Disney Pixar's Cars

Post by **ShyViolet** » March 17th, 2006, 5:36 pm

But the general audience is going to notice stuff like a Jessie doll, ShyVi.

Very true, but how many people have ever watched the shorts, or remember that '95' is the year Pixar became a big studio, (or, to be even more blunt, that the original number, "57", is John Lassetter's birth year?)

The will certainly notice a Jessie doll AND stuff like movie references and Disney in-jokes. I don't think either reference is "bad", and I don't condemn either studio for doing it. All I'm saying is, people are down on DW for "pop-culture references" (often before even seeing the films themselves) but don't bat an eye when Pixar does the same thing.

Post by **Dacey** » March 17th, 2006, 5:38 pm

Okay, now I'm confused.

Post by **ShyViolet** » March 17th, 2006, 5:41 pm

Just trying to say that well-known references in DW films are dealt with torches and pitchforks, while much more obscure referecnes in Pixar films are praised as clever and innovative.

But I DON'T mean any malice to Pixar.

( Just for info, the number on McQueen racecar is 95, the year Toy Story came out. It was originally '57, the year Lassetter was born.)

Post by **Dacey** » March 17th, 2006, 5:42 pm

But when does Pixar make reference to the number 95?

EDIT: Never mind. I saw your last post.

Post by **Kaszubas** » March 17th, 2006, 7:02 pm

ShyViolet wrote:Just trying to say that well-known references in DW films are dealt with torches and pitchforks, while much more obscure referecnes in Pixar films are praised as clever and innovative.

But I DON'T mean any malice to Pixar.

The point is that pop culture references are often main base for DreamWorks jokes, gags, dialogues, funny situations. Nothing bad at all when thing or event they're refering to is regarded as timeless. Not so good when it's just one season music hit, one season pop star, latest summer blockbuster or present political events...
Pixar in-jokes are made for creators themselves and for geeks, not for broad audience and film looses nothing in story, action, characters dept. without noticing them. Pixar sometimes use film references but these are more like iconic reference than one-season pop-culture references.
So it's not so black & white but there is a difference in both Pixar and DW approach to storytelling and making appealing movies. Watching latest DW hits audience notices many things that they are surrounded by present day in our world (products, food, electronics, lates movies, latest music videos, latest tunes, TV shows, gossips, etc.) and it's funny to see all those things in unusual context of the movie - DW is the real King of this technique of pleasing broad audience. Pixar is relying more on nostalgy and classics in their references. Just a little bit different kind of entertainig and they're also kings of their own kingdom

Post by **Gooch** » March 18th, 2006, 12:04 am

Let's just say I enjoy DW films a lot when they first came out (except Shark Tale), but not so much when I see them on DVD afterward.

As for Pixar, old Disney classics (and Lilo & Stitch), Ghibli films, I can watch them over and over again for yrs!

Post by **James** » March 18th, 2006, 12:52 am

I think the difference here is "obscure" and "in your face". Most every single Pixar in-joke has been either an obscure reference you have to be told about by someone who noticed it or something that goes by so fast you don't see it unless you are looking for it. Either way, since you don't get them or see them they take nothing away from the film the first time you see it. And that's what is important. If it takes you out of the film's fantasy it's probably not a good in-joke.

ShyViolet wrote: There weren't a whole lotta pop-culture references in Madagascar from what I remember

There were several, but DW didn't beat you over the head with them. If you didn't catch the reference the scene was still perfectly understandable.

Post by **chernabog** » March 18th, 2006, 6:29 am

I don't really see what the issue is here. If someone doesn't understand the relevence of the number 95 for instance they're not gonna panic over what it may mean. In the same way that no one would question why Randall from Monsters Inc ended up in the trailer from at the end of the film if they hadn't seen A Bug's Life. If it's a noticeable in-joke then people will acknowldge it, but if they don't realise then they won't even care.

I personally think in-jokes are fantastic anyway. They bring the Disney and Pixar worlds together, it makes them feel more magical.

Post by **Kaszubas** » March 18th, 2006, 3:38 pm

There are 3 new random pictures from "Cars" on Pixar.com

(Not so random here: http://www.gdynia.mm.pl/~skaszuba/cars_new_pics.html )

Post by **Ben** » March 18th, 2006, 3:46 pm

...and that was a random post if ever I saw one!

I think the gist is here that references can pull you out of a story ("Oh look at Fiona kissing Shrek like Spidey/MJ!") as opposed to the Pixar jokes that are there for fun (the bouncing ball in Toy Story being the ball from Luxo Jr, etc).

The main thing is...if an audience doesn't get those, they don't "ruin the moment" (hey - it's a bouncing ball, right?) but add a chuckle for those who know.

At least Pixar doesn't rely on these moments to bring back an audience - with Shrek 2 it was ALL about going back to see how many references we could pick up!

Post by **Meg** » March 19th, 2006, 7:37 am

Shrek 2 it was ALL about going back to see how many references we could pick up!

I must say though, DW does know how to get an audience.

(Not so random here: http://www.gdynia.mm.pl/~skaszuba/cars_new_pics.html )

I saw the first of those three in one of my magazines a month or two back. I absolutely love the expression on McQueen! Thanks for those.

Post by **Meg** » March 20th, 2006, 4:14 pm

There's another postive review at Rotten Tomatoes...

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comm ... yid=304809

To sum it up, it states that the animation is Pixars' best yet, and while the film itself is great, it's not as good as some of the lamps other films.

Post by **Sullivan** » March 20th, 2006, 4:47 pm

James wrote:I think the difference here is "obscure" and "in your face". Most every single Pixar in-joke has been either an obscure reference you have to be told about by someone who noticed it or something that goes by so fast you don't see it unless you are looking for it. Either way, since you don't get them or see them they take nothing away from the film the first time you see it. And that's what is important. If it takes you out of the film's fantasy it's probably not a good in-joke.

I didn't like the in-jokes in Toy Story II. They did take me out of the movie.

All the Star Wars "I am your father!" stuff was just reminding me of a better movie.

Slinky Dog's line "I'm not a smart dog, but I know what roadkill is." Ugh. Okay, I get that it's a line from Forrest Gump. But now I'm just thinking about Forrest Gump, and that Woody is really an actor named Tom Hanks, and not Woody. And the line doesn't make SENSE to come from slinky dog. Since when does a slinky dog toy know what roadkill is, and why is he quoting Forrest Gump? Just because the actor has a southern accent?

Plus, the line in Forrest Gump, "I'm not a smart man, but I know what love is" is such a wonderful, heartfelt, genuine emotional moment. It's a heartbreaking line of dialogue, full of sorrow and ache.

It's not something to parody, as it mixes up all your emotions. To belittle it is to make fun of a different emotional connection that the audience has.

There's great stuff in TS2, sure. But the in-jokes are not my favorites. I'd rather make a film that GETS quoted, rather than one that quotes others.

Post by **Ben** » March 20th, 2006, 5:07 pm

Yeah!

Someone else has started using my "The Lamp" thing to describe Pixar. Thanks Meg - you made my day!

Post by **ShyViolet** » March 20th, 2006, 5:12 pm

I didn't like the in-jokes in Toy Story II. They did take me out of the movie.

Yeah....all I was trying to say was that Pixar does this too, but people don't generally comment on it. Another thing about that film is that it sends-up the older 1950s shows like Howdy Doody or Tom Terrific or other stuff, I guess, that was part of a certain generation. (Woody's round-up) There was a definete nostalgia going on there. If you didn't grow up around that time, like a lot of the Pixar artists did, then you might be a bit confused, or just left cold. Not saying I was, but some people might be. How "timeless" is something that is deliberately satrizing stuff from forty years ago?

The point is that pop culture references are often main base for DreamWorks jokes, gags, dialogues, funny situations. Nothing bad at all when thing or event they're refering to is regarded as timeless. Not so good when it's just one season music hit, one season pop star, latest summer blockbuster or present political events...

Actually, I've never found that DW's jokes have interfered with my enjoyment of their films. I always felt that the basis for Shrek's humor was the CHARACTERS and their faults, not the occasional quip (although I liked those too.) Shrek was hilarious mainly for the interactions between Shrek and Donkey as well as the tyrennical Lord Faarquad. I still love watching it now and other than the Macarena dance at the end, I don't see anything really "one season" in that film. The Matrix? That's a classic film. Pixar might very well have used it as well.

True, Shrek II and SharkTale incorporated modern in-jokes a little more (the most being Christina A. and Missy Elliot, but that was a very small part of the film, and appeared only at the very end) but the basis for the humor is the stories, not the jokes. Shrek trying to fit into Fiona's world; Oscar's maniacal efforts to get rich quick. A lot of the humor was situation-based, not pop-culture, even though that was part of the film's tapestry. But it wasn't the WHOLE film, not by a longshot.

(I will say that I hated the American Idol ending of Shrek II that was tacked on the VHS, mostly because I hate American Idol. But that's not the offical ending, and never appeared in theaters.)

And Madagascar was funny because of the characters and situations...it certainly didn't look much like modern NYC, more like the 1950's. It could have been any time. Over the Hedge makes fun of middle-class American Suburbia....which has prevalently existed in America since the 1940s. (Suburbia has been a target of Disney's since the shorts as well as in Lady and the Tramp.)

Someone else has started using my "The Lamp" thing to describe Pixar

I always thought that was clever, Ben.

If this film is monster hit, will they ever get the drive to someday re-work their never-fail formula?

Ha! I can't believe I didn't even recognize my own pun! "Get the drive".

Disney Pixar's Cars

3 new pictures from "Cars" :)