DVDizzy Forum

Awesome. I love watching Pixar dig it's own grave. It needs to be put it's place, below Disney animation. So sick of them being thought of as superior.

FlyingPiggy wrote:Awesome. I love watching Pixar dig it's own grave. It needs to be put it's place, below Disney animation. So sick of them being thought of as superior.

This is mentally retarded.

Hey, did anyone read this?

http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/pixa ... iginality/

Lnds500 wrote:

FlyingPiggy wrote:Awesome. I love watching Pixar dig it's own grave. It needs to be put it's place, below Disney animation. So sick of them being thought of as superior.

This is mentally retarted.

http://www.r-word.org/

The word you're looking for is "petty" and it might be, but I don't care. I'm over the general conscious that the 13 years of Pixar beat the 70+ of Disney and, I'm over having people tell me the only animated movies they watch are Pixar movies.

Disney is not perfect, they've made duds- they've mostly made duds this century and I don't think that's going to change soon. BUT that doesn't negate the fact they're superior as a whole.

Sky Syndrome wrote:

PatrickvD wrote:

I love this! Did Disney release that? There was that blooper on the Lion King Diamond Edition of Rafiki tripping and Simba flying out of his arms.

No, Fan made.
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/explo ... l#comments

Sky Syndrome wrote:Did Disney release that? There was that blooper on the Lion King Diamond Edition of Rafiki tripping and Simba flying out of his arms.

No, as Kyle said that's fan-made. This is the one you remember from The Lion King blooper reel.

I find the fan made one funnier somehow. Its the difference of being accidental versus purposely tossing him over. And everyone celebrates.
Disney doesn't have the guts to try something like that with their characters.

I used it as a metaphor for the way power has corrupted John Lasseter. I'm no longer defending him.

Time for him to retire.

Kyle wrote:I find the fan made one funnier somehow. Its the difference of being accidental versus purposely tossing him over. And everyone celebrates.

Me too, the fan made one is much funnier it actually makes me laugh, the blooper however, not even a smile. It's tired as hell and not really funny seeing tripping/falling gags when they've been done time and time again, it's the equivalent to potty humour.

PatrickvD wrote:I used it as a metaphor for the way power has corrupted John Lasseter. I'm no longer defending him.

Time for him to retire.

Not to mention what he says quite often goes out the window, Simba could be a metaphor for his words

FlyingPiggy wrote:http://www.r-word.org/

The word you're looking for is "petty" and it might be, but I don't care. I'm over the general conscious that the 13 years of Pixar beat the 70+ of Disney and, I'm over having people tell me the only animated movies they watch are Pixar movies.

Disney is not perfect, they've made duds- they've mostly made duds this century and I don't think that's going to change soon. BUT that doesn't negate the fact they're superior as a whole.

No, the word I was looking for was retarded cause your attitude is exactly that.

So your solution to Disney making bad movies is Pixar making equally bad (or worse) movies? There is something called competition and Disney needed someone superior in the game so they would move off of their asses. Pixar was just that company and Disney -apparently- learnt a thing or two from them. Unfortunately so did Pixar.

Lnds500 wrote:No, the word I was looking for was retarded 'cause your attitude is exactly that.

Please avoid using the word "retarded" as it is considered offensive.

Thank you.

Lnds500 wrote:

FlyingPiggy wrote:http://www.r-word.org/

The word you're looking for is "petty" and it might be, but I don't care. I'm over the general conscious that the 13 years of Pixar beat the 70+ of Disney and, I'm over having people tell me the only animated movies they watch are Pixar movies.

Disney is not perfect, they've made duds- they've mostly made duds this century and I don't think that's going to change soon. BUT that doesn't negate the fact they're superior as a whole.

No, the word I was looking for was retarded cause your attitude is exactly that.

So your solution to Disney making bad movies is Pixar making equally bad (or worse) movies? There is something called competition and Disney needed someone superior in the game so they would move off of their asses. Pixar was just that company and Disney -apparently- learnt a thing or two from them. Unfortunately so did Pixar.

I think Disney's problems stem from a corporate chokehold/meddling and a lack of proper leadership to advocate for them. Not from lack of motivation or creativity. Tangled is one of my favorite movies, and Wreck It Ralph wasn't my personal favorite, but a very worthy offering and Paperman was a beauty. Still things seem shaky, the snowman is Frozen is a million steps back.

Healthy competition is great, but Disney and Pixar are basically sibling's since they have the same "dad." And Disney is the step kid man. Not even the only and def not his favorite (that'd be the parks).

I can just see them coming...

Cars 3: Mater and Lightning McQueen travel back in time to a world of dinosaur monster trucks.

Brave 2: It's finally time for Merida to marry her very own prince charming, but will her strict mother approve?

Down: Russ and Doug struggle to come to terms with Carl's untimely death.

Lnds500 wrote:

FlyingPiggy wrote:http://www.r-word.org/

The word you're looking for is "petty" and it might be, but I don't care. I'm over the general conscious that the 13 years of Pixar beat the 70+ of Disney and, I'm over having people tell me the only animated movies they watch are Pixar movies.

Disney is not perfect, they've made duds- they've mostly made duds this century and I don't think that's going to change soon. BUT that doesn't negate the fact they're superior as a whole.

No, the word I was looking for was retarded cause your attitude is exactly that.

So your solution to Disney making bad movies is Pixar making equally bad (or worse) movies? There is something called competition and Disney needed someone superior in the game so they would move off of their asses. Pixar was just that company and Disney -apparently- learnt a thing or two from them. Unfortunately so did Pixar.

Do not say the r word. It's an offensive word.

FlyingPiggy wrote:

Lnds500 wrote: This is mentally retarted.

http://www.r-word.org/

The word you're looking for is "petty" and it might be, but I don't care. I'm over the general conscious that the 13 years of Pixar beat the 70+ of Disney and, I'm over having people tell me the only animated movies they watch are Pixar movies.

Disney is not perfect, they've made duds- they've mostly made duds this century and I don't think that's going to change soon. BUT that doesn't negate the fact they're superior as a whole.

I tend to agree. Regardless of the actual quality of their releases, I feel Pixar needs a lesson in humility. Some of their executives' and directors' statements border on pathologically egotistical and fanatical.

TsWade2 wrote:Do not say the r word. It's an offensive word.

Thanks, I had a hard time understanding what Sotiris told me, that was very helpful.

FlyingPiggy wrote:I think Disney's problems stem from a corporate chokehold/meddling and a lack of proper leadership to advocate for them. Not from lack of motivation or creativity. Tangled is one of my favorite movies, and Wreck It Ralph wasn't my personal favorite, but a very worthy offering and Paperman was a beauty. Still things seem shaky, the snowman is Frozen is a million steps back.

Healthy competition is great, but Disney and Pixar are basically sibling's since they have the same "dad." And Disney is the step kid man. Not even the only and def not his favorite (that'd be the parks).

Anyway, that doesn't explain how Pixar's lowering quality is the ideal solution to Disney's problem. Nor is it logical to think this way but whatever.

I highly doubt that there will be a Cars 3. Right now they have those dumb Planes films which should feed John Lasster's love for that franchise for now

All I have to say is that one of these sequels better be The Incredibles 2 even if Brad Bird isn't back as the director if he isn't available for it.

I wonder if it bugs Brad Bird, when people continually annoy him about making an Incredibles sequel. While I'm sure he appreciates how much people love the film, he strikes me as somebody who wants to tackle new and original projects, like Tomorrowland and 1906. He pretty much made Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol to prove that he could work on big-budget, live-action projects and thus, get the confidence from studios to give him more ambitious, original films.

I think we've lost Brad Bird to live-action filmmaking for good. Although he still loves animation, he seems to be prefer the live-action filmmaking process. I don't blame him really. In live-action, there's more money, more status, more creative freedom, more diverse material. In animation, everything needs to be family-friendly oriented which admittedly can be creatively constrictive.

I doubt he'll go back to directing an animated film, original or sequel, especially if Tomorrowland performs well at the box office.

I honestly don't blame Brad for preferring the live-action process, especially with more money and status recognition. He says that he will make an Incredibles sequel one if he has the right story, but I truly think Brad has just moved on from The Incredibles. He even turned down making Mission Impossible 5 despite fans and critics praising Ghost Protocol as the best one yet and hoping he would come back. He even turned down directing Star Wars Episode 7. Brad comes off as a person that likes to do original projects more than sequels.

As far as Tomorrowland goes in the Box Office, I think it could go either way. On one hand, George Clooney is a big name star and some people will see it just for star power. One of the other hand, competition. Tomorrowland opens Dec 12, only 5 days BEFORE the last Hobbit movie.