3 ms·

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

by 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.

by froo 18y ago

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.