DVDizzy Forum

Do you think Pixar has replaced Disney as great entertainment? Because everyone complains that Disney can no longer do a good movie to save their lives, that Pixar does that now.

Tangled is a very good movie.

As far as excitement factor, profit factor, and theme park factors go I say Pixar has been the new Disney for quite a good while. Whether or not that will ever change is yet to be seen. Since Pixar people seem to be overseeing Disney productions these days the lines could possibly be blurred.

Most definitely not!

Disney is Walt
Disney is part of a beloved TV show and host
Disney has Disneyland
Disney is an empire
Disney makes more than Movies
Disney has been a part of pop-culture for decades, and in embedded in history from the World Wars to commercial tie-ins

Pixar is limited to making movies and shorts, as well as toys.

Now if you just mean "in terms of entertainment", ie movies. I always felt Disney lost that crown and regained it many a time. Now that Pixar and Disney are part of the same company, I think Disney executives doesn't mind if they lose. So only time can tell.

I don't think Pixar is the "new Disney" as I feel that each company has it's own unique identity and can each stand on their own and co-exist with one another. In my opinion, no one does traditional animation better than Disney, and no one does CG animation better than Pixar. That's not to say that they both can't achieve success in the "opposite" medium, but I'm just going by the majority of what we've seen from each so far.

Honestly, I was never really a fan of CG animation, but over the last few months in researching and watching the Pixar films, I have begun to develop a great respect for what they do and what they have achieved. So much so that I've started to add the Pixar titles to my collection and have really enjoyed each addition so far.

I say No because Pixar doesn't have a legacy.

or a theme park much less 5 theme parks going on 6. Never mind the fact that their characters are plastered all over each disney park though...

I don't know, ask me this question again after Pixar has released 40 or so more films.

Well, with Enchanted, Bolt, The Princess and the Frog and Tangled, Disney does seem to have gotten themselves a nice, little streak going. If they keep the quality up in regards to Winnie the Pooh, Reboot Ralph, Mort and King of the Elves, I can see them re-gaining the animation crown, which Pixar now holds.

However, if we're talking about the whole company, then no, they're not the new Disney. Disney is the biggest media corporation in the world. At the moment, Pixar mainly does films and is owned by said media corporation.

Of course NOT

Disney is the new Pixar.

Super Aurora wrote:Disney is the new Pixar.

I really wanna start a poll asking "am I the only one who is sick of this Pixar versus Disney thing?"

I'd have to say no because there's no chance they'll have the longevity. Not the way Disney did. Disney were right there with American entertainment from the beginning! Pixar may have stolen their crown (and show no chances of burning out the way Don Bluth did), but they're just the best in the endtimes of entertainment history. Which, no disrespect but, isn't saying very much. They're superior to Disney now but they'll never replace Disney.

Has anybody ever thought/noticed that, ever since Lasseter took over, Disney's animated features have been getting much better but not quite as good as Pixar? Now, I'm not trying to say that John Lasseter is trying to sabotage the Disney company because, obviously, that's not true. Still, maybe he's giving Disney just enough guidance to make them good, but is pulling back a little so they don't get too good. Which, in turn, keeps Pixar in the lead.

Of course, that's just my theory. I know a number of forum members feel that Tangled > TS3, in which case, this theory is just a load of bunk.

In any case, no. Pixar is definitely not the new Disney. However, Pixar represents early Disney ideals in a way that the Disney corporation itself hasn't for many years. So there.

pinkrenata wrote:However, Pixar represents early Disney ideals in a way that the Disney corporation itself hasn't for many years. So there.

Which is why I voted "yes."

Good heavens no!

I would say no. The one thing Disney has that no other animation studio does is a heritage and history that has defined popular culture for over seventy years. Pixar has achieved remarkable things in a such a quick span of time that it's quite difficult to see how they can maintain the high standards they have set for themselves, though I really hope they will.

In terms of John Lasseter, I think he has been the best thing that has happened to Disney animation for a long time. I don't think there is a conflict of interests because of his role at Pixar, judging by the critical and commercial success of Princess and the Frog and Tangled, the two films he has completely overseen. He seems to have the right instincts in knowing what audiences want and if that continues, I think animation at Disney will have a very bright future.

Pixar is the new Disney in that it's the trusted brand in animation that recieves box office and citical success with amazing consistency (and actually the kind Disney never had in its own history).

It may not have the legacy but that's why it's the "new" Disney. And while Pixar may not be the same sized corporation (or even independent) it has driven Disney consumer products and park expansions more than completely Disney properties. Remember that its Cars that's getting a 12 acre section of DCA with a $300 million + "E-Ticket" attraction.

It was Disney that brought Pixar not the other way around. IF Disney would see any benefit from closing down Pixar they would do so.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:In terms of John Lasseter, I think he has been the best thing that has happened to Disney animation for a long time. I don't think there is a conflict of interests because of his role at Pixar, judging by the critical and commercial success of Princess and the Frog and Tangled, the two films he has completely overseen. He seems to have the right instincts in knowing what audiences want and if that continues, I think animation at Disney will have a very bright future.

Well said! I have developed a great respect for John Lasseter recently, after watching countless behind-the-scenes interviews and doing a little research on his career. He seems to be just what Disney Animation needs right now, and I think he is doing very well. You can tell he honestly enjoys what he does, and although I am sure he likes the paycheck(s) at the end of the day, I don't think he is completely driven by $$$.

One thing one must remember is that for many years, Disney was quite simply the only real major animation studio, and thus the market dominator. Even in the days of the Golden Age of Animation, Disney stood out as being the only studio that made animated features, and thus the only studio that survived beyond the 1960s. The only time before the 90s when somebody else almost stole Disney's crown was with Don Bluth in the mid 80s, and I think that the fact that Steven Spielberg's name was attached to a number of his films was the reason they found as much success as they did.

Pixar benefited from having Disney's name attached to their films, but as they made more films, they began to stand out more as a separate studio. The fact that Disney proper made a few slips (a few mediocre films, and putting out poor sequels) made people come to see Disney proper as lesser. Add to the fact that the simple advent and ensuing interest in computer animation allowed other studios to prosper (in particular Dreamworks), and Disney becomes a competitor when it was once a dominator.

I'll agree with Flanger Hanger's statement for the most part though. The only new "perennial" Disney properties outside of Pixar from the past few years have been Pirates of the Caribbean and maybe Stitch and some of the Disney Channel stuff.