Topic: Has Pixar frinally broken the spell?

[Achim]

First of all, I haven't seen Cars 2 myself yet.

When I hit the interwebs earlier today I was quite surpised to see multiple bad reviews for Cars 2.
High-Def Digest
DVDTalk
In general the buzz seems to be rather...negative:
Metacritic

To be honest, I am not even sure I want to see it anymore.

I always thought that Cars was Pixar's weakest outing and making a sequel to that seemed a bit odd (I feel much more can be expected from the sequel to Monsters, Inc.). In a way it might be good that Pixar got this out of their system, takes away the enormous pressure of "they only do good stuff".

[goodguy]

Toy Story 3, Monsters 2, Cars 2, apparently there is also a "Planes" planned.  Never was a big fan of Pixar myself, so I don't think there is a spell to be broken. The poster and photos for "Brave" look somewhat intriguing though.

[goodguy]

The poster and photos for "Brave" look somewhat intriguing though.

Actually, scratch the latter. I was referring to the watercolor-ish pictures at IMDb, but the now revealed character design is just the usual Pixar stuff. 

[Najemikon]

"Toy Story 3"?  Matthias, for crying out loud, Toy Story is the only truly artistically successful mainstream trilogy. It is beyond reproach.

It definitely sounds like Cars 2 is a dropped ball, but can I just be a voice of reason? Reviews at the time suggested A Bug's Life and the first Cars were also dropped balls. I regard Pixar as the finest studio working today and they'd already made slight duds. The very concept of Cars is limited and flawed. I have absolutely no qualms about their other sequels; Monsters is unnecessary, but has potential and if they ever get around to The Incredibles 2... well, it's a superhero movie. It needs a sequel!

[Achim]

"Toy Story 3"?  Matthias, for crying out loud, Toy Story is the only truly artistically successful mainstream trilogy. It is beyond reproach.

While not matching my opinion, I can see where Matthias is coming from. Whilehe is still full of surprises, I think I learned enough of his film taste to know that Toy Story 3 is not his cup o' tea.

It definitely sounds like Cars 2 is a dropped ball, but can I just be a voice of reason? Reviews at the time suggested A Bug's Life and the first Cars were also dropped balls. I regard Pixar as the finest studio working today and they'd already made slight duds. The very concept of Cars is limited and flawed. I have absolutely no qualms about their other sequels; Monsters is unnecessary, but has potential and if they ever get around to The Incredibles 2... well, it's a superhero movie. It needs a sequel!

When A Bug's Life came out it had to compete with the much darker AntZ. I always enjoyed it though and it has some very funny stuff in it. I never entirely warmed up to Cars though. I somewhat like it, but to me it is clearly Pixar's worst movie; at least was until now...?

Monsters, Inc. 2 has potential. It's not really needed either, but with a good story they can do something with those characters. And I agree, The Incredibles is screaming for a sequel. I just rewatched it on Blu-ray the other day and it was still as fresh as the day when I first saw it.


Planes...? Really?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Monsters, Inc. 2 has potential. [...] with a good story they can do something with those characters.

And exactly this has always been the problem of Pixar, hasn't it.

Their productions usually are 3D-programmers Nerd-fests, but a good story is something you will only very scarcely find there.

[Najemikon]

It was Matthias's dismissal of Toy Story 3 as a valid film that I was complaining about. To lump it in as a cash-in sequel is ridiculous, regardless of whether you like it or not. It deserves more respect. Which brings me to Michael's comment. "Nerdy programmers"? Bloody hell, are we talking about the same Pixar? They are built on stories and characters, developed better than a lot of live action film-makers. Lasseter almost literally rescued Disney from commercial theme park hell by demonstrating that it should always be story first.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

"Nerdy programmers"? Bloody hell, are we talking about the same Pixar?

Not sure if there's another one.
I'm only aware of two Pixar productions that have a decent story line (Finding Nemo and Wall-E)
The Rest, well let me put it into this list:
Finding Nemo -> Look, we can do water
Cars -> Hey, now we can do proper reflections too
Ratatouille -> Isn't it amazing? We now are able to trace every single hair

It's true that Pixar's major productions always are hallmarks of technical perfection (for the time in which they were made). But that's more or less all.
Take A Bug's Life as example. It competed against "Antz". And while A Bug's Life definitely looked like State-of-the-Art (especially compared to Antz, which looked like a computer game of the mid-eighties), the story was neither original nor could it compete against Antz

"Story First" ... ??
Hell, even the concept to place cars as main-characters for a feature should give you something to think. This only makes sense if it's "Technical Effects First".
... And it even ruins the merchandising, because it's very difficult to make a soft-toy out of a car.  

[Antares]

the story was neither original nor could it compete against Antz

It was based on Seven Samurai, which correct me if I'm wrong, was one hell of a story. 

[Najemikon]

"Nerdy programmers"? Bloody hell, are we talking about the same Pixar?

Not sure if there's another one.
I'm only aware of two Pixar productions that have a decent story line (Finding Nemo and Wall-E)
The Rest, well let me put it into this list:
Finding Nemo -> Look, we can do water
Cars -> Hey, now we can do proper reflections too
Ratatouille -> Isn't it amazing? We now are able to trace every single hair

It's true that Pixar's major productions always are hallmarks of technical perfection (for the time in which they were made). But that's more or less all.
Take A Bug's Life as example. It competed against "Antz". And while A Bug's Life definitely looked like State-of-the-Art (especially compared to Antz, which looked like a computer game of the mid-eighties), the story was neither original nor could it compete against Antz

"Story First" ... ??
Hell, even the concept to place cars as main-characters for a feature should give you something to think. This only makes sense if it's "Technical Effects First".
... And it even ruins the merchandising, because it's very difficult to make a soft-toy out of a car.  

Pixar have made huge leaps in technology, but do you honestly think that's their primary goal? Or the only one they are really capable of? Reducing Nemo to an experiment in water and Monsters to one in fur boggles the mind! Cars as main characters is poor and limited, but it's also apparently their most childish film. I think it's more they over-stretched the concept, trying to follow toys coming to life. That's why I don't understand this revisionist history that's gone on; when Cars was released, many reviews dismissed it and the general opinion was that it is a weak film. Yet since Cars 2 was announced, there seems to be this weird "Cars isn't that bad actually" mood coming through. People are probably so optimistic about Pixar's abilities, they've put rose-tinted spectacles on.

I cannot believe you think there are only two Pixar films with a decent storyline or character. Just go back to their first. A short called Luxo Jr, where Lasseter gave a desk lamp emotion. But of their features:

Toy Story: now regarded as one of the most influential animations of all time, it holds up today. Toys coming to life is a classic child fantasy, but they took it to new levels. It's the film that rescued Disney Studios who were so lost at the time they were about to close down the animation department and concentrate on theme parks.

Bug's Life: Never lit the world on fire, as we said. I liked it, but it was just good. I prefer it to Antz, but as a second feature from a fledgling studio that at the time seemed to aiming for young audience (Antz and Shrek could be considered more teenage), it's more than ok even if it lacks pure ambition.

Toy Story 2: An unnecessary sequel you might say? Possibly, but it's also a perfect one. The emotion, especially in the new Jessie character, was unsurpassed at the time for a mainstream "cartoon". Pixar treat their young audience like adults and throw some tough themes at them, about growing up and loss. Meanwhile, basic pacing and entertainment were ramped up. The characters crossing the road or the baggage handling sequences are modern classics of cinema.

Monsters, Inc: Somewhat follows what is now becoming the Pixar buddy and rescue plot formula, but the dialogue and voice acting are superb. Less emotional than the Toy Story's but even more pure entertainment. The doors sequence is stunning. There is a hint of their anarchy from the first Toy Story creeping back in too. This could so easily have been a lazy technical experiment, but it's brimming with confidence and the story is touching.

Finding Nemo: Definitely signs of Pixar relying on formula, but still every effort is going into how the story is being told. So it's still a buddy movie and still a rescue mission, but it's also faintly beautiful. It has a measured tone which I adore.

Cars: I've never watched this properly. I now have it on Blu-Ray, but it just fails to grab me. I agree with the reviews of the time from what I've seen. It is limited and childish. It's just alright, but shows no real progress. And I'm talking about progress in narrative.

The Incredibles: Any thoughts of Pixar being unable to reinvent themselves are blown clear in this, one of the top three or four superhero films ever made. No joke, I count this alongside Superman, The Dark Knight and Kick Ass, and ahead of stuff like Spider-Man or even X-Men 2. A perfectly delivered family story with epic action.  

Ratatouille: Like Nemo, this half relies on past staples, yet is so ambitious in how it's told. It's very European, a feat in itself for a big American studio. The central character is clearly a nutter and there's a gentle farcical madness running through. And the ending truly stunned me. Even this far in, I wasn't appreciating Pixar's delicate storytelling skill that hovers just the right side of sentimentality.

Wall-E: If one moment of Ratatouille stunned me, I was not prepared for this. I'd easily consider it one of the greatest animated films of all time and I love it for it's silent approach. They understood the heart of cinema and reclaimed it from the very thing you accuse them of, the very thing Dreamworks does film after film with one eye on the box office and another on the merchandising. A robot that can't speak and watches Hello Dolly over and over again? It is utterly wonderful genius. And I thought they'd peaked...

Up: This is a wonderful story and again, so trusting of their target audience. How can you possibly begin to dismiss a studio that trusts their central character to be an old man mourning his wife? The opening sequence is a killer. You'd have to be made of stone to think Up was just... what? An experiment in balloons where Monsters was one in fur? Pfff.

Toy Story 3: I honestly had no faith in this to be anything more than pure entertainment. Yet they give us a powerful story about retirement and death?! This is for kids! Yet they're experimenting with very adult themes. Well, I say it's for kids. Many reviews pointed out they also honoured their core audience, who had grown up with the films. As a trilogy, it's so far beyond what they could have got away with. I think this discussion from Mark Kermode sums it up (4 minutes in especially). No-one discussed Kung Fu Panda like this:



Sorry to go on! But I regard Pixar as one of, if not the, most important studio working today. They are consistently original and innovative. I find their experiments in narrative as important as those in technology and you know what? If they are embarking with Cars 2 on a run of cash-in sequels, then they've bloody earned it. I didn't think they could go higher than Wall-E and they did. They've earned a lifetime of trust from me. Ok, if they're rubbish in three films times, I'll admit the best years are behind them, but I really don't think they will be, because as I've tried to prove above, story is always first. They are devoted to their characters as rounded creations, not adverts for toys.

Actually they recently opened a new division in Canada and I'm sure I remember they said it would be handling lesser productions, such as Cars 2 and spin-off productions. I wouldn't be surprised if they gave the Canada team an essentially expendable production to cut their teeth on. Ok, I'm the eternal optimist but I have no reason to doubt their future, regardless of how I find Cars 2.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No-one discussed Kung Fu Panda like this

That's because Kung Fu Panda is one of the most childish movies ever made. Even children consider it to be banal.
Worst of all are the awful attempts to copy manga-elements into a otherwise completely western production. 
So there's no need to discuss Kung Fu Panda

Pixar have made huge leaps in technology, but do you honestly think that's their primary goal? Or the only one they are really capable of?

Funnily that's exactly what I believe.

But it's like with all believes: I might be totally wrong!
I watched: Toy Story (1 + 2), Cars, Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, Wall-E, A Bug's Life. And all but Nemo and Wall-E bored me nearly to death ... worst of all Ratatouille which I will forever remember as "1001 variations of moving hair"

[Najemikon]

Just out of interest for context, do you like any animations? Particularly those aimed at younger audiences, so I don't mean Anime, but just the Pixar, Disney and Dreamworks stuff. It's interesting what you say about Kung Fu Panda, because that too is generally considered to be a great little film and is very popular (at least here in the UK). It's not on the same level of ambition as Pixar, but is a heck of a lot of fun. How To Train Your Dragon too is flawed, but pretty good with some excellent stuff in between the clichés. And of course Shrek. I mean, everyone likes Shrek! Well, 1 and 2 at least, the others... not so much.

Pixar have made huge leaps in technology, but do you honestly think that's their primary goal? Or the only one they are really capable of?

Funnily that's exactly what I believe.

But it's like with all believes: I might be totally wrong!

Yep. You're wrong!

Actually, of course you're not. You don't have to like it and your reaction to any film should always be an honest one. But take it from me and countless others, even if you don't like the films, Pixar are working very hard and the story is always their primary concern. Potential failures like Cars 2 are not to be seen as harbingers of doom, or proof naysayers were right all along, but just blips. Blips like every artist has, especially at production level.

John Lasseter has said in interviews how sad he finds it when people declare hand-drawn animation dead, simply because of his innovations. He stresses, it's the story every time and Disney forgot how to do them. It's his hand guiding Disney back through hand-drawn successes like The Princess and The Frog.

[Achim]

I love watching the special features on Pixr DVDs. Especially the parts where they explain the process of shaping the story. It is always wonderful to see just how much time they spent on this to make sure the story arc is the best it can be. They often say how it was meant to be originally and how and why they changed it.


I am sure I'll see Cars 2 eventually; well, I can't have that gap in my Pixar collection, can I

[Blair]

Given the negatives surrounding the original Cars as the "worst film" (personally, the worst to me was Ratatouille, but you're not going to get 100% agreement on everything) I was surprised that they created a Cars 2. In one respect, they could have easier had blinders on. They've done so well for so long that their current production method obviously works, but falling in love with your project can also result in losing sight of everything else.

Personally, I love Pixar. I love animated films in general because they take a completely different type of talent than the other 1,000 live-action films released each year. (I can just go into my backyard and create a live-action film in an hour; I wouldn't be able to create a decent CG animated film over a 10-year-period.) I have been very pleased with their products so far. Why? Because they try to create films that appeal to families, not just kids, even when the film may have some childish natures to them.

The idea that everyone at Pixar is a programmer with none of them knowing anything about story (this was not the first time I've read that; I'm not trying to make this personal) is an unfounded insult, in my opinion, given the number of films these days which use plenty of CGI effects in them. The writers are one group, the programs are a different group.  That said, of course not everyone is going to like all of their films. I don't care for classic (black and white) horror films. They bore me. But someone loved them; they were worth creating. Every story can be broken down to it's most basic concept in ways that makes them sound pathetic.



I will go see Cars 2 though I don't have the highest hopes for it. Then again, I feared when I heard about Toy Story 3 was being produced ("oh great, recycling again,") but it has turned out to be my favorite Pixar film and one of my all time animated favorites. People were verbally sobbing in the theater when they left... yet RT review shows that a few people thought it was crap.

Here's hoping for the best, though.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Just out of interest for context, do you like any animations? Particularly those aimed at younger audiences, so I don't mean Anime, but just the Pixar, Disney and Dreamworks stuff.

Yes!
I even found something positive in Ice Age.
How to Train Your Dragon, Madagascar, Finding Nemo and Shrek are good examples of what I like.
One might argue that those aren't exclusively developed for children but are considered to be "Family Features". In fact this might be the core of my problem with so many Pixar titles. They are written too much for the younger audiences and lost me somewhere while going below puberty-level.
Probably it's like with the Teletubbies, they may be a great program for the audience they are aimed at, but that doesn't mean I have to like them, or even the concept to produce TV-Shows for audiences younger than 3.