Pixar to Disney: Drop Dead

Perhaps, but maybe the closest we'll ever get to a Watchmen-style film will set things aright.

http://www.animationnation.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=007538

Cool! An animated Ric Ocasek biopic.

ha ha

When was the last time Disney put out an even barely watchable animated feature that wasn't done by Pixar? Walt Disney was probably still alive.

I think Pixar will be a lot better off without Disney at this point.

Really? I can't believe something with a title like this was actually watchable. What were they thinking when they named it?

Surely also the Disney brand name, which is hella strong among the target audience. Toy Story was the new Disney film when it came out, rather than the debut Pixar film.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=94827&cid=8131039
(and the whole rest of the thread)

toy story:
> the debut Pixar film

pixar already had oscars at this point - they'd had, what 6?, shorts out by then. but yes, first feature.

(wally b, luxo jr, tin toy, knick knack, red's dream... ironically, watch the credits of some of these and you'll see the rendering machines were named 'mickey' and 'donald'.)

andy

Really? I can't believe something with a title like this was actually watchable. What were they thinking when they named it?

Bad title, good film. Apparently it was part of a much larger Aztec epic with Sting songs and... you've already fallen asleep. Instead, they nixed the main storyline, cut Sting down to an end credits theme, and left in the anarchic comic relief bits, which are pretty funny, in an anarchic-Daffy Duck rather than Eddie-Murphy-as-a-donkey way. Plus, Puddy from Seinfeld is a main character, therefore clasic.

Haha Aja you are smart. Do you not like Pixar or do you not like any computer animated stuff?

I was really impressed by Toy Story, but not much else by Pixar. Their movies sort of hurt my eyes, just because I do not like the non-graphic too-realistic too-bright look of any computer animation very much. Even in video games I hate the 3D ones, I would rather play original nintendo or even pac-man, I think simple graphics are much more fun to look at. I think hand drawn animation rules- it has good looks but it also has unique motion style that doesn't conform to 3D computer models. Pixar definitely has the most superior computer animation though. Plus it's likely they might open a traditional studio so they are cool.

*does nothing for an hour*

Favourite myth about computer animation, as attempted in a badly edited end-of-the-evening-news report:

Animator Woman: Computer animation is so much quicker, I can just move this over here in a few seconds. If we'd been painting this film on cels, it would have taken months.
Narrator: In total, Finding Nemo took 6 years to make...

and i like the 3d modelling thing they do these days (everything machanical in Belleville for instance, Futurama's spaceships and buildings) where they 3d model various bits and incorporate them / make them look like more traditional 2d animation. without this things tend to change shape when going around corners and that always used to bug me.

> who, other than animation-heads, gives a crap about animated shorts oscars?

people who are interested in what'll win the animated feature award in a couple of years time? people interested in the new animation techniques that are coming through? the short is where people tend to try out things, it's a testing ground. and that's more interesting to me than, say, another jack nicholson movie 8)

andy

From the man who brought you NeXT.

Tom, mail me at the below address. I can't find your email address in the archives.

Disney and Pixar: undrop dead. Though then there's this:

IN a subtle but important shift, Pixar has matured, allowing its strategic thinking to evolve inside a sprawling corporation. For instance, some of the studio’s executives once resisted sequels and direct-to-DVD efforts, arguing that quality and the brand could suffer. While sequels were not out of the question, they said Pixar’s hot streak hinged on pushing boundaries with original material.

But at Mr. Lasseter’s presentation in April, Disney’s first such event in 10 years, he announced “Cars 2,” a 2012 sequel that will take Lightning McQueen and his pals on a tour of foreign countries. Also in the works are four direct-to-DVD movies built around Tinker Bell.

“We are definitely planning on doing more sequels, just as we are more originals,” Mr. Lasseter said in an interview. “We talk with Bob Iger about which ones make sense to do from a business perspective. But each movie has to be absolutely great or you will snuff out a franchise.”

And the Pixar team, which also has oversight of Walt Disney Animation Studios and the DVD-focused DisneyToon Studios, decided that it was O.K. to outsource some direct-to-DVD animation to an Indian company, a departure from its rigid stance that outside animators could not deliver the necessary quality. (Mr. Lasseter will still closely monitor the efforts, however.)

Also:

In Disney’s case, Pixar was assigned the difficult task of turning around a storied animation department that had fallen into disrepair as it struggled to find its footing in a new world of computer-generated pictures. At a low point, the 2002 film “Treasure Planet” flopped so badly that Disney was forced to take a $98 million write-down.

A window into how the rebuilding effort is going will come on Nov. 26, with the release of “Bolt,” the tale of a Hollywood dog star who becomes lost in New York and has to make his way back to California. Mr. Lasseter and his team have heavily reworked the project, including playing up a wickedly funny side character, a hamster.

including playing up a wickedly funny side character, a hamster.

played by Jack Black, I suppose.

nope, but it does have miley cyrus and john travolta in it

I'm more of a Wallace and Grommit man.

speaking of jack black... "skidoosh!"

I love pixar but I couldn't make it past the first 10 minutes of Cars...

i got high hopes for wall-e.

Why did they decide to make a sequel out of one of their poorer efforts? I mean, it is not like they don't have enough amazing movies that you really wish there was more of.

I'm guessing it's for the money.

has anyone read the pixar touch? is it good?

http://www.amazon.com/Pixar-Touch-Vintage-David-Price/dp/0307278298/

So I guess Pixar's hand was forced to do sequels, but surely they could have come up with something more inspired than Monsters U.

Pretty long article here
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/big-hero-6/
Thing I had to notice was that chart comparing Pixar to Disney film grosses - notice how Pixar's have gone down while Disney's have increased. Not coincidentally since Pixar has been doing lackluster sequels...

Didn't know about this:

But it wasn't all bad: While at Disney, Lasseter saw an early computer-animation test for Tron and it blew him away. “It was very simplistic, but a door opened up in my head and there was this incredible world beyond it,” he says. “I kept thinking, ‘This was what Walt was waiting for.’” Lasseter started an animation test—hand-drawn characters in computer-generated backgrounds—and began developing an idea for a computer-animated feature about forgotten appliances at a summer cabin waiting for their owner to return. Lasseter pitched the idea to the top brass. It was rejected. “The only reason we'd do computer animation,” Lasseter was told, “is if it was cheaper or faster.” Immediately after the meeting, he was summoned to the office of the manager of the animation department and told he was out of a job.

Lasseter was mortified. “My entire self-identity, even as a little kid, was based on this dream of working at Disney,” he says. “It just was so crushing to be fired from the place of your dreams.” He didn't tell anyone that he'd been let go—not even his wife, Nancy. Instead, he said that he'd quit to pursue computer animation. (It wasn't until Disney bought Pixar, more than 20 years later, that Lasseter finally admitted the truth.)

With Lasseter in charge of the entire animation division now, it seems like there's been a slow transformation of the main studio into the new Pixar.

Exactly - this article's the first time I'm hearing it explictly

assumed this was about this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/29947502

Toy Story 4 is a go....if they do it well I suppose that's fine (and I have a hard time believing Lasseter would let anyone fuck this particular franchise up) but still.

but still what?

I wish all film series would replicate the Toy Story formula re: increasing qualitative returns.

Haha, nice scare quotes - 'exciting' new film
man, maybe Pixar is just getting stretched too thin - Lasseter actually directing TS4 himself too

TS 2 was poor though.

Discounting TS3, Pixar's last great film was Ratatouille, 2007.

This run of Cars 2, Brave, Monsters U and Nemo 2 has been terrible in comparison to Disney's very good run of Tangled, Wreck it Ralph, Frozen.

...nobody take the bait there

I liked Finding Nemo 2, myself. The characters were much more thoroughly developed this time around and, although I thought all of the hardcore fucking was going to put me off, it really worked in context.

This run of Cars 2, Brave, Monsters U and Nemo 2 has been terrible in comparison to Disney's very good run of Tangled, Wreck it Ralph, Frozen.

I actually agree! Ralph and Tangles are great, seeing the new one tonight. I still think Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc and Toy Story 2 were peaks. Rest sort of a scramble, save Nemo 2, which was amazing and surprisingly hot, for fish.

Anyway, it's not a coincidence that as soon as Lasseter ported over from Pixar to Disney proper, Disney movies starting getting better and Pixar started getting shaky. It's telling that Pixar postponed a bunch of stuff; I believe we are in the middle of the longest gap with no Pixar films.

What is Brad Bird up to?

his neck in lawsuits

(j/k)

a reboot of a disney theme park area starring george clooney

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrowland_(film)

In November 2013, scenes of the film were also shot at New Smyrna Beach, and the Carousel of Progress attraction at Walt Disney World in Florida.

On February 5, 2014, additional filming took place at the It's a Small World attraction at Disneyland in California.

it was originally named 1952 but why promote something you don't already own

"This run of Cars 2, Brave, Monsters U and Nemo 2 has been terrible"

Nemo 2 isn't even out yet!

Brave is good and I liked Monsters U fine.

Monsters U was so lazy. Hey, it's a slobs vs snobs comedy! For kids!

Premise

Frank (George Clooney) and Casey (Britt Robertson) travel to a place somewhere in time and space only known as Tomorrowland where their actions directly affect the world and themselves.

Imagine, if you will, a land where your actions directly affect the world and yourself. Did I blow your mind?

Did I mention that this land is somewhere in both time and space? Yeah. Wrap your head around that one.

i want that exact description to be the standard form for all wiki "plot" sections for films w unconfirmed plots

Captain America (Chris Evans) and Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) travel to a place somewhere in time and space only known as Captain America: Civil War where their actions directly affect the world and themselves.

wistful lol btw @ ned upthread calling the unreleased incredibles "the closest we'll ever get to a watchmen-style film"

the grim thing i guess is the idea of an escapist fantasy about your actions affecting the world

Clickhole is fast these days: http://www.clickhole.com/article/toy-story-coming-back-and-time-andy-toy-1374

"Mr. Potato Head is now a real-life 4-foot-tall potato man who’s constantly ripping off parts of his face and moving them around"

apparently rashida jones is writing

Just saw Tomorowland teaser! Looked good, for kids.

Big Hero 6 was beautifully designed and executed boilerplate. Given the amount of work that goes into these things, it's a wonder the scripts are not tighter and less lazy before they hit go. It felt a bit like an ambitious movie that had gone through several destabilizing reshoots, which is ironic.

Lasseter started an animation test—hand-drawn characters in computer-generated backgrounds—and began developing an idea for a computer-animated feature about forgotten appliances at a summer cabin waiting for their owner to return.

This is actually Thomas Disch's story The Brave Little Toaster. Disch later sold it to Disney.

Big Hero 6 was good stuff! I think I still have low expectations for Disney features, because I thought it was pretty great - some wonderful animation showpieces and generally solid character development and story for the main two characters (less so for the rest of the team, but they were amusing enough sidekicks).

I wish they had cast Sam Waterston for the professor though because COME ON, he looks and sounds JUST LIKE HIM! I guess James Cromwell is good enough.

The thing that I guess really bugged me was how easily they did basically ... everything. Quick montage: tada, cybernetic microbots by the millions! Another montage: tada, super battle suits! Another montage: Wall-e gets a kung fu upgrade! When things come that easy, there's really no drama, and it makes you ask things like: why doesn't he just make more microbots to battle the bad guy? Or a headband that negates the other headband? Or a robot designed to fight microbot man? And so on. These are minor compared to the glorious animation, but there was just so much of it it all added up.

And speaking of which, lots of just showing off the animation flash at the expense of story. Hey, we've finally got battle suits, let's get the bad guy who killed my brother, but first ... let's fly around and have fun! The fun aspect of it over-dominated the stuff about grief and mourning, imo. Sort of the way "Up" begins with such real heartbreak but ends with flying talking dogs.

Also can't figure out why they had to make the surfer dude a secret billionaire. Hero was financing himself just fine, so it's not like the revelation did anything but give them a location to do another training montage.

Liked the update of the ET gets drunk sequence a lot. And the "Feast" short was beautiful to watch.

Did anyone else know that "Tangled" is apparently (at least) the second most expensive movie ever made?

That's weird. What the hell is up with that?

cgi catering costs

CGI hair costs, more like. Still, that's nuts.

the animation style was supposed to be novel (cgi + traditional), and the film was in development for six years. the development thing in and of itself isn't noteworthy (the concept for wreck-it ralph first came in the 80s), but in this case it might have included some false starts in production as they worked out the animation style.

I saw snippets of the unfinished movie at Disney World maybe a year or so before it was released and it looked completely wretched. Like sub-direct-to-video animation. So I'd say that's a fair guess.

some anecdotal info here

http://wagthemovie.net/2012/04/21/tangled-the-most-expensive-animated-film-ever-made-part-2/

i'm not super informed about how they do accounting in animation, but it seems possible that if there was some experimental tech they were never going to use on another film, it could have been expensed entirely on the budget for this, rather than amortized over several

admittedly i have no idea how CGI animation actually works, but i've wondered if rapunzel being so expensive explains why nearly every female character since then vaguely resembles her. like they're just tweaking a preexisting model or something.

i think that's more just brand consistency than expense cutting. disney characters have historically shared features.

though it'd be awesome to learn Dreamworks saves money by putting the same smirk on different animals

They have an algorithm for attitude.

croup otm i think

Didn't know all the hubbub about Tangled, I should get around to that one.

Big Hero 6 was excellent. I get the gripes up above but it was really entertaining. And yeah, Feast was wonderful, one of the best shorts before an animated film I've seen in years.

big hero was some tedious shit basically a really advanced scooby doo ep Imo.

I have a low bar for animated entertainment.

a really advanced scooby doo ep

not a bad thing

We got that already, though. http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38125000/jpg/_38125568_scooby_doo_300b.jpg

princess and the frog was as good as any disney 90s

music was snazzy in that one, big step above frozen

princess frog animation and story also step up for disney. visually my favoutire disney movie.

Wow, I really didn't like that one. I especially hated that they made a big deal about finally having an African-American princess, then they immediately turn her into a frog for the duration. Then at the end, the rich white girl/family swoops in and saves the day. "Here's some money, follow your dream!" Iirc.

nah you've got wrong end of stick with the ending, the morals were great, about working hard against entitlement, character writing was great, to look at the best disney film for decades.

But isn't that how it ends? The rich white family just gives her a pile of money?

Something else I agree w rt about wtf.

I dont recall white girl giving her a bunch of money at the end and that isnt mentioned in the wiki synopsis

She marries the prince, they buy the restaurant

"But isn't that how it ends? The rich white family just gives her a pile of money?

― Josh in Chicago"

No, it's not.

Isn't there something with money from the rich white family?

Yeah, her childhood friend Charlotte gives her the money.

her friend hires her to cater a party at the start of the movie, and that's the last chunk of money she needs after years of saving. then the realtors tell her someone else is offering more money, so she can't have the place after all, but at the end of the movie she goes back with a talking jazz alligator and frightens them into accepting the original price.

Deus ex talking jazz alligator.

Anyway, point stands that the first African-American princess is reduced to a frog for most of the movie. Tiana might be the only of the recent princesses, save perhaps Pocahontas, whose presence at Disney World last month was limited exclusively to a cameo on the parade. And I'm not even sure I saw her there.

I didn't think this one was bad, actually, just sort of a missed opportunity. Save for Keith David, who should voice every villain.

I don't know what you're talking about with the white money thing, I think that' in your head. She worked hard for all the money - that was the entire point of the movie. The frog point is just stupid, sorry mate. It's a cartoon about animals and turning into a frog, if you didn't know she was black still, then, sorry about that.

i cannot tell if this frog is black

I just meant that after making a point of finally having a princess (or even a lead) who was visibly black, they waste no time turning her into a frog.

Tiana has a white childhood best friend who is filthy rich, with a rich dad (I believe actually named Big Daddy). Charlotte, her friend, the rich southern belle, is the one who hires her to bake or cater. At the end, I think, the frog prince makes her promise to give money to Tiana. That's what was confusing me (having not seen it for a while).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MC3XuMvsDI

ugh!

yeah they're done

i hope everybody likes thinkpieces about gender stereotyping because come july we are IN FOR IT.

this doesn't look good at all. maybe they'll surprise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gn6IfWXPbk

exactly

Ffffuuuuuck that looks terrible

Men like sport and women like nagging.

so pixar have made an unauthorised version of the beano's numskulls strip?

http://www.beano.com/media/1371128/93numskullslogo_500x399.jpg

Eh I don't want to judge too harshly on such a small clip, and my residual affection for Pixar is still enourmous, but little mind people aside it looks to have a pretty banal storyline.

But I'd like it to be good, I really would.

So basically...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE489rs0fPA

i like the calvin+hobbes strip with all the tiny calvins and the burt reynolds sperm commander section in everything you always wanted to know about sex but reddening otm

Clearly I am blind

i hope everybody likes thinkpieces about gender stereotyping because come july we are IN FOR IT.

― the dreaded Laramie (reddening), Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:42 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Men like sport and women like nagging.

― the joke should be over once the kid is eaten. (chap), Thursday, December 11, 2014 6:12 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't think most people will be bothered by this kind of thing. Like I'm sure everyone else in my office would go "oh COME ON" at these criticisms because they rely on this kind of shit for their own sense of humor. It's the "hahaha soooo truuue" kind of humor they're comfortable with, it's written into their brains and reinforced by hallmark card jokes, words written on snarky novelty items, and commercials featuring women rolling their eyes at dopey husbands.

i mean "sports sports sports toilet seat up oh no!! anniversary :/" is so broadly sitcom-ish to the point of self-parody but pixar has a tendency for that type of stuff and they're the only people on earth still gainfully employing tim allen so i guess it isn't too surprising

also does NO ONE remember cranium command come on now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlwLkM0iGE0

People are fucking boring. Pixar know$.

Would not be at all surprised to learn that this was originally pitched as a Cranium Command film.

"sports sports sports toilet seat up oh no!! anniversary :/"

lol well done

I don't think most people will be bothered by this kind of thing. Like I'm sure everyone else in my office would go "oh COME ON" at these criticisms because they rely on this kind of shit for their own sense of humor. It's the "hahaha soooo truuue" kind of humor they're comfortable with, it's written into their brains and reinforced by hallmark card jokes, words written on snarky novelty items, and commercials featuring women rolling their eyes at dopey husbands.

― Evan, Thursday, December 11, 2014 10:33 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well.... yeah. Doesn't mean we have to be excited about it though! Some of their other films really went for something with a lot more heart and insight than this lazy Dreamworksy shit.

Well like I say, there may turn out to be more depth to the concept than the trailer reveals. Signs aren't good though.

This trailer feels roughly of a piece with the somewhat recent trend in commercials that show couples/families who can barely hide their resentment of and boredom with one another.

Well.... yeah. Doesn't mean we have to be excited about it though! Some of their other films really went for something with a lot more heart and insight than this lazy Dreamworksy shit.

― Doctor Casino, Thursday, December 11, 2014 12:15 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah I'm definitely not saying anyone is forcing us to be excited about that trailer. Just kinda frustrated that people are complacent despite the criticisms already brought up here.

Not that they have to agree either if presented with them.

I want to give Pixar more credit from so many years of goodwill, but they did just make a Monsters Inc prequel and sequel to Cars... still, I will keep hope alive.

i hope everybody likes thinkpieces about gender stereotyping because come july we are IN FOR IT.

― the dreaded Laramie (reddening), Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:42 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

evan just pointed me to this and yeah, this is gonna get thinkpieced to death - and rightfully so to a certain extent - unless of course the trailer is deceptive. like ebert *pours liquor* once said, the trailer almost invariably reflects the film the studio (disney overlords rather than pixar people) wanted made, rather than the film that was made.

but pixar might also be washed i mean i didn't even try fuckin' with cars 2 or brave, havent seen any of their flicks since up and toy story 3

Brave was ok, but a little sub-par for them

I'm really worried about the future of The Good Dinosaur.

I fell asleep during Brave and didn't feel particuarly inclined to try again. Monsters Inc prequel was entertaining enough, but hardly a classic.

They're following the Disney template with a glut of classics right out of the gate followed by a slate of forgettable halfassery.

but the Dad in that trailer was daydreaming about SOCCER. It's clearly super-progressive.

they were just thinking about the international box office

ha, yeah that's probably exactly right

Well, both. Soccer was big this year in the US so it's a kill two birds kinda thing.

brave was painfully conventional, occasionally beautiful

monsters u was by-the-numbers hackwork

still lots of goodwill attached to the brand but they need a legit Pixar entertainment aoon

monsters inc prequel was fun, I don't hold that against them. not so sure we need Nemo 2 since Nemo is one of their absolute highlights. Brave was fine, I think it's a much better film than the woeful Frozen.

Despite the quality of any given Pixar movie overall, their animators still consistently come across as the most imaginative and best at timing/expressions/mannerisms/etc of their characters & worlds.

Oh yeah, the animation in that trailer is sublime.

Yes, but Pixar should remember that DreamWorks animation is also very pretty, but underneath lies a vacuous void with the heart of a hyena (a cowardly hyena's heart).

Cars 2 was the beginning of the slide.

Pixar's sequelitis is a little surprising, as even Disney proper has avoided that to a pretty large extent (either shipping that garbage straight to video or dumping it on a lesser studio, a la Planes). I think the critical and commercial success of the Toy Story series went to their heads and suggested that the rest of their library could carry subsequent installments.

true, but so far, the only terrible sequel is Cars 2. I still stand by Monsters U.

Monsters U was fun but Cars 2 good lord

but it's true they really haven't tried anything ambitious or critic-friendly anyway since Up

I guess Brave had its fans actually

xpost Which is baffling, since up to that point (IIRC), each subsequent movie did better both critically and financially than the one before. Why mess with that formula?

Cars was WAY too big of of an incentive from a merchandising point of view for them to not do. I can imagine a push in very early phases of writing Cars 2 to "expand the universe" with that in mind. And imagine the pressure after Up to produce another good merchandising opportunity.

Are you kidding? Those Carl dolls are still flying off the shelves five years later.

haha

Ha - yeah and my kids did not dig Up at all. Maybe they were put off somehow by their parents weeping within the first three minutes.

worth mentioning that the people who made pixar A Thing are currently focused on making disney A Thing again.

Good bit of recent discussion ITT about that very Thing. I hope Lassiter stays in a position of power at Disney for a long time to come.

ah my bad - i figured that already came up. i just assume that's the reason pixar seems to be treading water at the moment.

weirdness of that trailer aside though, what i've read about that brain movie seems pretty promising.

Well, usually their storytelling is pretty good. That trailer was just establishing the world. Same with Monsters U- Pixar did a nice job with the story and it was a fun movie, but the similar trailer just showing the characters as college versions doing Animal-House-but-not-humans was also really shitty looking initially (though I'm not saying it came close to the legacy that ended with Toy Story 3).

Cars 2 was the beginning of the slide.

It was one of them, considering they devised it as a means to marketing toys to boys, though the irony is that it was totally Lasseter's baby because he likes cars. But I think the breaking point was giving up and greenlighting Toy Story 3 after Disney threatened to start making straight to video sequels on their own and Pixar capitulated.

Nothing wrong with Toy Story 3 though imo

Stays true to the magic of all the other classics.

Is anyone else excited for the movie about people's emotions being anthropomorphized? Looks like it might be pretty good, IMO.

"greenlighting Toy Story 3 after Disney threatened to start making straight to video sequels on their own and Pixar capitulated"

this happened with Toy Story 2 actually

wasn't making Toy Story 3 one of the required terms of the Pixar/Disney buyout deal?

this happened with Toy Story 2 actually

Yeah, this may be right, or at least closer. I think Toy Story 2 was going to be straight to video, but they decided to make it a feature. This is back when Pixar worked more or less independently from Disney, while Disney handled distribution. They split profits 50/50, but Disney retained character/sequel rights. Regardless, Toy Story 2 is perfect, so worked out OK. Last several Pixar, starting with Cars, have been erratic or otherwise disappointing, while Disney (under Lasseter) has cleaned up, creatively and commercially. Again, no coincidence that we are in the middle of the longest stretch yet between Pixar films, many of which have had creative conflicts/changes and/or have been delated (Brave, Dinosaur).

Intrigued about the return of Andrew Stanton post John Carter. It's too bad it's for Finding Dory, but Finding Nemo may be my Pixar fave. Definitely up there.

u r all cray monsters u was a by-the-numbers betrayal of everything that made the first one worthwhile

I disliked Monsters U. I thought it was lame and unfunny and I was shocked they went with the boilerplate slobs vs. snobs set-up. Iirc it saved all its few jokes for the fuzzy guy. Monsters Inc, is one of Pixar's formative masterpieces.

All I meant (speaking for myself) was that it had a nice charm to it and that it would have been a very strong Dreamworks film. But yes against the earlier Pixars it was disappointing for sure.

I kinda want to say that The Lego Movie was fantastic and better than anything Disney, Pixar or Dreamworks has put out for the past few years, to my shock

both toy story 3 and the recent toy story holiday special have a heavy handed judeochristian subtext that feels both subversive and somewhat underhandedly delivered all at once
and yet the former had gleams of brilliance
i agree with you on the lego movie; that was a dozen times better than it would've been. only wish they hadn't cast will ferrell.

Everything I've heard suggests that becoming integrated into the Disney corporate machine has affected not only the quality of Pixar's output, but also the working conditions as well. You just have to look at how many directors have been fired from their own projects in the last decade, at least three that I'm aware of. It just doesn't sound like a healthy working environment at all.

Also just been reading about how the current president of the company has basically fucked all his employees over through years of wage fixing. Lassetter was also apparently aware of what was going on and supported it.

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/business/pixars-ed-catmull-emerges-as-central-figure-in-the-wage-fixing-scandal-101362.html

Lasseter is a fool and a moron.

http://cdn7.staztic.com/app/a/2569/2569756/rj-over-the-hedge-wallpapers-9-2-s-307x512.jpg

That's a little heartbreaking for me tbh, I love Lasseter

he hugs everyone like a madman. watch that day in the life he did. gimme a break stop hugging me. he even hugs miyazaki like crazy. everything with him during directing is "great job, just fantastic, brilliant, now let me go finish decorating my office"

Yeah I remeber a clip of him and Miyazaki on the red carpet and Lasseter was clowning like a buffoon, and there was this sheepish grin on the very diginified Miyazaki's face which seemed to say "I'm kind of glad I don't speak English right now".

Is this our general Pixar thread? Anyway, reviews of Finding Dory not encouraging.

They did Toy Story justice but it seems otherwise like they need to cut it with the sequels.

Well, Good Dinosaur was not a sequel and they fucked that up. Inside Out was original, too, and those were just in the last 12 months. But yeah, their sequels are pretty meh, though I understand that was a big negotiating tactic Disney used to keep them onboard. Basically, stay with us, Pixar, and do sequels, or we will do them ourselves. Which is ironic, because Disney proper has been killing it: Zootopia, Frozen, Wreck It Ralph, Big Hero 6, Tangled ...

Next up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6PbWhWGUrY

Well, with Lasseter in charge of the whole of Disney animation, I think he shifted his emphasis to the larger playground. It's just my feeling that his stewardship is largely to thank for the uptick in Disney's output, but the timeline seems to support that.

"Anyway, reviews of Finding Dory not encouraging."

which ones? it seems overwhelmingly postive on rotten tomatoes so far. I'm seeing it tonight so I'll report back.

I read the Chicago Tribune one, which was 3 stars but mostly a modest review, heard the NPR one, which was pretty meh, AVClub gave it a meh B- ... Most for the same reasons - Dory is annoying, the contained setting is not as expansive as the first one - which is not reassuring.

Blurbs on Meteoritic - and these are the mostly positive reviews:

It’s not Toy Story or Inside Out or even Nemo. What it is is a perfectly enjoyable family film that’s comforting, familiar, and a bit slight, like one of those serviceable Lion King spin-offs that Disney used to ship straight to DVD back in the ‘90s.

In deciding not to stray far from the first film in plot or tone, it makes for a pleasant, familiar, cheerfully unassuming fish-in-her-water tale.

Even the more positive Times review strikes a similar chord:

What “Dory” lacks in dazzling originality it more than makes up for in warmth, charm and good humor.

Iirc the Good Dinosaur reviews were sort of similar, along the lines of "It's a simple story, perfect for families, nothing special, but its heart is in the right place and it's nice to look at."

those serviceable Lion King spin-offs that Disney used to ship straight to DVD back in the ‘90s.

lol they were putting those lion king movies on VHS in the 90s not DVD do your fucking research you gormless noob and you call yourself a "film" "critic" you make me SICK

lol

fwiw i thought Good Dinosaur was totally underrated. not up to the best of Pixar but still a really good children's film in my eyes

Saw it last night, it's very very good, certainly not a trifle. It's true that resetting this story in what's basically the MOnterey Bay Aquarium takes some of the open-ended fascination of the ocean out of it, but they already did that story. It's absolutely better than the Good Dinosaur and has no dead parents. It's not as good as Nemo but most films aren't.

also Dory herself is not annoying, who would say that?

I think it was the NPR/LAtimes interview. Tbf they didn't call her annoying, but they did say after a while she makes you (that is, made the reviewer) a little irritable.

I don't expect this to be bad at all, but given the original "Nemo" (which I love) is not terribly ambitious by Pixar standards, this sort of redux seems not particularly compelling. It's curious, my kids have loved all those recent Disney-proper cartoons, even the older daughter, but neither wanted to see Inside Out, both actively refused to see Good Dinosaur (to my disappointment) and neither has mentioned Finding Dory at all.

I am curious about the animation. Nemo was, what, a decade ago? 15 years ago? A while ago, anyway, and I think it still looks gorgeous. Have there been any significant advances in computers that make this one look any better/different? I don't know where the animation can go from the first one. A lot of computer tech lately is going to fur and flowing hair and other hyper-detailed stuff. Computers seem to have nailed water stuff years ago.

the surfaces of the fish look very tactile in this, like you could just pick them up and touch them (and I saw it in 2d). And the water itself is mindblowing, particularly at the end credits where there is a scene that's held for about 10 seconds of the bay and the dock and it's utterly, completely photo realistic; if you didn't see the Good Dinosaur, there are scenes of wind through grass that are similar, where you can't believe this is animation. That's amazing, but it's also a bit...if it just looks completely real, then why is it better than actual film of a real place, you know? Luckily that kind of realism is left to the background textures and the character animation itself is just very very good. The way the octopus moves around, for instance....it's cartoonish, almost loony-toonsish at time, but somehow it's very believable.

for all the fuss (or, well, one article anyway) about there being a same sex couple in this, they are there for all of about 1 and a half seconds.

It's funny, the uncanny valley doesn't really apply to natural imagery, does it? Just people? Because there's a driving scene in Zootopia, too, where everything looks photorealistic (except for the characters). Even back in Life of Pi, the tiger is as real as can be; likewise the bear in The Revenant. I think that's why these movies stay cartoons, because they still can't do people, and thus go the opposite direction with cute and/or stylized protagonists, or talking animals. Though new Jungle Book was all CG, more or less, except for the kid, right? I wonder how far we are from a movie with photorealistic CG creature protagonists. Or how they would sustain a film in that mode, narratively. I guess a movie like Babe did it with a combination of real animals, puppets and CG.

Not really interested in photorealism in art, generally speaking. It's basically a magic trick (albeit one that that involves a lot of skill and technical mastery). But the extent to which movies like this are able to more fully and realistically realize an imagined universe is pretty amazing (the aesthetic of Zootopia was just gorgeous in this regard).

I pretty much agree with this review: http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Finding-Dory-brings-the-fish-tale-to-a-new-8133528.php

Dory is annoying

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, June 16, 2016 6:19 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

Can't believe JiC wants to fuck a fish

watching good dinosaur tonight; i guess they scheduled it to premiere on cable in concert with Dory's release?

while i don't really love cgi animated movies -- actually i kinda hate them -- pixar had the right idea from the beginning with regard to keeping the human characters (or just the characters in general i guess) relatively cartoony. (thus avoiding the uncanny valley shit.) the "realism" of the backgrounds is just kind of standard animation technique applied to cgi. animation (at least in the traditional disney style or stuff like studio ghibli, not so much classic looney tunes where it was much more stylized) has always been about contrasting vibrant and less "realistic" characters against hyper-detailed backgrounds.

Scott McCloud had a decent explanation of why this method works in Understanding Comics, but I can't find a full scan of that page
https://i.imgur.com/DwnhC0z.jpg

I always thought it was not jut about contrast but because the main characters have more changes and action than the backgrounds, and take more work, so the less something moves or needs to change, the more detail it can have. I guess the advance in CG is stuff like hair (or water, or plants in the wind or whatever), detailed things with automated natural motion, but that's still background and sort of designed to be random, vs. directing lead characters, which is hyper specific.

xpost Yeah, McCloud calls it the "masking effect" and asserts that we identify more easily with simply-drawn characters (smiley face could be almost everyone on earth, photograph could basically be one person)... so we can sort of put on the 'mask' of the simply-drawn character. He also gives the example of a prop like a sword - drawn simply when the character is swinging it, as an extension of you, the reader - but becoming hyper-detailed when the character notices some mysterious writing on the hilt, shoving it back into the alien, not-you space of the world.

I still basically buy it but I think it's probably a little more complicated and non-universal than he's suggesting. Great book, though, would get a kick out of flipping through it again. Was my Bible for years after it came out.

yeah mccloud was probably who was thinking of (in the abstract) when i wrote that. i don't know how well the book holds up since i haven't read it cover to cover in more than a decade-- i think he was a little too interested in a grand unified theory of comics, and too much has happened in comics in the years since that some things probably not longer ring true -- but i still have my original tundra copy somewhere. he was also super gracious to me when i was an annoying 17 year old pestering him with questions that i would in no way apply to my life or career once i woke up to the fact that i can't draw.

Yeah, at this point I'm pretty sure part of the book's appeal would be as kind of a period-piece glimpse into what would have existed, and been on the radar of a particularly enthusiastic consumer of American, European and Japanese work, at the turn of the 90s. The grand unified theory stuff might have some holes in it, but on the other hand I think some of the stuff it draws your attention to probably still obtains... like really focusing on what "happens" between panels, or how time can also pass within a panel, etc. Brain-expanding, at least for 12-year-old me.

Not to stray too far off-topic, but McCloud has written two follow-ups that address in part some of the changing landscape of comics.

Still haven't seen "Dory," but my wife tells me there is a slightly more than simmering parent revolt, or at least a lot of parents warning certain parents and kids away. Apparently "Dory" has been weirdly traumatic for younger kids, especially kids who have been adopted? Don't know what that's about.

http://www.adoptionlcsw.com/2016/06/finding-dory-adoption-movie-review.html

Interesting. Also interesting that like 90% of Disney movies begin with the death of a parent/loved ones, and afaict that's never proved particularly traumatic for little kids. Maybe it's the specifics of this scenario?

My almost 6yo is seeing it this weekend as part of a birthday party and I'm a little worried for him. He wept through most of Paddington because he could sense that Paddington was lonely and scared (but also refused to walk out because he didn't want to miss anything).

Finding Dory is better than most Pixar sequels. I'm convinced they had Dory's story all worked out when they made the first movie -- nothing feels like a retcon.

My 4yo non-adopted niece liked it. Not sure how much she understood.

The sea lions in Dory were String and McNutty.

Ha! Didn't notice that.

Finally saw "Dory" and thought it was a lot better than I expected. I can definitely see how it could be traumatic or at least troubling for kids who have been adopted, though I was surprised how well the film worked as a parable of special needs kids and hard it can be for them to navigate (or be allowed to navigate) the world. You've got Dory, of course, and her condition, you've got the sea lion and bird with some sort of intellectual disability, you've got a legally blind whale shark, traumatized beluga, an octopus missing a leg (and of course even Nemo has his tiny flipper). Without saying it a lot of "Dory" is about these characters overcoming their disabilities.

Not sure I was into the broad gag of the octopus driving a car (I just read Soul of the Octopus and know they're smart but come on), but I was willing to go with it.

Oh, also, the opening short "Piper" was cute, and was scored by Adrian Belew!

Not sure I was into the broad gag of the octopus driving a car (I just read Soul of the Octopus and know they're smart but come on), but I was willing to go with it.

― Josh in Chicago, Monday, August 1, 2016 3:22 PM (55 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

just fyi it's a movie abt talking fish

I guess that was just photorealism run amuck, I thought they actually had an octopus driving a car, suddenly it all makes sense!

One of the great things about the first one is how the characters, while anthropomorphic talking sea creatures, generally behave and act according to the species/physiology or whatever, so there was some ... internal logic? But I guess I do draw the line at an octopus starting up a car and leading the police on a high speed chase. Not just starting a car that rolls down a hill into the ocean, but steering, making screechy u-turns, etc.. I expect that from talking toys, but not from talking octopuses.

Seriously, Soul of an Octopus is a super-cool read.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51O7Qa9liKL._SX323_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Well if we're going to nitpick, that wasn't an octopus, it was a septapus, and the missing arm was probably its reproductive arm, and by Seinfeldian logic, that lack would make him a cognitive and spatial genius.

It's a philosophical quandary. If an octopus loses an arm, is it still an octopus? If a twin loses its twin, is it still a twin?

I'm talking biology!

I thought a kid tore one of his arms off?

The Good Dinosaur was a snooze. Weak characterizations, a poorly defined story universe and a disappointingly standard American Tail-style lost child narrative. And couple of lovely autumnal visuals towards the end notwithstanding, even the animation was barely better than average.

yeah. worse than brave in my opinion.

I couldn't get my kids to watch it when it was literally the only thing on TV. 50% of "Brave" is great, then it turns into My Mother the Bear.

that was the better half imo

my expectations for the good dinosaur were sufficiently low that i actually kinda liked it for what it was: a feature-length demo reel for pixar's amazing new digital grass and water effects

I thought "Moana" was great, easily one of the best looking Disney, etc. movies, sort of made me think of "Brave" if "Brave" was better.

Is this one Pixar or just Disney?

Disney.

Is the new one Pixar or Disney? Doesn't really matter anymore, I guess. Anyway, "Encanto" was absolutely gorgeous. It was also perhaps more patient than most Disney animated films, and perhaps just slightly more cliche-averse. That said, I don't think it made much sense, and my daughter immediately thought of a better ending, but it's worth it for the bright colors alone. Also, caught the trailer for this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdKzUbAiswE

Looks like it could be fun.

(Also some "Teen Wolf" vibes.)

whole lotta dreamworks face in that trailer

trailer is manic af

This is the one set in my old Toronto neighbourhood! Can't wait to see it. The short by the same director was a lot mellower, hopefully this was just trailer'd up

I literally lived opposite this house!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEZ0WZqWYAkpX6H?format=jpg

No idea what the last Toy Story was even about, but this is a clever concept

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUS6-aO52uY

it was about an hour 40 iirc

Q: how many times can Disney recycle this basic plotline of "child no longer plays with these toys, who now must band together to remind child of their vital place in child's life"?

A: infinity plus one

"child no longer plays with these toys, who now must band together to remind child of their vital place in child's life"?

I mean, this is nostalgia for all things Disney - toys, movies, theme parks - in a nutshell.