Are Pixar films Disney films?

[Phil]

How much input does Disney have in the making of Pixar films?

I have a friend who suggests that Pixar films should not be considered Disney films. His reasoning is that Pixar does all the work and Disney just buys their share and slaps their name on it.

Part of the fuel for this argument comes from Disney's release of Spirited Away. We have never seen Spirited Away referred to as a Disney film, but the opening credits (if I remember correctly) said "Walt Disney Pictures presents / a Studio Ghibli film".
This is the same wording used for The Incredibles: "Walt Disney Pictures presents / a Pixar Animation Studios film".

If course there's the inarguable proof that these are Disney movies in the fact that every scene printed in the newspapers or on the internet has (c) Disney/Pixar printed nearby.

Opinions are welcome, of course, but does anyone have any hard facts about what, if anything, Disney contributes to the process aside from money.

[ShyViolet]

I went to a Disney College presentation two years ago and there was this whole thing about how many companies Disney owns. Someone asked: "Does Disney own Pixar?" and the lady was like: No, we partner with them, we share the profits. Something like that. She didn't say anything on WHAT Disney does though.

My guess is: not very much. Disney Studios is in Burbank, Animation in Glendale, and Pixar is in Emeryville. A profile of Pixar from Premiere a couple of years ago (when Monsters Inc. came out) said that John Lassetter and Company like to stay right where they are in the more laid-back Emeryville studio. They have total creative control; Disney just puts up the money. They stay far away from the MBAs and controlling execs in WDFA. Those people have no power over them. Disney puts up some money, Pixar makes the films. They share the profits.


HOWever....

I'm not POSITIVE but pretty, pretty sure that when Pixar was working on the first Toy Story film (and laying out plans for a possible sequel) Katzenberg had some input, particularly with TS #1. When he was suing Disney it was written that he was suing for the royalties of films he put into production, INCLUDING THE FIRST TOY STORY AS WELL AS PLANS FOR A SEQEL. I know that he was the one who told them not to give up when it really looked like TS would not work out. He was the one who told them to keep going. I think they must of had some help from him because this was the first feature film they ever made, and they ran into plenty of difficulties. They should remember where they came from IMO.....

And I really don't believe they are Disney films even though they have been released under the Disney label. Pixar is Pixar, not Disney. They have their own worldview-paradigm-formula for making films and it ain't Disney, it's a combination of different types of storytelling, some of it rooted in the short films Pixar used to make. That's one reason whey they stress visuals so much. The fact that Roy Disney got to be really close to them in his last years at the company, especially since they stress the more classic "cartoon" style leads some to say that Pixar is "more Disney than Disney." I think in order to determine whether or not you can consider Pixar "Disney", you have to know what "Disney" really means. And that is very confusing nowadays.

[ShyViolet]

When Spirited Away was released by Disney, they wrote "Walt Disney Pictures Presents" not only because they handled the distribution costs but because Pixar produced the dubbing version of SA. Many have said that the translation from Japanese to English was very well done because the dubbing was directed so skillfully. (unlike many other English-Anime deals). John Lassetter actually directed the dubbed version.

[Ben]

Toy Story, Bug's Life and Toy Story 2 were all true co-pros with Disney.

The Mouse House had story approval, storyboarding was done between Pixar and WDFA, and both sides were equal in creativity.

It was Pixar who suggested the re-vamp TS2 for theatrical after John Lasseter was dismayed at what he saw as the plans for a DTV, and since then they have been awarded more creative control.

Disney puts up half the money, and creams off half the profits. Pixar benifits from the Disney distribution machine and the name.

[Special_Ed]

Leave it to shyviolet to make this a pro Katzenberg rant. lol.


I don't consider Pixar films to be Disney films because they are made at Pixar. Disney just distributes.

Are you sure Disney had that much input up through TS2? My understanding was the had a heavy hand in TS but only story approval after that.

[ShyViolet]

The plot and execution of Toy Story 1 reminds me more of the mid-90's Disney film rather than the Pixar of today.

The focus on Woody coupled with the "protagonist's dillemma" deal is more like Aladdin or Lion King rather than say, Finding Nemo.

Finding Nemo is in the Pixar mold of "buddy relationships" and fantastic situations, humor, etc...not really one main character's personal journey. It may DEAL with Marlin's learning to let his son go, but it doesn't focus as much on this. It's more about the adventures he has with Dory, and Nemo's adventures with the fishtank group.

Current Pixar stories move much faster than the tradtional Disney films of the early and mid 90's. They spend less time on theme (ex: Belle feeling "different" from the rest of the village) and more on action.

That's just my opinion.

[Special_Ed]

There are 3 phases of films:

The dud, Toy Story


A Bug's Life
Toy Story 2


Monster's Ince
Finding Nemo
The Incredibles


So far they've only really made 2 types of films at Pixar. I like the BL and TS2 model best....

[Ben]

Actually, there are two:

The start-ups Toy Story and A Bug's Life, followed by TS 2, which found them at the top of their game.

Then Monsters "Ince", Nemo and Incredibles.

Cars will be the third phase: their first true dud.


Anyways, it's all only opinions...

[Special_Ed]

But Toy Story is weaker than ABL and TS2. It really is.


I think Cars will be closer to this camp than the MI/FN/TI one. It looks like that sort of film. But I still have little desire to see it based on what I've seen...but I felt the same way about ABL and loved it, but Cars has a trailer and I really don't like how it appears to be but we'll see....

[ShyViolet]

The Cars trailer was trying to come off as "something different" from Pixar with all that way-cool racing car music/effects, but IMO it exhibited everything that is wrong with that company. (Every company has flaws). There's that same tired buddy relationship between the two cars and that SAME idea carried over from the shorts: "Hey, there's a whole world that comes to life when we aren't looking!" Talking cars, why not talking DVD players complaining about the bad films their owners screen? Or a family of knives and forks? These ideas can only go so far before they become stale.

No one is perfect, not even Pixar. I'm not a Pixar hater at all, I think their films are great, but the are not the be-all and end-all. Their films are very enjoyable films but if you want to look at a movie, even an animated movie, from an intellectual's pov, Pixar doesn't have that much to offer. Their stories are sweet and pleasant, period.

Again, this is just my opinion. Not trying to bash Pixar.

[Macaluso]

I didn't see Cars that way at all, simply because it's a world of cars. Not cars coming to life when the humans aren't looking.

I don't think I'm as picky as many here. I think cars looks awesome.

[Stego]

No one is perfect, not even Pixar. I'm not a Pixar hater at all, I think their films are great, but the are not the be-all and end-all. Their films are very enjoyable films but if you want to look at a movie, even an animated movie, from an intellectual's pov, Pixar doesn't have that much to offer. Their stories are sweet and pleasant, period.

Again, this is just my opinion. Not trying to bash Pixar.

I'm not so sure they don't have much to offer. Pixar has proven quite profoundly in recent years that they can not only create stories that are visually gorgeous, but that are solidly written and executed by characters with heart and who deal with some fairly complex issues.

To me, Pixar is reminding the world of animation how this "game" is supposed to be played...with some integrity.

I agree, they have their flaws as well...but it's not as profound as a handful of other such companies.

[ShyViolet]

I totally agree that Pixar is strong in the story department, that's what makes their visuals so captivating--the way the story and characters are handled.

But if you are the kind of person who enjoys taking a movie apart and learning about themes and texts and subtexts, Pixar just doesn't jibe.
I love films that are warm and funny and sweet, but I like the films that make me think, too. Sinbad had a complicated story that was well-handled. There are different layers in that film as in Shrek and Shrek 2.
Well, that's just how I feel.

[Stego]

Sinbad had a complicated story that was well-handled. There are different layers in that film as in Shrek and Shrek 2.
Well, that's just how I feel.

That's totally cool...i'm ok with different opinions. I just like to defend my own as well!

Sinbad felt...sorta slapped together to me (almost the same way that Atlantis did). I liked it and felt it was a valiant effort, but there was definitely something missing as compared to previous DW efforts. I thoroughly enjoyed Prince of Egypt and El Dorado (got my own copy of ED actually)...i was just hoping Sinbad would be one of those small gems that the general public misses, but IMO it was more like a CZ.

I'm sorry to say that, while i did enjoy Shrek and it's companion, i don't think it's as amazing as most people say. *shrug* Although i must say that i think i enjoyed the sequel more than the original, but i'd have to watch them back to back to make sure.

Please don't be offended by any of this...i honestly believe that DW has the capacity for greatness, but to me they seem to lack in going the extra mile, half the time.

[ShyViolet]

No prob..... I think part of DW's problem is that they are still in the experimental stages and aren't totally sure of where they want to go. I like the efforts they've put out, but it seems like they're finding their way now more than before,with Madagascar and everything. It seems like comedies are their forte more than the "serious" films like Spirit and Sinbad even though I personally enjoyed Spirit quite a bit. They seem to have more success with comedies, however.

I liked Shrek but I wouldn't say it's my favorite DW film...the ones that really touched me are more along the lines of POE and Joseph: King of Dreams. So it kind of irks me every time critic calls Shrek "the film that made DW succeed." They had success before that too.