Disney Pixar's Cars

[Dacey]

This thread's still active?

[ShyViolet]

This was not in the body of the film itself.

But the Buzz Lightyear line was.

[James]

This was not in the body of the film itself.

But the Buzz Lightyear line was.

But the rest of it, which was the bulk and I assume the point of your posting, was not. You brought back a months old thread to make a point about Cars. Now, that isn't what we're talking about? It's all of a sudden about something else?

And what is wrong with a line about Buzz in TS2?

[Ben]

I haven't seen Cars, but they already paid homage to themselves with the "inifinty and beyond" line in the credits of A Bug's Life, and no-one moaned about that one!

[ShyViolet]

And what is wrong with a line about Buzz in TS2?

Sorry, I should have specified. Well, basically it was Tour Guide Barbie's line about the Buzz Lightyear doll, an thinly veiled refernce to Pixar launching the first Toy Story as a breakout sleeper hit. "Back in 1995, short-sighted realtors did not order enough toys to meet demand." Uh huh.

They did this other times as well, with references to all their films here and there (maybe not obvoius ones all the time) like Boo having a Nemo and Jessie doll. After the films as well--I can't think of all the times, but other than Ben's example there was that thing with Flick and Heimlich stepped on by the Toys as they cross the big road. (And Gerry as the artist/painter of course.) Can you IMAGINE the furor if DW did something similar like have the guy from First Flight have a guest appearance in the next Shrek movie???? (or the Madagascar penguins, even if it's a "blink or you'll miss" kind of thing) You can't tell me people wouldn't be baying for DW's blood after something like that.


I don't care if they did it once or twice, but it's just getting redundant at this point. It's just this whole complacent attitude that annoys me, like, "Oh we're Pixar we can stick whatever we want in our films, including lines about how great we are."

It's not that they did these things--it's that they do it OVER and OVER again, and their whole smug attitude. Really, let's be straight, is there ANY other studio that could get away with stuff like this? And with people not getting exhasperated but actually encouraging them to keep doing it? I think not. That's what irritates me. Not the action itself--the principle of it.

What if Universal Studios produced a movie and had small but subtle refernces to Jurassic Park characters, or Indiana Jones? Or what if in Over the Hedge Marty the Zebra made a cameo in some form or other? One time wouldn't be a big deal--but imagine if this happened again and again. You can't tell me people wouldn't be up in arms.

But whatever..... I'm just voicing my opinon. I know a lot of people don't agree with me, that's fine. Like I said, it's just my perspective.

And yeah this thread is old....but not THAT old. The Cars DVD hasn't even been released yet. It's relevent to Pixar and Disney's future, and to issues in their films. The Buzz Lightyear example tied into the Cars-version-of-Pixar-films thing, that's why I brought it up.

[James]

First of all, everything you've mentioned are credit gags or are things that hardly anyone is meant to notice on a first (or even second) viewing. They are for hardcore fans and the animators themselves. These are not gags that are major story points so what is the big deal?

Second, no one would care if DW did this. They have just about every other kind of pop culture reference, why not self referential ones? What is the difference? Putting in references to Disney in a DW film is OK, but if they reference themselves it is off limits?

Your devotion to all things DW is really becoming an unhealthy obsession if this is the kind of thing you think is worthy of a "furor"

[ShyViolet]

"Secondly, no one would care if DW did this."

Are you kidding me?!?! Of course they would! DreamWorks having a reference to THEMSELVES in a film???? How materialistic! How self-aggrandizing! How appalling! People go on and on about how they have tons of pop culture references and that all the humor comes from those references, (which it doesn't) and they point to movies like Mad and OTH that BARELY have any to begin with for crying out loud. DreamWorks makes a "serious" 2d film and people trash them for being boring. DreamWorks makes a cartoony comedy type film and people trash them for having "ugly" characters and too many jokes. They can't breathe too loudly without someone putting them down. They could never, ever, ever, ever do something like this in a film without damnation from every corner. NEVER!


It's not a big deal in itself, it doesn't BOTHER me, it's just the principle of the thing. Because no one can do this but Pixar. And I DON'T think it deserves a "furor" in itself--honestly, I don't really care. It's just the fact that it's not usually done so extensively, even in animated films, and that, I repeat, no one could get away with it but Pixar.

And it's true the general audience wouldn't notice it--but fans would, of course. (fans notice everything.) And critics. It's the critic's job to analyze a film, even the small things that seem meaningless on their face. It's all part of a bigger picture. Like I said, it's the principle.
Not the act.

"These...[gags]....are for the animators themselves."

Yeah, but they're not making a movie for themselves, are they? The movie is for the public. Once or twice is funny, but after a while, it's just pointless and insular. I see no reason for it. The movie's not their private playground where they can stick self-congratulatory endorsements of their past films.

I know we are not going to agree on this, James. It's O.K. It's just the way I see it. I know people here love Pixar and I'm sorry if my rants offended anyone. They weren't meant to.

[James]

no one can do this but Pixar...I repeat, no one could get away with it but Pixar

What about those uppity people at Disney who, just off the top of my head - I am sure there are more, put references to other Disney films in The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, and Treasure Planet?

This really is not a big deal, animators have been doing this for a long time before Pixar! But Pixar plays along and all of a sudden they are stuck up and self-aggrandizing?

I know people here love Pixar and I'm sorry if my rants offended anyone.

This has nothing to do with a love of Pixar! It just seems like everything is now a conspiracy by Pixar against DreamWorks. And no one else seems to be refuting it! I'd be doing this if we had a Sony animation fan talking this way about Fox animation!

[ShyViolet]

What about those uppity people at Disney who, just off the top of my head - I am sure there are more, put references to other Disney films in The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, and Treasure Planet?

I think it was overall pretty rare, maybe one reference per pic. There are a lot more per every Pixar film, at least from what I can tell.

And Disney never put in a line like the Buzz one; on the contrary, sometimes they mock themselves, like with Scar going: "No, ANYTHING but that!" when Zazu sings it's a small world. Even Hercules' Disney store/merchindise wink-wink joke was basically poking fun at Disney's tendancy to market everything. That's different than openly bragging about how many toys you were able to sell.

Plus, has Disney ever done "outtake" gags that specifically refer to past films? Not in my memory.

I'd be doing this if we had a Sony animation fan talking this way about Fox animation!

But Pixar is different from those studios. They are extremely powerful. The press cannot stop rhapsodizing about them and many animation fans consider any criticism of them outright heresy (that's why I mostly post here, much more tolerant ) I don't think they're out to screw DW but I will say that they are much, much, much more powerful than they are, even if they are a smaller studio. Everyone sees Pixar as the underdog and DW as this huge giant evil conglomerate out to get them. But the truth is that DW is the underdog. They've only been around 10 years in contrast to Pixar's 20. And they've only been a separate public company for 2 years! If anything they're the weaker studio. It's like watching a boxing match with a giant Adonis and a skinny weakling. The weakling really can't do anything. It's the giant that has the power.

But really, I think we've beaten this subject to death. I know I certainly have.

And if I keep bringing this up, I know I'm going to get kicked off this board. (J/K ) So....I'll leave it at that.

(BTW, Ben hasn't seen Cars yet because he more or less agrees with my assessment of it. So there. )

J/K

[Daniel]

Aww Vi you were putting up such a good fight

Anyway, I understand everything that's been said, and I completly agree with you!

Nothing to add, but you did a great job of proving your point.

[YCougar]

*raises hand*

I would probably prefer self-referential jokes in DW movies to pop culture ones. IMHO, the former age better.

And I don't understand why it has to be DW vs. Pixar. I personally like both and think it's useless to compare them, as they're different. Cars was entertaining for me, but I'd probably vote for OTH to win the Oscar. On the other hand, I thought Monsters, Inc. was robbed by Shrek for the first Animated Feature Oscar. It's not one studio better than the other so much as it is the quality of individual films, and even that can be a matter of opinion. Both studios have a little to go before they meet what I think is the perfect blend of humor/cuteness/warm fuzzies/edginess. Few, if any, things are ever black-and-white.

Debate is good, but internet wars are a waste of time, methinks.

[Ben]

I haven't seen Cars yet. I have no "assessment" of it yet.


I think what you're missing Vi, at least in your examples, is that these are all in-jokes. Disney has been doing it for years with the hidden Mickeys going back to the early 1940s.

Pixar throw in a nod to their last feature and one to their next...no big deal. Why <I>would</I> DreamWorks get stick for doing the same? My guess is probably because they have not made the cultural impression on moviegoers that the "Pixar films" (actually "Disney films" for the general public) have or that they don't have the legacy of Disney to fall back and draw upon.

Hercules rubbing his face with a Scar rug? The Sultan toying with a Beast figurine? Belle walking through Hunchback's Paris?

Secondly, DreamWorks does not market itself in the same way. Yes, Disney and therefore Pixar, have toys and merchandise out for everyone of their films. Why <I>wouldn't</I> a character in one film not have a toy from another? I'm not going to jump up and say that I find all Pixar pictures perfect (try saying that drunk and fast), but this <I>is</I> something they've been doing since BEFORE they became all "big and powerful" - the Knick-Knack book on the shelf in Toy Story, for instance, or the rolling Luxo Jr ball that pops up in all their movies like a visual John Ratzenberger good luck charm.

Animation - especially animated comedies - is a joke medium. I don't think anyone bothered, or even noticed, when Spielberg himself was seen running out of a screening of Jurassic Park in Universal's We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story, to pick such a suggestion as your above ("What if Universal Studios produced a movie and had small but subtle refernces to Jurassic Park characters" - they wouldn't do Indiana Jones...not their character).

[ShyViolet]

Nothing to add, but you did a great job of proving your point.

Thanks Daniel!

Like I said, I don't care all that much that Pixar does this. I know other studios have done it too. It just irritates me that they do it so extensively (and I still think the Buzz lightyear line was incredibly arrogant)....but wha'ever.

[James]

They were in a toy store, there was a tour guide, and they went down an aisle filled with Buzz dolls. What could the tour guide have said about an aisle full of Buzz that wouldn't have sounded arrogant? Regardless of any real life considerations the line fit perfectly: it brought your attention to the aisle, explained why there were so many Buzz dolls there, and was funny! But wha'ever

[Meg]

Personally I love in-jokes, and I don't see anything wrong with them. I just get a kick out of squealing when the number "A11-3" pops up in a Simpson’s episode, or giggling when a Beauty and the Beast character finds itself in another Disney movie.

I think it was overall pretty rare, maybe one reference per pic. There are a lot more per every Pixar film, at least from what I can tell.
And Disney never put in a line like the Buzz one; on the contrary, sometimes they mock themselves, like with Scar going: "No, ANYTHING but that!"

Hey ShiVi, you ever seen "A Goofy Movie"?

Plus, has Disney ever done "outtake" gags that specifically refer to past films? Not in my memory.

No..'cuase they've never done any outtakes.