The bizarre Pixar backlash
Off the back of reviews of Brave, some are implying that Pixar may have peaked, and that its best days are gone. Has the world gone mad, wonders Simon?
I went on a training course once. I was sent there by the company I worked for at the time, and the lady who was running it told a story about her husband and son, and how they never used to get on. She illustrated this with an example. It has a vague relevance to what I want to talk about.
As she told it, her son came home from school with his report card one day. Said report card was a belter, too. The grades on it? He had eight straight As, and then one C in maths.
His father's reaction? "How come you got a C?"
Pixar, then. I read a piece at The Guardian this week, which is the latest in a small-but-growing number of articles that seems keen to suggest, or at least imply, that the Pixar bubble has burst. That, because the reviews of last year's Cars 2, and this year's Brave, haven't bordered on outright ecsctacy, that Pixar is somehow over the hill. That its glory days are behind it. The Guardian piece is certainly not the harshest, but it's the one that's stuck in my mind.
This particular piece ran under the headline "has Pixar finally lost the plot" (as if it's an inevitability that it would), and in it, the arguments cover whether Pixar is blurring into DreamWorks, whether the 2006 Disney buy out of the firm has seen it prioritise sequels, and effectively, if the bubble has burst.
I find all this a bit of a head-scratcher. Since 1995, Pixar's film releases have been something to genuinely look forward to. Time after time, the studio has delivered where pretty much everyone else - in live action or animation - hasn't with such consistency. It's done this by often taking hugely bold risks - Up, Wall-E - and even proved that sequels don't have to all work on diminishing returns (Toy Story trilogy). I've not yet seen Brave personally (which seemed to be getting good reviews, not least from our own Mark Harrison), so I'll go on the twelve films it's released before then. Of those, there are only two I wouldn't look forward to watching again. Those two are Cars, which I thought was fine, and Cars 2, which I think is Pixar's only film that's heavily underdelivered.
I can't think of any other studio or company that's basically made ten utterly rewatchable expensive movies out of 12. Not a single one on the planet. And so what do we do when a new release is seen as falling a little below the standards of the others? We knock them for it. We suggest that their day is done. That Pixar's moment has gone.
How miserable is that?
Still, let's look a bit deeper. The argument that the Pixar-Disney merger in 2006 was a turning point is an interesting one, to be fair, and warrants consideration. After all, at this stage, Up, Wall-E and Ratatouille were already well underway. Since 2006, Pixar pressed ahead with Toy Story 3 (after scrapping the planned Disney-only version), Cars 2, Brave and Monsters University (the superb trailer for which landed last week). That's three franchise movies out of four, certainly, and it's hardly Pixar's most ambitious slate on paper. Furthermore, the decision to back away from Newt was a pity, an intriguing looking film that got cancelled. But then, don't projects get put on the back burner in places like Pixar all the time? The difference here was it was a movie that the firm had talked about a little first. But surely it's better to pull the plug than release a film the studio isn't happy with? Else it's a bit damned if it does, damned if it doesn't.
Further ahead, Pixar's announced movies are back in original territory. We know of The Good Dinosaur, set in a world where dinosaurs never became extinct. We know of an unnamed movie, which is set in the inside of a girl's mind. And we know of a film based around the Mexican holiday, Dia de los Muertos. Crucially, we also know that amongst the directors of those films are Lee Unkrich (Toy Story 3) and Pete Docter (Up, Monsters Inc). Pixar has, after all, retained the bulk of its most talented film makers, as well as continually brought new talent through.
To its credit, the firm refuses to increase its output beyond one film a year, it continues its commitment to short films before each of its features (which, in turn, allows it to give upcoming directors an opportunity), and continues to take chances, and move into different genres. Brave, interestingly, is being criticised for veering into Disney fairy tale territory. But then, why shouldn't Pixar try it? It's not tried it before, and it's continually been willing to do things it hasn't ventured towards in the past.
The other unsaid, of course, is what Pixar has given Disney since that 2006 merger. Again, there's been some criticism of Walt Disney Animation Studio's output since John Lasseter got involved, but I find that equally baffling. Meet The Robinson is underrated, Bolt is good fun, Tangled was a triumph, and the upcoming Wreck-It Ralph looks simply brilliant. Interestingly, three of those projects had changes of director involved, which suggests that behind the scenes might sometimes be quite a rocky place to be (many Pixar films have also changed directors - you can't help but sense there's a ruthlessness underneath the friendly exterior). But for the audience at the end of it all, the films that have come through have been strong. Factor in, too, the underappreciated Winnie The Pooh, and the fact that Disney has finally resurrected The Snow Queen in the shape of Frozen, due in 2013, and I'd gladly take this era of Disney over films such as Home On The Range and Chicken Little, when the studio was at a low ebb. That was, remember, less than ten years ago, too. Without Pixar, would all this have happened?
Granted, it's not all perfect. Where Walt Disney Animation Studios and Pixar individually sit within the broader Disney empire isn't exactly clear. It's arguable that the former, certainly, hasn't quite found an identity of its own yet in the new-ish regime. But it's making good films, and it continues to support hand drawn animation. It might not always feel like Disney, but the films have been taking a signifcant upward turn.
Let's not forget too that Pixar stood on the shoulders of Disney to scale its heights of the past decade. Now, others have got better, and are clambering on Pixar's shoulders too. Which is how it should be. Has there ever been a period of time quite like the last five years for big animated movies? Where films like Rango and Coraline can exist and succeed in a market alongside The Princess And The Frog, How To Train Your Dragon, Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs, Horton Hears A Who, The Pirates!, Arthur Christmas and Tangled. And look what's coming: ParaNorman, Frankenweenie, Rise Of The Guardians and Wreck-It Ralph are all arriving in the next six months or so alone. Pixar paved the way for this, and still, year after year, is capable of delivering a film that attracts lots of attention, lots of discussion, and lots of happy moviegoers.
Isn't that worth celebrating and encouraging? When Scorsese makes a film that doesn't match up to his classics, his reviews generally read something along the lines of 'even Scorsese off form is better than most at the top of their game'. Why doesn't that apply here, too?
Instead of knocking Pixar, and looking for signs that the empire is crumbling, how about we just say thanks? I'd quite happily predict now that talk of its demise will be comfortably proven wrong. And heck, even if it shut down tomorrow, it's made at least ten films that any other studio on the planet would have both loved to make, and ultimately, would have been unable to. Pixar isn't perfect, granted. But it's still something really rather special.
Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.
Disqus - noscript
As far as the internet is concerned you are Nolan, Kubrick, Fincher, Cameron or a hack. Everybody's an expert based on someone else's opinion, mistaking speculation for fact often without any form of personal critical thought.
Which is why you shouldn't read the bottom half of the internet.
Stop reading this.
I don't think Pixar are over the hill at all, like any successful company they've just not hit a the right mark on a few films, and why is that such a bad thing? Apart from Cars, Cars 2 and Brave all their films have 90% or higher on RT, which surely says something about how great they are and how great they still can be.
The 2006 merger probably didn't help, because now John Lasseter finds himself at the head of two production companies, which means his creativity is stretched thin across the two. So maybe his input in Pixar has been lessened, which also means maybe Pixar aren't performing as well as they used to in the eyes of some. I do get the feeling though he is focusing more of Disney to try to reform the animation department, feeling that Pixar can go it alone more now, which may mean his 'touch' has now transferred to Disney Animation.
Granted he did direct Cars and Cars 2, but I've always felt they were more personal ventures for him, being a petrol/gear-head, but the concept doesn't really do Pixar much justice sadly.
Much as I'm looking forward, since it is the prequel to my favourite Pixar film, once we're past Monsters University and back to original work on a regular basis I think Pixar will 'return to form', because original work is what they've been renowned for in the past, so there's no reason it can't happen in the future.
For me, Pixar are still the best at CGI animation, no matter how many 'weak' films they've made.
Sadly I fear this is just another symptom of the age we live in right now. Anything that's well liked or even, dare I say, loved must be attacked at the slightest hint of change. Note change, not weakness. Most of the Pixar stories you're seeing now have been fermenting since 2006 when Cars came out. Unfortunately for those that enjoy this sort of thing Pixar then went on an unbelievable streak with Ratatouilie, Wall-E, Up and Toy Story 3.
Cars 2 gave hope to the headline writers and unless Brave managed to be another Best Picture contender it was always going to get this reception. Not that it matters really, Pixar are well enough established by now that reviews and the whining of the Internet won't change anything.
It's important to remember that Disney can do no good right now. John Carter is a flop - despite the fact that it isn't. It has recouped the cost of production plus nearly 50% and is only now entering the home video market. And now Brave and Wreck It are MERELY excellent films so therefore Disney is on the outs. Yet Disney is still an entertainment and media giant and they continue to make product that the public pays to see. We should leave the critics to entertain each other in their private echo chamber while we continue to see, buy and replay Disney entertainment media. The consumer is the only critic that really matters.
Pixar isn't getting knocked. It is a backlash reaction all the fanboy hyperbole about all their films in the past being perfect. You border on it yourself in this article. Finally the kool aid doesn't seem to be as potent and the brainwashed masses are coming out of their stupors.
You may have missed that Brave was good but not the best is not a good headline as opposed to doom and gloom in the future for Pixar!!!!!
don't forget The Avengers, ok no creative input but they have distribution rights, hopefully the money from that will help fund some new projects.
All four of those directors have been labelled hacks too, naturally, or the predictable 'overrated'.
It's kind of a sad negative circlejerk a lot of places get into. Build 'em up, knock 'em down. Rinse, repeat.
Another case of schadenfraude in Hollywood? Hollywood (media & internet) just seems to love it when something good fails. But it just goes to show that not everybody is perfect, Cars is a grower as I didn't like it too much originally, and Cars 2 is the only Pixar film I haven't seen or really intend to see. Personally I'm looking forward to seeing Brave, as from what I've read it's more along the lines of a Studio Ghibli film (strong female lead, good story, great animation) than a typical Disney Princess picture, where she gets her Prince at the end. Bring it on!
Well said. It was inevitable that Brave would divide the critics (a princess as the lead? Like, in Disney?) but it's pretty sad that people are so desperate to pick holes in Pixar. Are they trying to prove it's human, and that it can fail too? Tall poppy syndrome? Whatever it is, when anyone can take an animated film where the main character is a eightysomething grump and make one of the most universally appealing animated films of recent years I'll be keeping a little more faith.
So basically 'once the haters descend, you've officially made it'? Does ring true.
While i want to agree, your arguement is flawed....take your 'grades' analogy...if you were getting straight A's in maths (for example) then in your latest exam you got a B, then the one after that, a C, something is clearly going wrong...and its the same with the Pixar films.
They have made some simply amazing films, but their most recent output isnt up to the same standard. Is that because we expect too much? Possibly. Have times changed and we're less blown away by fully animated films? Probably...and as a result, do critics now review these films with the same benchmark they would a live action piece, rather than rose-tinited glasses? Who knows.
But you can only be judged by your last piece of work....it doesnt matter that you used to be a straight A student, if your now producing B's, somethings not right and by the definition of the grade alone, the quality of the work has reduced. So yea, i think it is fair for people to question if the Pixar bubble has burst....i know i'm less excited when i see a new Pixar film advertised these days. But if their next films knocks it out the park then they will have proved us all wrong.
Theres no need to create a whole article to defend Pixar. Their a film studio, and sometimes they make bad ones....like every other studio
Ultimately, Pixar has had so many successes because, as a studio, it gave creative freedom to directors who were true innovators in the field and the best in the business. John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton and Pete Doctor were all genius's with decades worth of ideas finally given the tools and freedom to realise their vision. Brad Bird was a similar figure, who was neglected by other animation studios (I think it was Warner Brothers that basically turned down his 2D animation Incredibles pitch) and then snapped up by Pixar. Lee Unkrich was another great mind who was only given the chance to direct after co-directing and being heavily involved in many other Pixar films.
Now, we have entered a phase were new directors are being given the chance to carry films so the studio can maintain its output while still providing directors with time and freedom to take risks. This HAS been a tricky process. Toy Story 2 was originally conceived as a direct-to-DVD opportunity to develop directing talent, but Director Ash Brannon was replaced with Lasseter and Unkrich when they felt - if made a bit stronger- it could be a theatre release. Jan Pinkava was originally directing Ratatouille, but due to creative problems Brad Bird was bought in to fix it. Cars 2 - which is the REAL reason for so many doom and gloom stories despite the fact that it is a decent film - was itself directed by the inexperienced Brad Lewis until Lasseter came on board and rushed it into a shape fit for release (though some might debate whether he was successful or not!) On top of this past history, with Newt being cancelled and Brenda Chapman being removed as director from Brave it seems that the development of new directors has been a problematic time. But still - we are left with a good number of directors who have had alot of experience in the past few years and can hopefully develop further and prove themselves while the 'big guns' work on material more likely to be polished. I think by the time the next slew of films from smaller directors come around we will see some really strong new faces of the future.
I think this is a much preferable situation than that which Studio Ghibli now faces - essentially people wait around for the aging Myazaki to produce a classic while less sure footed (but still beautiful) films from other directors are released. The difference is that Ghibli has put much less care into developing new talent (it has only really started in earnest with films like Arriety - though Myazaki was still heavily involved). Instead, Pixar is developing at least 5 new directors and, although the process has been troubled, I think it will pay off and secure their creative future. As for their economic future, the very films people seem to think indicate their decline have put them in a very strong place to take risks with future projects.
Is there another studio in the world as brave as Pixar?
I can imagine the pitches now...
"so they're kids, grow old and she dies in the first 5 minutes and it's for kids???"
"there's no talking in the film for how long???"
Bravery & genius are the only things that can produce the results Pixar have had and I can't see it slowing... Mind you, the press seem to see a lot of bad in things that I can't.
This is a brilliant article. Pixar is the most consistent film company out there and sometimes people expect rather too much from them.
What's sometimes difficult for other film fans to comprehend is that the Guardian gets away with employing bloggers who don't actually seem to like films! I don't know how they do it! Only the ridiculousness of the ongoing Twitter joke trial prevents me from publicly saying what I really think about Stuart Heritage, the biggest hack they've got.
But yeah, the backlash has been strange- it seems to be that online film writers and fans sometimes want to be seen to jump on a studio or a talent as soon as it shows the first sign of weakness, and with Cars 2 and the association with John Carter, the knives seem to have come out. Sigh...
This a very good, well measured article. If only certain more illustrious american review sites were so well informed, intelligent and populated (in their forums particularly) by such tolerant and decent folks :)
Is it me or does the lead what-ever -her-name-isn in, 'Brave' with the bow, look ever so like flame haired former News of the World Editor, Rebekah Brooks. Are they indeed the same person, we should be told.
It's not as if Pixar have been backwards in coming forwards with the press either. I think it's just the internet press pack cosying up to certain Hollyweird types that resent and covet Pixars continued success and quality.
I think suggesting Pixar paved the way for quality animated features is assigning far more credit than is due. I like most Pixar films and while a few have been brilliant, most have just been good and funny entertainment. Wall-E and UP are their most ambitious films (i haven't seen Brave, so no comment). Finding Nemo was a gorgeous leap in animation technology and a great story featuring a truly rare creature in animation--a father, and on top of that, a father cast in a favourable light. Monsters Inc. is a lovable film with a clever story. The Incredibles is a fun action comic book story that for no reason I can see is seen as having some kind of great meaning and originality. The majority of voices talking about film were children when Toystory came out and i believe that nostalgia elevates these good and entertaining films onto a shrine. There aren't any other pixar films that really need to be held up in any way. So, like most film companies there are definitely different degrees of quality and success in the ouevre. just like Disney, Bluth, Rankin/Bass, Ghibli, Dreamworks, Bakshi, Fleischer, Warner Brothers and smaller companies and indies.
I have no problem with Pixar. What I find irritating is the position and influence that bloggers and critics assign to Pixar. The media act as though animation was some nascent industry and a crappy one at that, until Pixar came along. Since Pixar came along, there is a tendency to review non-pixar films as by default inferior, as though there are two scales: pixar and non pixar.
even in this article, the suggestion is that great animated films happened in the last 5 years, and it was because others had to try and catch up to Pixar. There is also a near total idea in this article and elsewhere that a pixar film isn't to be questioned, is unassailable
you say 75% of projects since joining disney are franchises (including
the dreck that is cars) and then dismiss that as irrelevant, backed up
by examples of rumours and project ideas in the unnamed future while
mentioning they have already scrapped an original project in favour of a
safe sequel bet. I'm not anti-disney. they have been making lush,
memorable animated films for 75 years. So, without assigning blame as to
why Pixar might be moving in a certain direction, it seems to me that a religious style faith of Pixar is required to explain away
anything that doesn't support the myth. If it wasn't heresy, I would have my doubts about Pixar's direction, given the last several years. Cars 2? the first one was an ugly pointless little movie with a weird retro love of the automobile during a catastrophic carbon emission crisis. Monster's University? who asked for that? what a way to take a poignant warm comedy and recast it as animal house. as many unwashed philistines have said, will this be meaningful and amsuing to the primary demographic--children?
Again, I like Pixar. But critics and the core of most ardent fans do a dishonest and revisionist disservice to the medium of animation. I'm very enthusiastic about animation and feel constantly affronted by the 'go pixar or go home' meme.
I also think criticizing Brave for venturing into fantasy/fairy tales or suggesting that it is Disney's domain is the stupidest criticism ever. all storytellers and film companies go there for children's and adult films because it is a rich bottomless territory and part of a very long cultural history of story telling.
For me, Pixar, having made 12 films prior to this, have made 2 duds. They both start with the name 'Cars' by the way. That is a high rate of success for me. If Brave is a dud, I for one will not stop going to see Pixar films based on it. Just exactly in the same vein as the frankly terrible Tales from Earthsea won't stop me from seeing Studio Ghibli films. Plus, with Brave having a current Rotten Tomatoes rating of 76% and IMDb rating of 7.8 I wouldn't call it a bad film based on that. Sure, it's not hitting the 90-100% band that most of their films get, but if anything it should show that they are getting back on track after the disappointment of Cars 2!
Good article. I have a three year old son whom I limit watching TV. As a treat he gets to watch a Pixar film every now and again as we own all of them on DVD. He goes through phases of wanting to watch the same one for a time (at the moment its Wall-E) and he has his favourites. My point is that more often than not, i'll end up sitting down and watching them with him, again and again and I still enjoy them; such is the quality of the storytelling and production and Pixars genius in making them utterly re-watchable. I find very few films have this quality and when they do, they are usually a classic (eg Jaws, Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction etc) Every great film maker/creative team has had a mis-step or film that is not up to expectations but they move on and often regain form, Pixar are no different. Without doubt that was Cars 2, even the wee man knows thats a bit of a stinker: he shakes his head and says no if I suggest watching it and he's obsessed with the first one and cars in general!
Great post - thoughtful and insightful. I was shocked to finish it and find it had been downvoted.
I have a comment in moderation somewhere in the system in which I follow the 'pixar raised the bar' line, so you might see my view as simplistic, but could it be argued that Pixar came along and made lots of money making CGI (new and exciting in 1995) animations that were wildly popular and critically lauded as well? It created the usual copycat market, but after a while, lots of studios started making very good animated features, and that makes it harder for Pixar to stand out any more.
I think you know it's not you.
Thanks for that, I just learned a lot from your comment :)
Interesting article. I was not aware that Pixar was experiencing a backlash, though I suppose given the great praise, anything less would be considered a "backlash".
I personally don't care for 3d animation, so naturally don't care for Pixar and find their influence perhaps not too good for animation. But influential they are, for better or worse, and deserve that much credit.
Maybe not a backlash so much as criticism catching up with them? Having not seen Cars 2 or Brave, I feel they made their worst movie long ago - Monsters Inc.
Every one has peaks and troughs.
Pixar has been slowly slipping from its opening all mighty high for a while. Up had the best opening 10 minutes of any film, but then was only so-so afterwards. Wall-E was nice and cute, a silent novelty in an age of explosions. Cars Two, again, so-so (tho Cars was the most cynical film they've made in respect to commercialisation, so what would you expect from a sequel?).
Ratatouille was, again, well done and nice but hardly ground breaking or a mind boggling great story. A solid family/children's film.
In truth Pixar have hit some massive highs, but not in every film. TS triology, obviously, the start of Up, Monsters Inc and The Incredibles.
To me they'll never make anything as good as Toy Story 1-3. But an average Pixar film is way better than what anyone else is making in that style of animation.
The Ice Age films are just dull, the singing penguin thing was just odd. My favourite non pixar animated feature of recent years is Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and I think most Pixar productions are better than it.
Looking forwards to Monsters U, but I hope they don't start to rely too heavily on their past successes. They've taken risks and done what they want in the past, let's hope they carry on that way.
Having said all that the near-realist styling of Brave puts me off visually.
I often forget that Pixar was a pioneer in computer generated animation, and specifically the form of animation that produces images that look like actual three dimensional objects in space. Prthaps similar to the way we forget that film making's debt to Lucas is not so much innovative stories, or making sci-fi profitable, but in technical advances in sound and visual effects.
I don't know why I forget-- I was already an adult when I first saw the lamp and the snowglobe shorts in theatres, when that was all pixar was--those were earlier than their features. I will reiterate the point that CG animation and 3D modelling are techniques,
simply another tool in film making; one aspect of one submedium of the
medium of film. I would never want any kind of film making to be simply at the mercy of technicians--they are the elves who work for storytellers.
Pixar's early shorts were brilliantly executed and hilariously whimsical and reminded me of early animation shorts that played in theatres for adults--when it was assumed that adults would enjoy cartoons and wacky absurdist humour, before animation went from being a medium to being thought of as a children's genre. I do recognise that Pixar has continued to generally couple dazzling technical ability with warm and funny stories.
I've never noticed a copycat market. there were plenty of warm and funny films before pixar, talented writers and directors working before the pixar crew (who grew out of disney). The techniques weren't copied, they were added to the film makers toolbelt. Themes and attitudes with stories go in and out of fashion. Other than very specific cases, I am wary of calling out copycat, or ripped of from when it comes to stories. storytelling is incestuous and constantly cross fertilizing. It is most natural for people to borrow, adapt, respond to, not to mention honour things they come across in other stories. film is no different.
I guess Pixar likely did draw producers attention back to animation as a big source of revenues. Dreamworks, so often cited as a clubfooted dullwitted cousin of Pixar, was making box office hits in the same time frame as Pixar, and when I look through their filmography, I see an awful lot of films i thought were quite good, and most as entertaining as a standard Pixar film. That's my only complaint about the perception of Pixar.
Cartoons.... Cor !
so while i take your point about straight "A's" and then a "C", thats still something legitimate. I remember when i watched the first set of Pixar movies and not once doubting they would be a quality product. Now i don't really feel that. I felt iffy about Brave from the get go and had my suspicions confirmed. One "C" is an anomaly, but Pixar at the moment seems to have consistency issues within films which are leading some people to see straight "A's" and others feeling like Pixar is hitting some "B's" and "C's" along the way too.
Pixar is a solid studio its never going to release something abysmal, it doesn't mean everything they release is going to be good!
Here's my Pixar report card. (based on personal friends opinions, General opinions and my own)
Toy Story: A
A Bug's Life: A (for most people - i personally give that a B)
Toy Story 2: A
Monster's Inc: A
Finding nemo: A
The Incredibles: A
Cars: A (for Kids) C+ for everyone else
Ratatouille: A (for me) B- for Majority of people though
Wall-E: A (some loved it) C+ Overt agenda was off putting for others
Up: A (for those who are carried along by that opening marriage montage), C for those who looked at the second half objectively and realised it was pretty barren.
Toy Story 3: A (unanimously)
Cars 2: C-
Brave: For me it was probably a C+ at best, and for my GF who liked it she only gave it a B
These ranks will be controversial for some and im sorry if I've insulted a favourite, but i want to say while some believe that Pixars film have all been "As" the second half of Pixars 13 films have been not bad - but certainly debatable products and for me mark a decline.
Brave was particularly damming because it seemed to offer nothing new, while it may have been a first for pixar with a female lead, it was cliche after cliche and very obvious as a film and as a fairy tale. I thought it was a very dull product from a studio that is all about being fresh! Rant over.
you make a lot of good points, especially along the lines that reviewers may be reviewing them as films, as opposed to reviewing them as children's entertainment.
on the other hand, i think producers and bean counters judge a director, actor, etc. by their last work, and there is often some truth to that. . .financially--bankability faltering. It is a danger when you brand your company so strongly--one boat effects the fleet.
but as an audience, or critic, it takes a fair amount of running down before one might say 'there goes the neighbourhood' to a production company. I don't love many of Pixars films as much as most people, but they are usually pretty good. I'm looking forward to Brave and haven't been reading reviews--dont want the story given away. Cars two was a bit of an insult, and defintiely a 'crass commercial' type play. and they paid for it: Cars earned twice it's budget domestically, Cars 2 earned less than its budget domestically(though more than the first globally, so maybe it balances?)
never heard tall poppy syndrome before. . .looked it up, ans what a fun little metaphor!
Indeed. Thanks again!
I'm learning all kinds of things from this thread!
My problem with Cars 2 was the violence. My three-year-old loves Pixar movies, and I love that he loves them (I love them too!). But, I wasn't too thrilled by all the guns and explosions.
Also, Cars 2 felt like it was one of "Mater's Tall Tales" that someone decided was strong enough to make a feature-length film out of.
I don't think it's a bad film, but was lacking the "feel good" vibe that I attribute to Pixar films. Also, Mater is Pixar's Jar-Jar Binks. He's tolerable in very small doses.
nicely said
It's same with my 3yr-old.
I don't agree with the author. Cars 2 was not their first lackluster film. What about the first Cars? What about the second half of walle? What about the juvenile-oriented plot of UP ( though the entire act 1 of that film was great).
And maybe this is just a clash of opinions, but I did not like the monsters university trailer. Talk about cash grab.
as regards cars, the first time i watched it i was massively underwhelmed. BUT, its amongst my twins favorite films and so i have now watched it many times and actually...i think its a really, really good movie. its certainly much better than ratatouille and miles ahead of cars 2 (which is a bit of a dud to be honest).
I probably shouldn't have made the copycat claim - that was a bit of a lazy comment.
My point might be fairly narrow, but I think you sum it up quite well with this:
"I guess Pixar likely did draw producers attention back to animation as a big source of revenues."
So perhaps copycat in the sense that success so often creates imitators, although as (I think) you point out, sometimes what looks like a copycat is just something that's happening at about the same time.
If you aren't setting up false expectations, there's no real reason to "hate".
Agreed- one thing industry commenters often can't judge is the effect on kids. From what I can tell, talking to younger relatives and from friends who work with kids, Tangled is incredibly popular, they know all the songs off by heart, and it's basically this generation's Mulan or whatever.
Great article, looking forward to those movies Pixar is planning. The studio's an amazing host of talent, so it's just odd to see them rolling out stuff like Finding Nemo 3D and sequels we don't really need. But, once again, everyone has their down-times. Pixar will have a couple more duds, but they will always be original and strong. On another note, does anyone else see the dino from Meet The Robinsons in that Wreck-It Ralph pic?