Disney's Divinity wrote:It's not as if their movies were inferior though; many of their successful films early on were some of my least favorites. I guess there was just something about Pixar the public loved--unfortunately.
Well, personally, on the whole, I think Pixar is superior to Dreamworks in that they are able to more consistently deliver quality films. But no matter what your opinion on Pixar, I don't see how it's "unfortunate" that Pixar is beloved by the public.
That said, I do think Dreamworks is unfairly maligned. I mean, I understand that they have made some films that are less than great, and while I still think
Shrek is a great film, I also lamented the unfortunate trends that it seemed to have propelled into mainstream animation. Their faults seem to have put their entire filmography into a bad light, and it irks me when people still criticize them for their abundance of "pop culture references" when their films, for the most part, have moved away from that long ago.
Fflewduur wrote:The Bear's precipitous drop-off at home, though, had to be a huge concern. You want to succeed at home because it’s *where you are*. Besides that, though, there are all the additional costs involved in localized overseas production and promotion. (I can’t recall if it’s been done anywhere else in the Disney product line, but I remember being really tickled by a bonus in one of the Toy Story releases—playing through the Buzz-meets-the-gang scene while changing languages every line or two. English, French, Spanish, German, Italian, Portugese, Brazilian Portugese, Mandarin, and on and on. Dubs and internationally-accessible marketing have to be bought and paid for; if you're looking at 15 or 20 languages, that adds up.)
Not to mention losses in merchandising revenue. Some films just lend themselves better to tie-ins than others (like Toy Story and Cars, which franchises have shelf life on the toy aisle far exceeding the holiday season following their most recent respective releases). Something like Brother Bear isn’t going to generate such remunerative tie-ins anyway, but you don’t want to find yourself in the position of having paid out for development and manufacture of a bunch of crap no one’s ever going to buy. That kind of less isn’t reflected in box office receipts, but it sure does inform a studio’s perspective on its property.
All great points. Especially about the merchandising. I think
Cars 2 and the supposed plan for
Cars 3 is quite telling in regards to that point.
Fflewduur wrote:But the aggregate critical consensus would be.
I give
TPatF the edge for a lot of reasons—there’s more *there* there. It’s more technically demanding and satisfying, with more characters, more styles, more different kinds of sequences, a more interesting story, more ominous & intriguing forces opposing the protagonists…plus an advantage in the variety of storytelling styles afforded by production numbers (including musical contributions by a world-renowned songwriter). But it’s not really fair—nor does it make much sense—to try and aesthetically compare such different films head-to-head; the point is how well any given film fulfills its own ambitions, tells its own story. I’ve never understood the love for
Lilo because I don’t care for it. I find nothing endearing about Stitch in design or in behavior, there’s nothing in the story that struck me as surprising or clever, and the emotional manipulation at its ohana heart was just too transparent for me. To each his or her own.
The aggregate critical consensus would be.... that they're about equal.
Well, I don't know your sources, but that's according to the Rotten Tomatoes Tomato Meter, RT average rating, and their aggregate scores on Metacritic, anyway. Though I suppose PATF got more of that "The best Disney animated film since
The Lion King!" speak, which I'd more than anything attribute to it being the first hand-drawn film by them in 5 years and the first musical since the 90s, and not necessarily because it was actually better than everything in between. Though I'd actually place it above a good majority of those films myself. I actually think it is quite a solid film, and perhaps only prefer L&S because it connected with me better. (I think they're both solid, but flawed films.)
I agree with a lot of your points as to what makes makes PATF a strong film. I particularly agree with your points about diversity in styles and sequences and the technical feats in animation. And regardless of what people say, PATF has a GREAT songtrack--the lack of respect that Randy Newman gets among Disney fans is frankly appalling. I can see that they aren't songs that would typically be thought of as songs from musicals, but they're catchy, well-written, serve their function well, and they do a great job at taking the jazzy, New Orleans style and making it palatable and accessible to mainstream audiences. And people give so much credit to
Frozen for playing around with the Disney fairy tale tropes and conventions, but PATF actually did it first.
I don't see L&S as a perfect film by any means, but in terms of technical and artistic achievements, I don't see how this could be seen as lesser than PATF--it has great character animation, gorgeous watercolor backgrounds, and some unique character designs that truly break the Disney mold (and I'm not talking about the aliens). It has some great Hawaiian-inspired choral songs, along with a great score by Alan Silvestri and an enlightened use of Elvis songs. Sure, it doesn't have "ominous & instriguing forces opposing the protagonists," but that's not needed here. And neither does it need a "variety of storytelling styles." Despite the all of the hijinks with the aliens that frame the film, this is a very intimate and deliberately paced story, and the struggles that the protagonists face largely come from within themselves and their relationships with one another. The two core relationships, between Lilo and Stitch, and Lilo and Nani, I find compelling and realistic, perhaps moreso than any since the Walt era. I do think Stitch's behavior is a little
too erratic at times, and that is one of the flaws I find in the film. If it was toned down a bit, I think he would have had a more even transition from an un-likeable to likeable character. Still, I didn't find the heart or the emotional punch of the film to be forced or unearned, in the way that say, the message that Tiana "NEEDS" (romantic) love was very jarringly forced into PATF's narrative (one of my biggest peeves with that film).
I actually do think it may have more flaws than PATF, which largely come about due to its quirks and eccentricities playing out a little unevenly. Still, I ultimately find it the more compelling film. And I think it it succeeds in doing what it set out to do.
So I totally do agree with your point that "the point is how well any given film fulfills its own ambitions, tells its own story." I actually made this very point in a different forum last night.
).
