DVDizzy Forum

It's well known I'm not a huge Pixar fan - too many of their films follow the same plot points and structure for my liking, but some interesting issues have been brought up here.

Personally, I feel that Pixar or no Pixar hand-drawn animation would suffer. People can make excuses as much as they like, but the fact of the matter is during the "boom" in CGI technology is simply was more exciting to the general audience than drawn animation. And why wouldn't it be - with every film the audience could see the art-form evolving.

I tend to think Pixar are somewhat hypocritical when proclaiming that the "story is king" - yes, I won't deny that they put a lot of time and effort into their scripts (if not exactly their stories), but they put just as much effort into advancing the technology with each and every film.

What appealed to the audiences more? The story of Finding Nemo (which was, after all, a re-tread in many respects of Toy Story) or the beautiful underwater visuals? Even those who may favour the story cannot deny that the visuals were a major selling point too. Even the DVD release had CGI underwater screensavers! Look at cars. Remember how, while talking about the story, Lasseter and company were also excited about the stadium scenes due to the number of individual spectators? Or how Pixar proudly explained the process of creating reflections on the shiny cars' paintwork? Or in Monsters, Inc how Pixar were similarly proud of their fur on Sulley. Or how much more advanced the humans were in Toy Story 2 over their first film?

I don't think you cannot separate the appeal of the story from the appeal of the technology when it comes to CGI - both are intimately connected. I say this because every Pixar film's story is built around the technology to some extent. Would Walt Disney Feature Animation have ever considered creating a hand-drawn feature film about cars? Would they have considered a film which featured a nest of hundreds, if not thousands of Ants? Or a film filled with handdrawn robots - all those straight lines and perfect curves? I don't think so - Pixars stories are obviously created with an eye to the technology and techniques of CGI, even if this isn't the primary reason for story choices. Pixar have never really done an animal driven story (the insects in A Bug's Life don't really count they were so stylised in design, and Ratatouille was mainly one animal). We've never had a film like Bambi or Lady and the Tramp or 101 Dalmatians which is centred on "realistic" animals interacting with each other (or even the more cartoony Lion King). And their first-to-be Newt would have featured primarily creatures easier to render in CGI than hairy mammals. So I think its somewhat of a folly to separate the two when analysing the success (or failure) of a film.

I also think its a folly, because films in other genres clearly and without doubt show that the public doesn't really care about story - all they care about is spectacle - and these days, spectacle generally means CGI. Have people really flocked to the Transformers movies for the story, or to see giant robots bashing each other? Yes, the CGI Transformers may be composited on live-action footage, but the appeal is sufficiently similar to draw certain comparisons between CGI/live-action hybrids and purely CGI animations. Are the action sequences of Transformers that different from the action sequences in The Incredibles?

And then of course, there's Avatar. While the technique has appeal, the script and story itself is poor - diabolically poor. It's not stopped it from becoming the biggest earning motion picture of all time. Because people want to experience the new technology, just as they did when CGI animation features were introduced and techniques were constantly innovated and updated.

I also think the fact that Toy Story has been released in 3D, without many howls of dispair or complaint show that the public see's CGI animation as being different from hand-drawn animation. Even the "minimal" IMAX re-releases of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King got more complaints and fan disdain or apathy than the 3D Toy Story makeovers.

I do feel that the appeal of CGI animation is fading now. Generally (but not exclusively) we've reached a stage where improvements between generations aren't that noticeable or impressive. We've still not managed to capture photo-realistic humans, but that's not really an issue - did we ever capture hand-drawn animation of humans which was indistinguishable from real-life? And if we do see such animation, our minds generally see it as looking somewhat odd and dismiss it as being "rotoscoped".

The advances in special effects mean that without Pixar, somebody would have had the idea of making CGI animated films. They may have been two or three years later than Toy Story, but it would of happened, and the effect on the appeal of hand-drawn animation would have been the same. Disney may have done it themselves after playing with CGI to enhance their drawn animation already, or Dreamworks may have been the first, or some other company. Would Industrial Light and Magic have stepped into the genre for example?

I think people who insist people turned away from 2D because the stories weren't up to scratch, while (generally) year after year the stories of films in other genres has suffered just as much (if not more so) but theatrical takings have (generally) year after year increased are somehow missing the bigger picture. Why would people be turned off by a poor 2D Disney film, but then flock like sheep to see Transformers II? Or Alvin and the Chipmunks II? Or the latest Saw film? Why didn't the first films put them off the sequels? Why hasn't the general disdain big-budget blockbusters have for intelligent film-goers put people off seeing any blockbuster movie?

im another who didnt understand spirited away. the animation was great, the characters memorable, but the whole concept turning people into pigs and a spirit that cant talk, a giant baby and all that confused the heck outta me.

2099net make s a lot of great points, but I must point out one thing:

every Pixar film's story is built around the technology to some extent.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. the stories they create are often meant to challenge the technology, and the capabilities of the computer triggers a lot of ideas. Like you said, it's a very co-dependent relationship, but you seem to indicate that the stories are built only around the technology that is used and that is not true. The production and visuals are built around the technology, but stories like UP come from real life.


Oh, and for blockbusters I have two words: tent pole.


And I totally got Spirited Away. I got that it was in another dimension.

ajmrowland wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by that. the stories they create are often meant to challenge the technology, and the capabilities of the computer triggers a lot of ideas. Like you said, it's a very co-dependent relationship, but you seem to indicate that the stories are built only around the technology that is used and that is not true. The production and visuals are built around the technology, but stories like UP come from real life.

But it all depends on what is classified as "story". Story is a undefined word, and its impossible to quantify. Personally, I think too many Pixar stories have the same basic pattern. But what is a story exactly?

The following describes a great many Pixar films: Mismatched couple find themselves in a position where they have to work together, start to gel with each other, encounter some misunderstanding or argument, split up, one rescues the other, at the end both are friends again.

That synopsis covers Toy Story 1, Toy Story 2, Monsters Inc (to a lesser extent), Finding Nemo, Wall-E and Up.

Pixar have other stand-bys which are commonly used too - the broken/repaired initially scary toys in Toy Story are the same as the initially scary inhabitants of the aquarium in Finding Nemo or the broken/to be repaired robots in Wall-E. Darla in Finding Nemo is the same as Sid in Toy Story. The Plant in Wall-E serves the same purpose as Boo does in Monsters, Inc. While I've jet to see Up, Dug sounds similar to Dory (and seems to have the same basic motivation too).

When I point this out to people, they say that while the story may have similarities, they're different because they have different characters and settings. Fine. But if you accept that, then it becomes harder to seperate story from animation medium, because as I pointed out before, Pixar most definitely do based character and location choices on the technology that they have available to them.

Personally, I think the bulk of a story is the events - after all the bulk of a story is something that happens to characters rather than the characters actions themselves, just like real-life. Your day may involve going shopping or auditioning for a role in a stage play or crossing the Antarctic on foot, or taking part in the Olympics. But when you recount your day to others, the bulk of what you say is what happened to you, not what you did. So you may not have had enough money to buy a DVD you saw and wanted, or you may not have been called back for a second audition, or a blizzard may have made you get lost or a runner in the lane next to you may have tripped up and pushed you over. That's why I have dispute with Pixar's storytelling - because most of the time, the events are similar to events in other Pixar films and its the events which define the narrative, not the characters.

Let me put it this way - Is Scrooged the same story or not as A Christmas Carol? The characters are different, the setting is different, the environment is different. But basically, its the same story.

Oh, and for blockbusters I have two words: tent pole.

I don't quite understand this. Yes, tent pole films are expensive, have lots of merchandise and promotional parnerships and are hyped to the hills. But... you can do the same with animated films too. It doesn't explain why people would choose to see Transformers II over Princess and the Frog (or whatever). Especially if they (like any sane person) were incredibly disappointed with Transformers I. Especially when the reason for people turning away from hand-drawn animation is that previous films have been disappointing quality wise.

I just looked up the definition and story is pretty much undefined.

I completely agree with you 2099net... I personally think that Pixar itself is completely overrated. I love Pixar and enjoy watching their movies, but I don't think that some of their movies are superior to any other studio's movies. I actually think Pixar has been progressively getting worse for a while (with the exception of Wall-E). Most of their movies don't really appeal to me anymore. And some of them aren't as timeless as I thought they would be (I recently rewatched them all).

And Pixar may say story is king, but they also bascially make movies for other reasons as well (and so does every other company). What is most Pixar movies but giant marketing and merchandising opportunities? They do it, and so does everyone else. Their main priority is not ONLY to make quality movies...

I think why Pixar appeals to so many people is the grandeur to each movie. Every movie is very elaborate.

ajmrowland wrote:I just looked up the definition and story is pretty much undefined.

Correct, which is another reason why simply saying "its the storytelling that let hand-drawn animation down" is meaningless. Basically, it means nothing at all. It's just a buzz-word people have latched onto for animation, while ignoring the fact similar "storytelling" issues and problems haven't affected box office takings in general at all.

I also don't think it's their fault though that 2d animation isnt what it used to be. It's no pixar itself but the exciting new technology with the addition to the poor marketing schemes going on at Disney.

Babaloo wrote:And Pixar may say story is king, but they also bascially make movies for other reasons as well (and so does every other company). What is most Pixar movies but giant marketing and merchandising opportunities? They do it, and so does everyone else. Their main priority is not ONLY to make quality movies...

Pixar do make good movies, and do put a lot of time and effort into their scripts. I just wish they would do something dramatically different for their next movie. (and no, Wall-E or Up isn't dramatically different).

I think why Pixar appeals to so many people is the grandeur to each movie. Every movie is very elaborate.

But then we're going back to CGI appealing visually to audiences more than hand-drawn animation does. Which I think is true. Pixar or no Pixar, hand-drawn animation will still be going through similar problems.

Obviously Pixar do make good movies and take a great amount of time in planning and executing each one. But so does every other company, just some movies appeal more to some and not to others.

And also obviously 2d animation would have its problems with or without Pixar. CGI was "new" and like everything else that's new, everyone wanted it. 2d Animation will never be as it once was, which I think is better since it will be more of a treat when a 2d movie does come out.