DVDizzy Forum

Oof, I think they learned the wrong lesson. I think Turning Red and Elemental resonated with a lot of people because those films were so personal. If Elemental had been the soulless Pixar assembly line piece it looked like from the advertising, would it have turned into the sleeper hit it became? Meanwhile, Lightyear did have mass appeal— and wasn’t that their biggest flop of their recent output? I was really enjoying the more auteur-driven Pixar. Even something I didn’t really like, like Onward, was at least refreshingly weird.

I always remember something I heard in a documentary about Fiddler on the Roof. Its wide, cross cultural appeal (it’s a big hit in Japan, apparently) seems inexplicable for a 1960’s musical about Russian Jewish peasants. But in the specificity of that experience, audiences around the world can still find things which are universal, which are common to all of us. That’s the kind of art that excites me.

Fiddler on the Roof is an absolute classic!
I love the 1964 OBC recording as well as the 1971 film soundtrack.

D23ExpoVisitor25 wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 8:36 pm I understand why people may be saddened by this.

However, since the layoffs are related to Disney+ and no longer doing anymore series for Disney+, with the exception of the already-finished Win or Lose due out later in the year, maybe this, down the line, will be a good thing in order to make Pixar more strong and viable for the big screen again, in my opinion.

I know many of you won’t see it my way, but that’s how I feel and believe this will go.

We now have word of an inside out tv series, so this flies in the face of the supposed reasoning behind the layoffs.

Kyle wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2024 8:04 pm

D23ExpoVisitor25 wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 8:36 pm I understand why people may be saddened by this.

However, since the layoffs are related to Disney+ and no longer doing anymore series for Disney+, with the exception of the already-finished Win or Lose due out later in the year, maybe this, down the line, will be a good thing in order to make Pixar more strong and viable for the big screen again, in my opinion.

I know many of you won’t see it my way, but that’s how I feel and believe this will go.

We now have word of an inside out tv series, so this flies in the face of the supposed reasoning behind the layoffs.

That’s more a short-series than a long-form series, which was worked on at the same time as Inside Out 2 and Win Or Lose, and Puck News (or I believe another trade) also said that one be one of the projects that would be finished up before the lay-offs, hence why it was said Win Or Lose and another unannounced project at Pixar for Disney+ would be finished prior to the layoffs. Even when the report that Kalling and Hader wouldn’t be back for Inside Out 2 came out, Puck said this series was being worked on at the time.

So, no, this doesn’t fly in the face of the supposed reasoning behind the lay-offs.

UmbrellaFish wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2024 2:12 pm Oof, I think they learned the wrong lesson. I think Turning Red and Elemental resonated with a lot of people because those films were so personal. If Elemental had been the soulless Pixar assembly line piece it looked like from the advertising, would it have turned into the sleeper hit it became? Meanwhile, Lightyear did have mass appeal— and wasn’t that their biggest flop of their recent output? I was really enjoying the more auteur-driven Pixar. Even something I didn’t really like, like Onward, was at least refreshingly weird.

Yeah. I think you hit the nail on the head. There's just no basis in anything resembling the creative process for the arguments they're pushing. The big talking points on all the YouTube vids, podcast, forums is that people are drawing away from Hollywood because it's all so samey and boilerplate. They are absolutely plugging into the wrong sources. If anything, Elemental's long-term grosses should indicate that it's the personal stories that are their "safe bets," especially in the wake of something like Lightyear.

Man, lightyear could have been a safe bet, but they made it take itself too seriously, and didn't even really follow the lore teased in the movies. I would have been all over it had they made it look like it was actually made/written in the 90s. How cool would that have been? You know how zurg was a sort of a caricature of vader? Don't try to run away from that, embrace it. Its fun. Up the cheeze factor more, there's your movie with mass appeal.

PatchofBlue wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2024 2:13 pm

UmbrellaFish wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2024 2:12 pm Oof, I think they learned the wrong lesson. I think Turning Red and Elemental resonated with a lot of people because those films were so personal. If Elemental had been the soulless Pixar assembly line piece it looked like from the advertising, would it have turned into the sleeper hit it became? Meanwhile, Lightyear did have mass appeal— and wasn’t that their biggest flop of their recent output? I was really enjoying the more auteur-driven Pixar. Even something I didn’t really like, like Onward, was at least refreshingly weird.

Yeah. I think you hit the nail on the head. There's just no basis in anything resembling the creative process for the arguments they're pushing. The big talking points on all the YouTube vids, podcast, forums is that people are drawing away from Hollywood because it's all so samey and boilerplate. They are absolutely plugging into the wrong sources. If anything, Elemental's long-term grosses should indicate that it's the personal stories that are their "safe bets," especially in the wake of something like Lightyear.

Well, it seems the only personal story left to try and make a hit for Pixar, especially if it is good, is Elio next June. So unless we wanna give up all hope that more personal stories will be able to be told at Pixar, I suggest we reconsider and make sure Elio is successful enough to make the Disney execs reconsider their stance

Pixar Boss Doesn't Want to Do Live-Action Remakes: 'It Sort of Bothers Me'
https://www.ign.com/articles/pixar-boss ... bothers-me

"Part of our strategy is to try to balance our output with more sequels. It's hard. Everybody says, 'Why don't they do more original stuff?' And then when we do, people don't see it because they're unfamiliar with it," Docter explained. "With sequels, people think, "Oh, I've seen that. I know that I like it." Sequels are very valuable that way."

This is my entire mood, buddy.

Like, I'm not sure how I'll feel if Inside Out 2 does solid numbers this weekend. I definitely don't want them to see it as more valuable than a movie like Elemental, especially since all the headlines have somehow decided that Elemental DIDN'T actually get that incredible bounce back at the box office and this would be the first hit Pixar's had since before the wars, but I also don't want Pixar creatives to pay the price for upper management shenanigans.

I guess my campaign to get Elio to hit a billion starts today.

I noticed that about Elemental, too, that articles lately are lumping it with Lightyear, saying both did badly at the box office, vs. emphasizing that Elemental ended up doing great...

PatchofBlue wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 1:00 am

"Part of our strategy is to try to balance our output with more sequels. It's hard. Everybody says, 'Why don't they do more original stuff?' And then when we do, people don't see it because they're unfamiliar with it," Docter explained. "With sequels, people think, "Oh, I've seen that. I know that I like it." Sequels are very valuable that way."

This is my entire mood, buddy.

Like, I'm not sure how I'll feel if Inside Out 2 does solid numbers this weekend. I definitely don't want them to see it as more valuable than a movie like Elemental, especially since all the headlines have somehow decided that Elemental DIDN'T actually get that incredible bounce back at the box office and this would be the first hit Pixar's had since before the wars, but I also don't want Pixar creatives to pay the price for upper management shenanigans.

I guess my campaign to get Elio to hit a billion starts today.

I'm in the same boat. I only want inside out to be a success because I want Pixar as a whole to be a healthy studio that does well. But that last thing I want to encourage a steady stream of sequels, so I'm torn. inside out isnt exactly at risk for being run into the ground yet, so I'm ok with it existing. I just dont like the idea of being going "see, I told yall audiences dont want new ip"

Q: I want to ask you, too, about the Bloomberg article that came out recently. My takeaway was that fans were a little anxious about prioritizing sequels over original storytelling. What do you want to impart to fans about the current state of Pixar?

Pete Docter: One thing that I think was maybe slightly misinterpreted was the idea that we have to deliver more of what people know and maybe lean away from the personal. All of that's true to some degree, but I think what we're always trying to do is find what are the universal things that everybody believes, both in terms of concepts and in terms of life experience. So, for example, I thought [as a kid] my toys came to life. I thought there were monsters that lived in the closet. We're looking for those kinds of big, universal things that people go, "I already know that it's an original idea, but it's a concept that I had, too." So it's kind of a sequel in that way. You know what I mean? There's a limited number of those, so they each have to be done in a very unique way through a specific lens. We want to hold onto that, but we want to make sure that they speak widely.

Q: Are all of the projects that you've announced so far, like Elio and Toy Story 5, still in development?

Pete Docter: Yeah. We have two originals coming out next. We have two original films coming out, and then Toy Story, and then some more original. We still have a little bit of work to do to get to the balance that was talked about in the Bloomberg article one to one, which is exciting. We can talk again in a couple of years. We have a lot of stuff that is in the works now that I'm pretty excited about.

Q: So, original storytelling is still very much a priority?

Pete Docter: Absolutely. Even in sequels, the worry is that you're going to end up just repeating either plot lines or themes that we've dealt with before. We had early versions of Inside Out 2 where they're going after the core memories again, and we gotta shake this up. So we made a lot of decisions based on the desire not to repeat ourselves.

Q: Focusing on more diverse voices in filmmaking has been a priority for you for a long time. Would you say that it’s still a priority?

Pete Docter: Absolutely. I have a great slide of the directors from seven years ago versus the directors now, and it's a whole wide group of filmmakers. Regardless of diversity, any time someone goes in for the first time, there's a steep learning curve.

Source: https://ew.com/pixar-future-pete-docter ... el-8662040

Pete Docter: One thing that I think was maybe slightly misinterpreted was the idea that we have to deliver more of what people know and maybe lean away from the personal.

Yeah, I thought that was a weird twist on his words. Or rather, I'd hoped that was a distortion of what he meant.

Personally, I'm happy for Inside Out 2's success, I wouldn't be surprised if we see the same thing happen with Moana 2 this fall. Ultimately, this is why they decided to prioritize sequels... It pays off more often than not. I know, it's a shame it's harder to make something original take off. I personally thought Raya was so good and yet nada; I only wonder if it had had music, if maybe that might've helped it at least have some kind of shelflife on streaming. Wish, I was hoping it would be great, it was just okay, but even despite my personal reaction to the film, I would've thought it would be moderately successful and launch another original IP. (Strange World I never expected to do well, not because of the whole "controversy," but just because it didn't look very good on top of reminding me of the early '00s flops as far as marketing / concept went.) On the other side, I actually liked both Luca and Turning Red, which felt very weird to me considering I usually don't enjoy PIXAR films, not as crazy about Soul, Lightyear, and Elemental. Both Elemental and Wish felt slightly more childish at times than I normally expect from both studios, maybe because they're in a bit of a tailspin at the moment they've been told to "simplify" their stories by higher-ups or something? At least that's my guess since both felt that way. But you can't blame the studios for putting out nonstop sequels when nobody watches original content. I'm personally not as against sequels as many are, I think sequels can be very good--depending. I liked Frozen's sequel (surprising since I don't think fairytales are well-suited to them), the first two Toy Story sequels, I'd go so far as to say that Finding Dory was much better than the first, and Inside Out's sequel sounds like it may turn out to be pretty good. I wouldn't say I was "fond" of Ralph Breaks the Internet, but it was about even the original, if not a smidge better (low bar, I know). There are always bad sequels (Monsters University was terrible; TS5 wasn't quite that bad, just middling; Incredibles 2 was better when I watched it recently directly following the first, but still a little disappointing), but the likelihood of them being bad or good is the same as it would be with something original.

Of course, I know this irks people to say, but I personally still say they should just do away with PIXAR and fold most of those employees into WDAS as a department to work on any sequels to PIXAR IP like Inside Out 3, Toy Story 5, etc. Maybe some of the better employees like Shi could even branch out and make something original under WDAS. Elemental did manage to barely break even whereas Wish lost money, but it ultimately was a marginal difference at best. It's not like one did massive numbers and the other nothing at all, there was maybe a 100 to 200 million difference between the two. The WDAS film had to follow Strange World on top of it and I think that's what Iger is probably thinking, too, and we know Chapek had a lot to do with foisting SW on WDAS in response to the controversy he himself caused. I'd ultimately still say Encanto is the only original IP from either studio the past 5 years to be well-known, but perhaps Elemental is more like Zootopia as far as not really being talked about very much despite being successful? I'd be surprised if Elio does better than Elemental since it seems in the same lane as Lightyear/Strange World, although it will at least get to follow a big success like IO2. Regardless, WDAS will eventually get off the ground again in the next few years though with the whole sequels strategy pulling them out of the constant negative headlines, and they do have the longer legacy between the two studios with a history of comebacks.

Disney's Divinity wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:21 am, I'd go so far as to say that Finding Dory was much better than the first, and Inside Out's sequel sounds like it may turn out to be pretty good. I wouldn't say I was "fond" of Ralph Breaks the Internet, but it was about even the original, if not a smidge better (low bar, I know). There are always bad sequels (Monsters University was terrible; TS5 wasn't quite that bad, just middling;

I didnt hate finding dory as much as I did cars 2, but I'm surprised you liked it more than the original. like cars I feel like it suffered from the same concept of trying to make a star out of a side kick character. It doesnt quite work, you can tell they were never meant to be focused on that intently in a story.

I completely disagree about ralph's sequel, the original was pretty solid imo. The sequel was borderline trash, the only redeemable thing about it for me was seeing the disney princesses interact, but they shouldnt have even needed them.

I also disagree about monsters university, my one quibble though is I wish they had taken the story they alluded to in the credits and made that part of the story. That looked like it would be a good second half of the story or something. Oh, and I still dont like how it seems to retcon some things for no good reason.

Toy story 5 is not out yet.

Kyle wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 3:50 pm
Toy story 5 is not out yet.

He's an oracle ...

You could have guessed I meant TS4... Of course PatchOfBlue's only here to stir drama, so I'll ignore them. I don't think WIR is solid myself, I always thought it was nearly as weak as BH6 was, although King Candy was a decent villain.

Disney's Divinity wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 4:27 pm Of course PatchOfBlue's only here to stir drama, so I'll ignore them.

Not totally sure where you're pulling that from? I generally try to steer clear of drama online and off, and I have definitely bowed out of conversations on this board when I could tell the direction was veering toward hysteria. My last post was just benign facetiousness.

Pete Docter seems to be embracing AI in a new interview.

Q: Where do you see the future of animation, especially given concerns about AI?

Pete Docter: I think we are at in so many ways, right? We’re at this weird crossroads or a new horizon, a lot like streaming. It’s not new anymore, but I think it’s still a little bit of the wild west of what exactly the types of shows people are looking for and the delivery mechanism, the storytelling. I think we are at a place now where two, three generations have grown up on Toy Story specifically. And so what’s going to be new and surprising to them, I think we’re always trying to reach for that. We’ve got some cool stuff in the works that is an attempt to answer that question in our way, but I think it’ll be really interesting.

And the technology, the same thing. Toy Story was a real game changer for a lot of my peers that studied hand-drawn animation. That’s how we thought. I pictured, I’d be sitting at a desk drawing Mickey Mouse and instead I’m with a mouse and I’m moving a puppet virtually in screen. And people were like, “What?” at that time. And now that’s become a commonplace. And I think the latest is AI that just makes people go, what? I type in polar bear in the city having a Coca-Cola and it happens. So how useful is that? I think the answer is that in the end, why do we watch these things? It’s to feel something, to speak to our own experience as human beings. And AI can do that somewhat. And I think it’s a great tool for people who know how to use it to say something about the human experience. And so I think it will be a game changer, but still most effective and most powerful in the hands of artists and storytellers.

My experience so far in a lot of different ways, it’s kind of like it takes something and sands the edges down, so it makes the blob average. And that could be very useful in a lot of ways. But if you really want to do something brand new and really insightful and speak from a personal angle, that’s not going to come from AI fully. It only ever create swhat’s been fed into it. It doesn’t create anything new, it creates a weird amalgam of stuff that’s been poured into it.

Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifes ... 236170265/

Sotiris wrote: ↑Mon Mar 24, 2025 3:21 pm why do we watch these things? It’s to feel something, to speak to our own experience as human beings. And AI can do that somewhat.

the way this makes zero sense...