Disney Pixar Discussion

Post by **Dacey** » January 27th, 2006, 5:38 pm

That wasn't exactly my point.

My point was that everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Post by **Christian** » January 27th, 2006, 5:44 pm

I know. I just shared your own express concern that others might think that you do see it as the greatest animated film of all time.

Post by **Dacey** » January 27th, 2006, 5:52 pm

Ah, I get it.

Anyhoo, I re-worded the post, just to be safe.

Post by **Christian** » January 27th, 2006, 5:58 pm

Safe from what? . . . J/K

Post by **Dacey** » January 27th, 2006, 6:00 pm

Safe from...

The off-topic police?

Post by **Christian** » January 27th, 2006, 6:08 pm

I can hear the sirens right now.

Post by **Meg** » January 27th, 2006, 9:00 pm

O noes!!!1111

Post by **Dacey** » January 27th, 2006, 10:13 pm

(raises hands) I'll go quietly!

Post by **ShyViolet** » January 28th, 2006, 10:45 pm

They tend to have a very myopic, Generation X-ness to them but most people are blinded to that fact. For purposes of quick and hasty illustration the villains are a juvenile delinquent who might rip your arms off and attach them to another doll, a toy who's afraid he's outmoded (Stinky Pete) but who then meets his just reward by having a demented Generation X offspring paint on him, a girl with braces who might shake the plastic bag you're in, and a social misfit kid who turns bad because his hero rejected him. Being a Generation X-er myself I have a lot of that culture clinging to me but the Pixar people should've made sure things as widespread as their movies didn't have quite so much of that (counter)culture and cynical mindset clinging to their movies. I believe it will start making their films look more dated as time goes on while the great Disney classics remain perennial.

I think this is very insightful and makes a lot of sense. I think that was always my problem with Pixar films, their curse and blessing--they really feel like they were made by a bunch of kids having fun. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but....not EVERYONE had a Mr. Potato Head or Rock 'em/Sock 'em Robots or even a Barbie doll growing up. (My father, who is middle eastern, was totally mystified by the first five minutes of Toy Story. He never had any of those toys as a kid, or many toys to begin with for that matter, so he just didn't get it. On the other hand, he LOVES classic Disney films like The Jungle Book, and even a more "hip" film like The Lion King.)

Cars looks great but it just screams EXACTLY what Christian is saying. Like: "Oh yeah Cars are cool just like Hot Wheels and EVERYONE played with those as a kid." Or something. Cars also has a very middle American, rural sensiblity. I don't know how well it's going to appeal to everyone. The problem with Pixar is that their films are the specific brainchild of a relatively well-off, middle class generation that, like Christian says, sees things in a specific way. That is, to make things "cute/funny/ironic" because that's what they like and understand, but not necessarily what everyone else--particularly future generations--will get. I mean a Car that learns that being a spiffy cool looking racecar isn't everything because old time Hick Cars "teach him a lesson"--how well is that going to translate to societies or families that can barely afford cars to begin with?

OK: Another example; you really have to be in the well-off middle class to appreciate a film where a kid can have a big birthday party, go to cowboy camp, have a room of his own with lots of fancy toys, or can go to places like Pizza Planet.

Or another example: Al the Toy collector. Pixar guys like John Lassetter may be toy fiends, but not everyone understands or relates to this. Like I said, it's a very American, middle-class thing. There are many societies that barely have toys to begin with.

If I lost everyone....I'm sorry. This is just my opinion...hope I haven't offended or gone too off topic.

Post by **Brandon Neeld** » January 28th, 2006, 11:27 pm

And yet every American so very easily "relates" to a bunch of animals roaming around the plains of Africa and a boy chillin' with a bear, panther, and orangatan. Go figure.

Post by **Christian** » January 29th, 2006, 2:24 am

On the other hand, he LOVES classic Disney films like The Jungle Book

Even Jungle Book had some hipness to it in much the same way The Lion King did because it picked up on some of the jazz/scat music craze that had been going on at that time.

And yet every American so very easily "relates" to a bunch of animals roaming around the plains of Africa and a boy chillin' with a bear, panther, and orangatan. Go figure.

The universal themes of life are expressed much more easily when less of the trappings of our modern life are weighing down the story. It is easier for greater numbers of people to relate to them over greater periods of time.

In all my years, and even with all the advance screenings and stuff I have gone to for Animated News, The Lion King remains the one Disney animated classic I saw on opening day. It has an expansive, storybook feel to it that made it seem like it could've been one of the Little Golden Books I had as a child, right next to Noah and the Ark and Aesop's Fables.

I feel bad explaining my viewpoint here because I actually really like the Pixar films. I loved seeing all the toys I had grown up with in Toy Story. Any time I watch a documentary on a Pixar DVD I feel like I'm just like the guys I'm watching, like I would fit right in with them. I also like that they put out a short film with each of their feature films (and I got to see some exclusive toys that were made for Boundin' that I don't believe were ever sold commercially) and maybe there will start to be some more Disney shorts now with Catmull and Lasseter in charge.

Post by **Josh** » January 29th, 2006, 2:44 am

In my opinion, I don't see anything wrong with the "dating" that occurs in Pixar films such as Toy Story. After all, every story must take place some time. Even timeless stories such as Snow White, Lord of the Rings, and Noah's Ark have that "long, long ago" feel to them.

Post by **Ben** » January 29th, 2006, 9:43 am

Wow! What a great thread this has become, and "bummer!" that I haven't been around to contribute as much as I'd like.

Going back quite a few, I can only say that for all the talk of Pixar's "culture" surviving in their new Disney world, I do hope that the DISNEY culture remains under the new Pixar blood.

Basically, I think it's very important that folks like Don Hahn get to continue to make the kinds of movies they want to, especially fairy tales and cultural folk stories, rather than the jokey-buddy-warm and perhaps overly fuzzy Pixar kind of films. There must be diversity, or else we'll all be harping on at how all the "Disney Pixar" movies are all alike and how boring they all are.

On another point, talking about the history behind the classics and perhaps that being a reason as to why we look fondly on them: rubbish! Snow White is as timeless to a child nowadays as The Incredibles is. Sure, perhaps Snow White's gentler way might be more aimed at younger kids today, but ultimately they don't know - or want to know - the history and how old a movie is.

The question is: does it tell the story well and entertain? And the Disney classics, as evident from their multiple re-issues, really do!

Post by **Dacey** » January 29th, 2006, 1:21 pm

Getting back to the origial topic (or not quite), does anyone know what's going on with Disney's "Circle X" (or whatever it was called) studio?

Post by **Meg** » January 29th, 2006, 2:34 pm

"Circle 7". I think they're closing it.