Disney Pixar's Cars

Post by **Brandon Neeld** » May 18th, 2006, 8:23 pm

Ben wrote:It didn't leave Disney. It will just be issued by their Miramax division (like Roger Rabbit and Nightmare went out through Touchstone).

Touche - I should have said left WDFA.

Post by **PixarVixen** » May 19th, 2006, 3:05 pm

OMGosh! The WP is only 1 week from today! Squeeeeeee!

Brandon and I will most likely already be in line by this time next Friday. Heheheh. I wanted to get there even earlier, but I guess noon would be ridiculously early. *shrugs*

~~=oP

Post by **Meg** » May 19th, 2006, 9:48 pm

You could always set up a tent.

Post by **animated_guy** » May 19th, 2006, 9:51 pm

lol i would stay in a tent.
~a-G

Post by **PixarVixen** » May 19th, 2006, 11:59 pm

Meh. I was never one for camping. ^__~

Besides, why use a tent when you could just stay out in your car? After all, it IS for "Cars". XD

~~=oP

Post by **Meg** » May 20th, 2006, 11:32 am

I would set up a tent just so I could go, "First in line. First in line for Cars."

Post by **Ben** » May 20th, 2006, 12:31 pm

Was just about to say that...

Post by **PixarVixen** » May 20th, 2006, 4:45 pm

Haha.

Well, how early do you guys think people will start showing up? And I don't mean the Pixar crew and everyone else, but the spectators?

~~=oP

Post by **Meg** » May 21st, 2006, 1:25 pm

Depends. I think the bigger the fan they are, the earlier they'll be there.

Post by **Ben** » May 21st, 2006, 3:44 pm

Early morning. No question.

Is it free seating or fixed/numbered?

If it's free seating, get their the night before if you want good seats!

Post by **PixarVixen** » May 21st, 2006, 11:59 pm

Meg wrote:Depends. I think the bigger the fan they are, the earlier they'll be there.

And believe me, I'd be there the day before if I knew it would help my chances. LOL But yeah, that's kind of on the verge of unnecessary, isn't it?

Ben wrote:Is it free seating or fixed/numbered?

According to the pamphlet that came with my ticket, it's first come, first serve as far as seating goes. And yet, there seems to be a number on my ticket. ??

Well, it doesn't matter. We're getting there really early anyways.

~~=oP

Post by **ShyViolet** » May 23rd, 2006, 8:54 am

And how about Rupunzel and Enchanted? They're going to be musical love stories but I don't see Lasseter and co. trying to change that.

Well...I actually don't think they can. Enchanted is mostly live-action (just fifteen minutes of animation) and they have no juristiction over that. And Rupunzal is being animated by Glen Keane's company for Disney, not WDFA.

I honestly don't know, to tell the truth, what they would have done with these projects if they actually did have the power.

I'm not blaming Pixar for not making Disney films, just saying that I get the impression, from things they've said, that they don't particularly care for the "new" Disney films via the 1988-1998 boom. One example is how Brad Bird has said in numerous interviews that the reason he didn't go back to Disney in the late 80's and went to work on The Simpsons instead was because he really didn't care for what was being developed at Disney. (which, at the time, was Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin.)

From Wired.com:

"But once Walt died, watching Disney films get made, as Mike Barrier said in Funnyworld, was like watching master chefs cook hot dogs," Bird says. A Disney scholarship sent him to CalArts, where he studied animation and met Lasseter (Stanton and Docter graduated a few years behind them). After school, Bird faced a tough choice: return to Disney and "do beautiful, full animation of really lame ideas," or work on The Simpsons and "do really fast, write-some-instructions-and-send-it-to-Korea stuff with great ideas." He chose the latter.

In other words, Pixar's philosophy seems very different from the Disney-80s/90s-heyday philosophy, especially the Broadway angle. If Pixar loves the Broadway angle, well maybe they do, but it just doesn't feel that way to me.

Pixar doesn't make Disney movies, they make Pixar moves!

It didn't matter that they weren't making "Disney" films when they were "Pixar," but now they're not "Pixar" anymore. They're Disney. And their experiences with making animation up till now has been quite different than the usual Disney template. One way or another, they'll have to adjust. How much of an adjustment is anyone's guess.

I admit that I'm no insider, just an observer. And I'm sure there are a lot of people who know more about this than I do. LIke I said, these are just my observations.

Post by **ShyViolet** » May 23rd, 2006, 10:20 am

Also, if Pixar doesn't care for musicals, (and I'm saying they don't, it's just my impression) they're not the only ones. "Merlin Jones" on the now-defunct website www.savedisney.com wrote frequently how the "fall" of Disney animaton could all be traced back to the infusion of the musical into Disney's never-fail cartoon world. (He likes Aladdin, Mermaid and Beauty, but because they were still "cartoons" that simply had songs in them, not Broadway musicals. Except for the fact that well,yeah, they basically were broadway musicals. That's what saved a dying company that was crushed under the tired legacy of cartoons, cartoons, cartoons. Why do you think the well kinda dried up after Aristocats?)

Every film following Lion King was bad because it was too much musical and not enough "cartoon." In other words: Broadway killed Disney Animation. Because Pixar only made "cartoons" and left issues like deformed, abandoned babies, brave Indian princesses and Chinese heroines alone, they are the "true" Disney.

Clearly, it was a definite choice of management to change direction in the
types of stories that would define "Disney." Beginning with Pocahontas,
Disney's animation unit left Neverland for the world of the "sophisticated,"
serious, strident, and sassy. These new works would be closer to animated
children's theatre or live-action films than cartoons at heart. The intent:
to be more "grown up", diverse, "relevant."

.

Unlike Howard Ashman, many of the newcomers had little enthusiasm
for cartoons or the Disney tradition, and tried to remake the business in
their own image. Pocahontas and Hunchback (and the development project Aida,
initially targeted for animation) seemed more appropriate for the stage than
for the cartoon screen. Racism, intolerance, genocide, and sexual repression
became appropriate subtext for this new breed of charming children's musical
films.

If anyone wanted a new Dumbo, they would be out-of-luck.
Starting with the very stagy Pocahontas, the box-office grosses subsequently
declined with each picture, even as Pixar came on the scene and made a
fortune taking the mantle of the Disney-style heartwarming, funny, whimsical
cartoon.

Prediction: These films will be "emotional." They will be "relevant," They
will imitate Shrek's sarcasm. They will have wall-to-wall smartass dialogue.
They will be loudly marketed. They will be sequels and remakes and franchise
extensions. They will be "3-D."
But they won't be Pixar. They won't be cartoons.

They won't be Disney.

And the audience will know.

He gets a little mixed up here IMO, because what the heck does "Shrek" have to do with Hunchaback of Notre Dame or Pocahontas? They're two completely different paradigms. (Doesn't Shrek actually ridicule the musical more than once during the film?) The epic, emotional animated film was thriving years before Shrek ever came out. The only thing Shrek and Pocahontas have in common is that Merlin Jones doesn't like them.

O.K., now that I've probably offended many, many hard-core fans out there, I'll give it a rest and let people respond.

Post by **Phil** » May 23rd, 2006, 3:56 pm

ShyViolet wrote:And Rapunzel is being animated by Glen Keane's company for Disney, not WDFA.

Whoa, this is news to me. When did Glen start his own company? I had thought Rapunzel was a WDFA production and Glen was "just" the director. Can anyone clarify this?

Post by **Meg** » May 23rd, 2006, 4:16 pm

I think she meant James Baxter.