what you mean, Patches. This is just a guess, but I think a lot of smart people have these problems with the film. That said, I think you may be reading too much into it. I think the film was saying all people are good deep down, but it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t stop people from doing bad things. The butterfly queen and king’s deaths I find just jokes. I think what the film wants is you to think ‘all beings are good deep down, but some beings being stopped from doing bad things happened to get stopped by death. Laugh and move on.’ I was worried about the same thing you were re: stopping Mabel’s activism, but yes thankfully they didn’t do that. It’s a good movie! It’s my favorite Pixar movie!

[PatchofBlue]

*shrug* I'm a liberal arts kid. "Reading too much into it" is what I do.

To me, the idea behind scrutinizing films for blindspots is less about trying to outsmart the film or the people who love it--at least it ought to be--and more about doing everything to be proactive in how we internalize messages from the media.

I do think the film is quite good, both as a vessel of entertainment and as a reflection of human values. I think the ecosystem is better for it. The fact that I'm willing to probe it so is one indication that I respect it enough to take it seriously.

[Disney Duster]

Well, I see the message as “all beings are good, look for the good, but stop the bad” and that it is a good message to internalize.

But I am so happy you think the film is good and worthy of examination like you do. I just watched it last night for my second time, and I am glad to see, looking for it, that Mabel indeed kills the insect queen accidentally.