7 ms·

Pixar’s Latest Film Has Wall Street on Edge

41 points by peter123 18y ago

froo 18y ago
It still amazes me that analysts fail to see Pixar films for what they really are: Aimed at everyone, not just children. This is why the franchise aspect of the films is a little harder. Here is the basic recipe for a Pixar film. The main character has to "grow" throughout the film while facing what are essentially adult problems - using animation as the vehicle for story telling. Compare that to Dreamworks - who's style is heavily influenced by Jeffrey Katzenberg who is responsible for Disney's great run of films in the late 80's and early 90's (Who Framed Roger Rabbit, The Little Mermaid, The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast & Aladdin) before leaving in 94 and founding Dreamworks with Spielberg. Dreamworks animations are aimed directly at children because of this influence, the stories are often not as complex and the jokes are simpler. They're geared for pumping out 2 films a year instead of just the 1 and are heavily backed up by merchandising. Their marketing teams absolutely blitz the public and this is probably why Shrek 2 is still the highest grossing animated film of all time, even though several films from both studios are better. Now if the NY Times really wants to make an article about Pixar's future success, they should perhaps write about how the next few films after UP won't be directed by Pixar's main stable of directors (Stanton, Lasseter, Bird and Docter) instead seeing a generational change with new directors handling old franchises. As Brad Bird of Pixar said during their documentary The Pixar Story "This is an anomaly, this place is really freakishly alone in this hit after hit aspect" It's not really a case of if they will make a film that fails, it's when - I personally hope that it never happens, but I'm not that naive.
- tumult 18y ago
  I don't know, I disagree with a couple of these points. Here is the basic recipe for a Pixar film. The main character has to "grow" throughout the film while facing what are essentially adult problems - using animation as the vehicle for story telling. I think that can be said about most stories with a non-tragic hero. Dreamworks animations are aimed directly at children because of this influence, the stories are often not as complex and the jokes are simpler. Of the several PDI/Dreamworks films I've seen, I would say they are at the same complexity level as Pixar's stories. These stories usually have a couple of layers of depth to them, and you only need to follow the obvious one to get the main points. In my opinion, the Dreamworks films are not articulated as well (in both plot and characterizations) as the Pixar films and actually end up feeling more convoluted. I first saw Toy Story as a child. Looking back on it as an adult, I remembered that I had a pretty good grasp on the plot and characters as a kid, so I was assuming it had been a simplistic film. When I watched it again, I saw lots of things I didn't notice as a kid. Their marketing teams absolutely blitz the public and this is probably why Shrek 2 is still the highest grossing animated film of all time, even though several films from both studios are better. Definitely. Now if the NY Times really wants to make an article about Pixar's future success, they should perhaps write about how the next few films after UP won't be directed by Pixar's main stable of directors (Stanton, Lasseter, Bird and Docter) instead seeing a generational change with new directors handling old franchises. True. One thing Pixar has going for them is that they haven't made any movies even close to bad. I would say that they haven't even made any movies that aren't great. (Though I'm kind of on the fence about Cars.) They've built up a pretty solid momentum now, and it would take a series of bombs (like Disney after the mid-90s) to shake it. The people getting upset about Up not being as marketable as past Pixar films will have to get over it. If you're going to get great creative types together and have them make stuff, you have to give them freedom – otherwise you end up like PDI/Dreamworks. In summary: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3472/3398960470_05527c04b1_b.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3472/3398960470_05527c04b1_b....
  - froo 18y ago
    I think that can be said about most stories with a non-tragic hero. Except that it's relatively unique to the animation field. The thing is, Pixar's process is more story focussed than other studios, A typical Pixar film usually has a 4 year production cycle in which the first two of those are spent primarily on writing and rewriting the story to get the "feel" right. Even then, they have no problem with changing the story at the 11th hour. Case in point - WALL-E's ending was originally very different with WALL-E originally saving EVE from the trash compactors (essentially larger versions of WALL-E for irony). After the film was complete and was screened in Portland, Andrew Stanton changed the ending to what it is today. The story flows better. Compare that to something like Dreamworks or Blue Sky Studios. Dreamworks focusses on making films which are more technically proficient and aimed at children (Kung Fu Panda was astounding from a technical standpoint) and something like Horton Hears a Who or Ice Age are heavily stylised films. Dreamworks are more focussed on the business side, rather than the entertainment side of the process. I first saw Toy Story as a child. Looking back on it as an adult, I remembered that I had a pretty good grasp on the plot and characters as a kid, so I was assuming it had been a simplistic film. When I watched it again, I saw lots of things I didn't notice as a kid. That's Lasseter's influence as one of the Pixar co-founders. This style has permeated throughout the whole studio. Creativity comes first at Pixar. Ironically, he was actually fired from Disney in the 80's for trying to introduce 3D to their production pipeline and Disney ended up buying Pixar for billions... They've built up a pretty solid momentum now, and it would take a series of bombs (like Disney after the mid-90s) to shake it. Funnily enough that's a result of Katzenberg leaving Disney after a disagreement with Michael Eisner (then CEO of Disney) and he ended up co-founding Dreamworks. (Though I'm kind of on the fence about Cars.) Yeah, each of the studios has those little outliers. Monsters vs Aliens has very many adult jokes in it that children just wont get. If you haven't yet seen it, go see it. For example: This is a quote from one of the US Military Advisors says to the President in a secret strategic meeting to deal with a giant alien robot. "We need our top scientific minds on this project... Get India on the phone!" I absolutely laughed my ass off at that joke and I'm sure most people didn't "get it".
    - tumult 18y ago
      Except that it's relatively unique to the animation field. I still disagree with this :) I agree with the rest of your points though. I should probably check out some of these Dreamworks movies I've passed up over the last couple of years. I didn't like Shrek so I was kind of turned off to them.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- jibiki 18y ago
  > The main character has to "grow" throughout the film There are certain archetypal personal growth stories, like overcoming a loss, learning to be more selfless, learning to trust your friends, etc. The most popular is the bland "learning to persevere," like Luke from Star Wars (this isn't a great example, anyone have a better one?) Pixar's personal growth stories tend to be more imaginative: I feel like the protagonist is wiser at the end than he was at the start, but I'm not always sure how.
  - justindz 18y ago
    They learn better team/management skills, in many cases. That's one thing I kind of noticed, although I have by no means seen all of their movies.
- Tamerlin 18y ago
  I don't think that the wall street folks have figured out yet that Pixar's unwillingness to make commercial films is a strong contributor to their success. They have imagination, story, characters, and not a lot of cliches, unlike most Hollywood lacklusters. Those make them better movies, not worse movies, but at the same time, they're not executive-friendly movies. That of course implies that the executives are unimaginative and out of touch with what the audience wants, but that's hardly news.
michaelneale 18y ago
I am starting to wonder how long people will care what wall street thinks. Surely that day is coming (it will be somewhere else that we care about, not wall street).
- jerf 18y ago
  Meh. It's already a metaphor. Only a fraction of the relevant people are actually on Wall Street. Viva la Internet (and communication in general).
  - michaelneale 18y ago
    Well - I guess my point kind of remains. Public companies are kind of taking leadership from "the street" wherever it is, yet it can barely look past the next weekend (as recent markets have shown us).
- wolfish 18y ago
  I'm not sure what that means. Financial analysts don't expect this to be as profitable as previous Pixar films, and they see this as a trend in Pixar films. It doesn't reflect upon the quality of the film, no one currently care's what wall street thinks in that respect.
ojbyrne 18y ago
With the Fast & The Furious posting record (and surprising) numbers this weekend, I think Hollywood is about to flip the bit from fear to greed. Whether (or how) that will affect this particular movie, I don't know. It looks good though.
- froo 18y ago
  I've already posted before this year is looking like Hollywood's biggest year on record. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=472584 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=472584 & http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=501317 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=501317 Looks like that filesharing stuff is really killing the Film industry........... (I wonder if that is enough dots to indicate sarcasm)
  - ojbyrne 18y ago
    For sure, but they still seem to be fearful. Television is a big part of Hollywood and its been cratering.
  - jcl 18y ago
    It would be especially hilarious if it turns out that the Wolverine movie does surprisingly well, given the recent Bittorrent incident.
TweedHeads 18y ago
In short, sell disney's stock, don't watch the movie, kids will hate it, a horrible disaster. If that isn't clearly intentional FUD I don't know what it is. Journalism is as disgusting as politics.
aaronsw 18y ago
This is another example of how if you go public people will try to kill anything that makes you original. How long before we start seeing stories about how Google needs to end luxuries like 20% time?
- jrockway 18y ago
  The 20% time is not really a luxury. Google owns what ever you make, so it's all just work. My understanding is that Google is already cutting the real benefits. Microsoft doesn't have a co-pay on their insurance, but Google does. There is a waiting list for child-care. There aren't as many meal choices in their cafeterias, etc. I have some friends that work at Google, and it sounds like the average corporate job these days.
far33d 18y ago
Up is an amazing film. It's funny, endearing, classic, and artistically excellent. The film breaks out of the mold of 3D animated film art direction with stylized characters and it prefers graphic shapes over the hyper-realism so common in the genre (you'll have to trust me). While the characters are not toys, cars, or fish (which are easily merchandised) they are still cute. It will probably sell (at box office and toy shelves) at the same level as Ratatouille, but that is still a major success for any other studio on the planet. Pixar used to be lauded for its originality and commitment to high quality. Suddenly, it's being panned for those same things.
- froo 18y ago
  The film breaks out of the mold of 3D animated film art direction with stylized characters and it prefers graphic shapes over the hyper-realism so common in the genre They did this with WALL-E first, with the juxtaposition between the two main characters. WALL-E was a square, while Eve was essentially a circle (Andrew Stanton's words, not mine). Same thing is happening in UP, Carl Fredrickson (the old guy) represents the square, while Russel (boy scout) represents the circle and it is really more prevalent, even with Carl's finger's having a rough rectangular shape. Pixar used to be lauded for its originality and commitment to high quality. A little anecdote on just how committed they are. During the production of Finding Nemo, a couple of Pixar artists climbed inside the mouth of a dead beached whale in California just to get a good idea of the textures inside of it for the scene between Dory and Marlin when they were inside the mouth of a whale. That's commitment to quality.
  - hernan7 18y ago
    Amazing anecdote. Do you have the source?
    - froo 18y ago
      It's in a book called "The Pixar Touch" by David Price I have on order from amazon, but you can read the anecdote here. http://www.amazon.com/Pixar-Touch-Vintage-David-Price/dp/0307278298 http://www.amazon.com/Pixar-Touch-Vintage-David-Price/dp/030... It says: John Lasseter has instilled an intense commitment to research in the studio’s creative staff. To prepare for the scene in Finding Nemo in which the fish characters Marlin and Dory become trapped in a whale, two members of the art department climbed inside a dead gray whale that had been stranded north of Marin, California.
wensing 18y ago
FTA: "Quality is the best business plan." (John Lasseter, Pixar co-founder)
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
hernan7 18y ago
Miyazaki an "anime master"?
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]

41 points by peter123 18y ago

froo 18y ago

It still amazes me that analysts fail to see Pixar films for what they really are: Aimed at everyone, not just children. This is why the franchise aspect of the films is a little harder. Here is the basic recipe for a Pixar film. The main character has to "grow" throughout the film while facing what are essentially adult problems - using animation as the vehicle for story telling. Compare that to Dreamworks - who's style is heavily influenced by Jeffrey Katzenberg who is responsible for Disney's great run of films in the late 80's and early 90's (Who Framed Roger Rabbit, The Little Mermaid, The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast & Aladdin) before leaving in 94 and founding Dreamworks with Spielberg. Dreamworks animations are aimed directly at children because of this influence, the stories are often not as complex and the jokes are simpler. They're geared for pumping out 2 films a year instead of just the 1 and are heavily backed up by merchandising. Their marketing teams absolutely blitz the public and this is probably why Shrek 2 is still the highest grossing animated film of all time, even though several films from both studios are better. Now if the NY Times really wants to make an article about Pixar's future success, they should perhaps write about how the next few films after UP won't be directed by Pixar's main stable of directors (Stanton, Lasseter, Bird and Docter) instead seeing a generational change with new directors handling old franchises. As Brad Bird of Pixar said during their documentary The Pixar Story "This is an anomaly, this place is really freakishly alone in this hit after hit aspect" It's not really a case of if they will make a film that fails, it's when - I personally hope that it never happens, but I'm not that naive.

tumult 18y ago
I don't know, I disagree with a couple of these points. Here is the basic recipe for a Pixar film. The main character has to "grow" throughout the film while facing what are essentially adult problems - using animation as the vehicle for story telling. I think that can be said about most stories with a non-tragic hero. Dreamworks animations are aimed directly at children because of this influence, the stories are often not as complex and the jokes are simpler. Of the several PDI/Dreamworks films I've seen, I would say they are at the same complexity level as Pixar's stories. These stories usually have a couple of layers of depth to them, and you only need to follow the obvious one to get the main points. In my opinion, the Dreamworks films are not articulated as well (in both plot and characterizations) as the Pixar films and actually end up feeling more convoluted. I first saw Toy Story as a child. Looking back on it as an adult, I remembered that I had a pretty good grasp on the plot and characters as a kid, so I was assuming it had been a simplistic film. When I watched it again, I saw lots of things I didn't notice as a kid. Their marketing teams absolutely blitz the public and this is probably why Shrek 2 is still the highest grossing animated film of all time, even though several films from both studios are better. Definitely. Now if the NY Times really wants to make an article about Pixar's future success, they should perhaps write about how the next few films after UP won't be directed by Pixar's main stable of directors (Stanton, Lasseter, Bird and Docter) instead seeing a generational change with new directors handling old franchises. True. One thing Pixar has going for them is that they haven't made any movies even close to bad. I would say that they haven't even made any movies that aren't great. (Though I'm kind of on the fence about Cars.) They've built up a pretty solid momentum now, and it would take a series of bombs (like Disney after the mid-90s) to shake it. The people getting upset about Up not being as marketable as past Pixar films will have to get over it. If you're going to get great creative types together and have them make stuff, you have to give them freedom – otherwise you end up like PDI/Dreamworks. In summary: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3472/3398960470_05527c04b1_b.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3472/3398960470_05527c04b1_b....
- froo 18y ago
  I think that can be said about most stories with a non-tragic hero. Except that it's relatively unique to the animation field. The thing is, Pixar's process is more story focussed than other studios, A typical Pixar film usually has a 4 year production cycle in which the first two of those are spent primarily on writing and rewriting the story to get the "feel" right. Even then, they have no problem with changing the story at the 11th hour. Case in point - WALL-E's ending was originally very different with WALL-E originally saving EVE from the trash compactors (essentially larger versions of WALL-E for irony). After the film was complete and was screened in Portland, Andrew Stanton changed the ending to what it is today. The story flows better. Compare that to something like Dreamworks or Blue Sky Studios. Dreamworks focusses on making films which are more technically proficient and aimed at children (Kung Fu Panda was astounding from a technical standpoint) and something like Horton Hears a Who or Ice Age are heavily stylised films. Dreamworks are more focussed on the business side, rather than the entertainment side of the process. I first saw Toy Story as a child. Looking back on it as an adult, I remembered that I had a pretty good grasp on the plot and characters as a kid, so I was assuming it had been a simplistic film. When I watched it again, I saw lots of things I didn't notice as a kid. That's Lasseter's influence as one of the Pixar co-founders. This style has permeated throughout the whole studio. Creativity comes first at Pixar. Ironically, he was actually fired from Disney in the 80's for trying to introduce 3D to their production pipeline and Disney ended up buying Pixar for billions... They've built up a pretty solid momentum now, and it would take a series of bombs (like Disney after the mid-90s) to shake it. Funnily enough that's a result of Katzenberg leaving Disney after a disagreement with Michael Eisner (then CEO of Disney) and he ended up co-founding Dreamworks. (Though I'm kind of on the fence about Cars.) Yeah, each of the studios has those little outliers. Monsters vs Aliens has very many adult jokes in it that children just wont get. If you haven't yet seen it, go see it. For example: This is a quote from one of the US Military Advisors says to the President in a secret strategic meeting to deal with a giant alien robot. "We need our top scientific minds on this project... Get India on the phone!" I absolutely laughed my ass off at that joke and I'm sure most people didn't "get it".
  - tumult 18y ago
    Except that it's relatively unique to the animation field. I still disagree with this :) I agree with the rest of your points though. I should probably check out some of these Dreamworks movies I've passed up over the last couple of years. I didn't like Shrek so I was kind of turned off to them.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
jibiki 18y ago
> The main character has to "grow" throughout the film There are certain archetypal personal growth stories, like overcoming a loss, learning to be more selfless, learning to trust your friends, etc. The most popular is the bland "learning to persevere," like Luke from Star Wars (this isn't a great example, anyone have a better one?) Pixar's personal growth stories tend to be more imaginative: I feel like the protagonist is wiser at the end than he was at the start, but I'm not always sure how.
- justindz 18y ago
  They learn better team/management skills, in many cases. That's one thing I kind of noticed, although I have by no means seen all of their movies.
Tamerlin 18y ago
I don't think that the wall street folks have figured out yet that Pixar's unwillingness to make commercial films is a strong contributor to their success. They have imagination, story, characters, and not a lot of cliches, unlike most Hollywood lacklusters. Those make them better movies, not worse movies, but at the same time, they're not executive-friendly movies. That of course implies that the executives are unimaginative and out of touch with what the audience wants, but that's hardly news.

michaelneale 18y ago

I am starting to wonder how long people will care what wall street thinks. Surely that day is coming (it will be somewhere else that we care about, not wall street).

jerf 18y ago
Meh. It's already a metaphor. Only a fraction of the relevant people are actually on Wall Street. Viva la Internet (and communication in general).
- michaelneale 18y ago
  Well - I guess my point kind of remains. Public companies are kind of taking leadership from "the street" wherever it is, yet it can barely look past the next weekend (as recent markets have shown us).
wolfish 18y ago
I'm not sure what that means. Financial analysts don't expect this to be as profitable as previous Pixar films, and they see this as a trend in Pixar films. It doesn't reflect upon the quality of the film, no one currently care's what wall street thinks in that respect.

ojbyrne 18y ago

With the Fast & The Furious posting record (and surprising) numbers this weekend, I think Hollywood is about to flip the bit from fear to greed. Whether (or how) that will affect this particular movie, I don't know. It looks good though.

froo 18y ago
I've already posted before this year is looking like Hollywood's biggest year on record. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=472584 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=472584 & http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=501317 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=501317 Looks like that filesharing stuff is really killing the Film industry........... (I wonder if that is enough dots to indicate sarcasm)
- ojbyrne 18y ago
  For sure, but they still seem to be fearful. Television is a big part of Hollywood and its been cratering.
- jcl 18y ago
  It would be especially hilarious if it turns out that the Wolverine movie does surprisingly well, given the recent Bittorrent incident.

TweedHeads 18y ago

In short, sell disney's stock, don't watch the movie, kids will hate it, a horrible disaster. If that isn't clearly intentional FUD I don't know what it is. Journalism is as disgusting as politics.

aaronsw 18y ago

This is another example of how if you go public people will try to kill anything that makes you original. How long before we start seeing stories about how Google needs to end luxuries like 20% time?

jrockway 18y ago
The 20% time is not really a luxury. Google owns what ever you make, so it's all just work. My understanding is that Google is already cutting the real benefits. Microsoft doesn't have a co-pay on their insurance, but Google does. There is a waiting list for child-care. There aren't as many meal choices in their cafeterias, etc. I have some friends that work at Google, and it sounds like the average corporate job these days.

far33d 18y ago

Up is an amazing film. It's funny, endearing, classic, and artistically excellent. The film breaks out of the mold of 3D animated film art direction with stylized characters and it prefers graphic shapes over the hyper-realism so common in the genre (you'll have to trust me). While the characters are not toys, cars, or fish (which are easily merchandised) they are still cute. It will probably sell (at box office and toy shelves) at the same level as Ratatouille, but that is still a major success for any other studio on the planet. Pixar used to be lauded for its originality and commitment to high quality. Suddenly, it's being panned for those same things.

froo 18y ago
The film breaks out of the mold of 3D animated film art direction with stylized characters and it prefers graphic shapes over the hyper-realism so common in the genre They did this with WALL-E first, with the juxtaposition between the two main characters. WALL-E was a square, while Eve was essentially a circle (Andrew Stanton's words, not mine). Same thing is happening in UP, Carl Fredrickson (the old guy) represents the square, while Russel (boy scout) represents the circle and it is really more prevalent, even with Carl's finger's having a rough rectangular shape. Pixar used to be lauded for its originality and commitment to high quality. A little anecdote on just how committed they are. During the production of Finding Nemo, a couple of Pixar artists climbed inside the mouth of a dead beached whale in California just to get a good idea of the textures inside of it for the scene between Dory and Marlin when they were inside the mouth of a whale. That's commitment to quality.
- hernan7 18y ago
  Amazing anecdote. Do you have the source?
  - froo 18y ago
    It's in a book called "The Pixar Touch" by David Price I have on order from amazon, but you can read the anecdote here. http://www.amazon.com/Pixar-Touch-Vintage-David-Price/dp/0307278298 http://www.amazon.com/Pixar-Touch-Vintage-David-Price/dp/030... It says: John Lasseter has instilled an intense commitment to research in the studio’s creative staff. To prepare for the scene in Finding Nemo in which the fish characters Marlin and Dory become trapped in a whale, two members of the art department climbed inside a dead gray whale that had been stranded north of Marin, California.

wensing 18y ago

FTA: "Quality is the best business plan." (John Lasseter, Pixar co-founder)

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

hernan7 18y ago

Miyazaki an "anime master"?

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]