Advertisements

Which Pixar Plot Twist is the Best? (And Worst)

pixar plot twist

Pixar movies aren’t really known for having great plot twists. But there are still a few good ones here and there that we can appreciate.

So which Pixar “plot twist” is the best? This isn’t an easy question to answer, and obviously Pixar fans will spar and disagree over the top 5, let alone the very best. That said, I’ve devised my own rating system for each of Pixar’s most relevant plot twists, and to answer this question for myself, I’m breaking down the Pixar filmography movie by movie to assign these ratings and form my own conclusion accordingly.

But first, let’s define what a plot twist really is as best we can. To keep things simple, I consider a plot twist to be a radical shift in the expected outcome of the plot. Normally, we would only consider these to be plot twists if they happen closer to the end of the story, but I think a great plot twist can be revealed as early as the second act.

(Warning, this post contains spoilers for every single Pixar movie!)

Let’s begin with Pixar’s first feature-length film: Toy Story.

Go on…Which Pixar Plot Twist is the Best? (And Worst)

Advertisements

Some of the Best Pixar Video Essays You Can Watch Right Now

From Will DiGravio at Film School Rejects:

If you’re reading this website, or live on this planet, I don’t need to explain to you why Pixar is worthy of its own video essay guide. In fact, I am probably doing Pixar and its body of work a disservice by lumping them all into one guide. All I will say is: Here are five video essays about Pixar you should watch.

Will’s list is wonderful (and his previous video essay guide for “your favorite cartoons” is also worth a look).

There’s a lot in these videos some of you super fans will no doubt have heard before, like how Pixar uses music to make us cry, or how the animation studio pays homage to classic films.

Go on…Some of the Best Pixar Video Essays You Can Watch Right Now

All Three of Pixar’s Billion-Dollar Movies Are Sequels. Now What?

Pixar

From Animation World Network:

Incredibles 2 became just the seventh animated film to cross the $1 billion mark at the global box office. It is Disney’s fifth animated and 18th-ever billion-dollar release and joins Black Panther and Avengers: Infinity War as Disney’s third release to reach the $1 billion milestone this year.

Egregious success for Disney in 2018 aside, Pixar is now the first animated studio to release three films with $1 billion worldwide box office. And all three of these films are sequels: Toy Story 3Finding Dory, and now Incredibles 2. And yet people wonder why Pixar continues to make sequels in the first place. Money speaks louder than critics, I suppose.

Go on…All Three of Pixar’s Billion-Dollar Movies Are Sequels. Now What?

Every Pixar Film Ranked By Their Box Office Success

pixar movies

From Toy Story to Finding Dory, which Pixar movies found the most financial success with audiences? 

A few years ago, I did a ranking just like this in the year leading up to Inside Out. It was simple: I took the worldwide box office returns for each Pixar movie and adjusted for inflation, though I measured the numbers according current rates of inflation (2014 at the time). A faulty metric, now that I take a second look.

Honestly, it’s hard to rank these movies on the same playing field, because so many circumstances determined their profits. 3D ticket sales and a widening international market make it harder to define which Pixar movies were more “successful” than others based on their own terms and fair context.

So this time, I’m only looking at two factors: domestic box office and a rate of inflation with 1995, the year that Toy Story came out. So all of the numbers you’re about to see bolded are NOT the actual numbers you’ll find online, but rather they’ve been modified to match what they were worth 22 years ago. UPDATE: I’ve since added Cars 3 and Coco to this list. 

Let’s start at the bottom of the list this time with…

Go on…Every Pixar Film Ranked By Their Box Office Success

Snarcasm: Disney Ruined Pixar Because Why Not?

disney pixar

Snark + Sarcasm = what you’re about to read

Did Pixar lose its way, or did we lose our way with Pixar? There’s no real answer to the latter part of that question because it makes no sense. But the article we’re snarcasming this week actually does make a lot of sense and deserves to be approached thoughtfully. Even though it’s basically wrong for the most part.

Writing for The Atlantic, Christopher Orr titles his piece “How Pixar Lost Its Way,” because at this point, Orr is confident there’s no other conclusion to reach.

For 15 years, the animation studio was the best on the planet.

Studio Ghibli would like a word.

Then Disney bought it. 

And the Fire Nation attacked.

Orr begins his piece with a line from Ed Catmull, Pixar’s own president who at one point claimed that sequels can represent “creative bankruptcy.”

He was discussing Pixar, the legendary animation studio, and its avowed distaste for cheap spin-offs.

Good thing Pixar doesn’t make cheap spin-offs!

Hold on, we’ll get to Cars 2.

More pointedly, he argued that if Pixar were only to make sequels, it would “wither and die.”

Good thing Pixar doesn’t only make sequels!

Yet here comes Cars 3, rolling into a theater near you this month.

Ah yes, it wouldn’t be a hot take on Pixar without car-related puns.

You may recall that the original Cars, released back in 2006, was widely judged to be the studio’s worst film to date.

“Worst,” however, is a misleading phrase. It wasn’t the strongest of the Pixar films, but most critics believed the film was good mainly on the strengths of its production value and a decent story. The problem was that Cars was the first Pixar movie made mostly for children. Cars 2 was made for merchandising to said children and was the studio’s first flop, coincidentally.

if Cars 3 isn’t disheartening enough, two of the three Pixar films in line after it are also sequels: The Incredibles 2 and (say it isn’t so!) Toy Story 4.

Of course, Pixar has made great sequels as well, including two for that last movie you mention. And they just made Finding Dory, which audiences loved—

The golden era of Pixar is over.

Yeah, ok, here we go.

It was a 15-year run of unmatched commercial and creative excellence,

Filled with sequels and large gaps in between movies.

Since then, other animation studios have made consistently better films.

This is somewhat true, but not necessarily fair. The only studio that’s been making those better films is Disney, which has been creatively led by Pixar’s John Lasseter since the studio’s purchase. Orr also mentions two Laika films, but one came out the same year as Up and the other came out the same year as Finding Dory.

To Orr’s point, Disney has made Wreck-It RalphFrozenBig Hero 6Moana, and Zootopia, all of which are widely regarded as better than BraveCars 2Monsters University (arguably), The Good Dinosaur (arguably), and Finding Dory. But Pixar has also made Inside Out, which most critics consider the superior film out of every single one of those Disney and Laika films.

Now, I get Orr’s point. That’s just one Pixar movie while Disney has had an aggressive output of great films that have managed to catch up to Pixar’s level of quality. If that were Orr’s only argument here, it would be a noteworthy one, but the jump to concluding that this means Pixar has lost its way ignores plenty of other important information, including Pixar’s excellent short animated films, which are consistently better than Disney’s, and the fact that they’ve still made good movies in the last seven years.

One need only look at this year’s Oscars: Two Disney movies, Zootopia and Moana, were nominated for Best Animated Feature, and Zootopia won. Pixar’s Finding Dory was shut out altogether.

First of all, Pixar won an Oscar just a year ago. Second, Finding Dory isn’t any less of a good film simply because it didn’t win a certain award. It just wasn’t as original and compelling as Zootopia and Moana, which is fine, and the Academy has a persistent stigma against sequels, anyway. Orr’s standard of Pixar being on the right path is too restricting, apparently arguing that movies are best when they manage to best other movies, ignoring, for example, Kubo and the Two Strings, which numerous critics argue was better than both Zootopia and Moana. Even if they’re right, all three movies are pretty good.

Simply put, a film being great doesn’t make another film any less great. This is only relevant if the value you hold in a movie is tied into how it compares with the reception of its competition.

Orr goes on, however, to expand on his own standard for what makes Pixar great, citing its technical achievements (which none of the sequels have erred on) and how it has provided great cinema for kids and adults (which hasn’t changed at all since Toy Story 3).

Even as others gradually caught up with Pixar’s visual artistry, the studio continued to tell stories of unparalleled depth and sophistication.

Some Pixar movies, however, weren’t so brilliantly received by critics at the time they came out. Films like Ratatouille and Wall-E, for example, were criticized plenty for trifles that no one even considers now. Monsters Inc. wasn’t exactly critic-proof either (it didn’t even win an Oscar?!), and that goes even more for A Bug’s Life.

Two films that unquestionably cemented Pixar’s eventual reputation beyond Toy Story were The Incredibles and Finding Nemo. Several other Pixar movies have managed to match them, in my opinion, but only Inside Out has truly reached the standard Orr sets here, which isn’t one that has been consistently met by Pixar with every film they’ve put out. Good Dinosaur is a good example, in that it’s a film directly trying to be far more bizarre and experimental than what’s worked for Pixar in the past.

Orr goes on to talk about Pixar’s achievement with crossover storytelling, raising some great points about how and why their movies are so consistently well-received.

And then, after Toy Story 3, the Pixar magic began to fade.

Here we go.

The sequels that followed—Cars 2 (a spy spoof) in 2011 and Monsters University (a college farce) in 2013—lacked any thematic or emotional connection to the movies that spawned them.

I truly take issue with Orr essentially lumping these two movies together, because Monsters University in no way lacks thematic connection to Monsters Inc. If anything, it adds flourish to the Mike Wazowski character and tells a poignant story about how we deal with our limitations. It’s far from merely being a “college farce.”

Though better than either of those two, Brave, Pixar’s 2012 foray into princessdom, was a disappointment as well.

I’m not sure which movie is better—Monsters University or Brave. Orr isn’t wrong in saying that Brave was a bit of a disappointment, but it’s about as serviceable as Cars and hey! It won an Oscar.

The studio rallied with Inside Out in 2015.

If by rallied, you mean they put out one of their best films in 20 years, sure. They “rallied.”

But the inferior The Good Dinosaur (also in 2015) and last year’s mediocre Finding Dory only confirmed the overall decline,

Here’s where Orr and I differ the most. To him, Pixar has lost its way because it’s made a few movies that aren’t as good as its very best ones. For me, Pixar has been unable to top themselves year after year, same as Disney wasn’t able to do in the 90s, well before that, and in the near future. But in reality, they never really did that in the first place.

Is Pixar experiencing an overall decline? Sure, no one really disputes that. But does an overall decline mean that the studio has lost its way? Not necessarily. It might just mean we’re witnessing a studio in transition, swinging for the fences with some movies and biding time with sequels as they prepare for a new era that may be entirely different.

Even Orr points out that at the time of the merger, Pixar was already facing huge problems as a studio. And these are the shifts that have led to the Pixar we know today, which has produced occasional masterpieces like Inside Out and artful experiments like The Good Dinosaur. Orr doesn’t even mention Coco, which comes out later this year, but laments Toy Story 4 and Incredibles 2, the latter of which is a sequel to one of Pixar’s best films ever and could very well be the first Pixar sequel since Toy Story 3 to actually be better than the original.

The Disney merger seems to have brought with it new imperatives. Pixar has always been very good at making money, but historically it did so largely on its own terms.

I agree. Merging with Disney is a big reason for the sequels, but that’s likely because Pixar knew they couldn’t survive much longer without them. Pixar movies take years to make, and their standards are too high to make new worlds from scratch at a quick enough speed to pay the bills. Sequels take much less time and can make even more money when done correctly. That’s not an excuse, of course, but it is indicative of what could happen next.

Merger or no, there’s plenty reason to believe Pixar would have kept making sequels anyway in order to support their simultaneous need for great original films to also fill the pipeline. That’s not Pixar losing its way. It’s Pixar changing course in a more sustainable direction, consolidating their talent and taking steps toward a future where they may not have to rely on sequels so badly. And this has led to some good results over the years, along with some unfortunate branding ones, admittedly.

Then Orr makes his worst argument.

There are a dozen Disney theme parks scattered across the globe in need of, well, themes for their rides.

Don’t do it, Orr. Please. Think of the children.

the overlap between the Pixar movies that beget sequels and the movies that inspire rides at Disney amusement parks is all but total.

Seriously? You’re trying to argue that Pixar is basing its creative decisions around theme-parks?

Theme-park rides are premised on an awareness of the theme in question, and young parkgoers are less likely to be familiar with movies that are more than a decade old.

That explains why Disneyland is filled with movie themes from over 50 years ago.

This idea that kids are going to forget what Toy Story is without a Toy Story 4 is almost enough for me to dismiss all of Orr’s previous arguments out of spite. I won’t because clearly he’s not entirely wrong about a lot of this, but…really? Theme-park rides?

Look, there’s a point to be made about how sequels can be properly timed with theme-park attractions in order to maximize exposure. But to suggest that a legendary storyteller like Lasseter is guiding one of the best animated studios of all time (with Catmull’s approval) around what will look good on a brochure is nothing more than a brainless conspiracy theory. They’re not making Toy Story 4 because of a theme-park ride. At best, and if we take Pixar at their word, they’re making it because they truly believe in the story and it would be easier and more profitable than a new IP.

Pixar has promised that after the upcoming glut of sequels, the studio will focus on original features.

And honestly, I believe them. Pixar has built up decades of credibility with its fans, but Orr would dismiss all of it because the studio has only put out one masterpiece in seven years, assuming Coco isn’t as good as it looks, while other studios like Disney haven’t really made any masterpieces of their own in the same amount of time.

I’m not sure I dare to expect much more of what used to make Pixar Pixar: the idiosyncratic stories, the deep emotional resonance, the subtle themes that don’t easily translate into amusement-park rides.

Seriously, it’s been two years since Inside Out. Two. And the people who made it still work at Pixar, and for the last time, they’re still making good films. What makes Pixar Pixar hasn’t changed, just the frequency of its best material, and impatience (while understandable) is a poor excuse for trying to accuse an animation studio of being enslaved to theme-park rides.

Orr finishes by rounding off examples of what he loves in RatatouilleWall-E, and Up, finally stating:

Would Pixar even bother making those pictures anymore?

So the implication is that because these movies supposedly wouldn’t translate well to a theme-park ride (though they actually would, considering the Axiom is begging to be in Tomorrowland and Ratatouille has its own part in Disneyland Paris, which Orr even admits), he questions Pixar’s willingness to make great movies. You know, despite the fact that Coco comes out in November and virtually nothing about Pixar tells us that they’re disinterested in making great movies.

As I’ve pointed out numerous times here, Orr makes a lot of accurate observations, and I don’t blame anyone for believing Pixar really has lost their way. But it really depends on what you look to Pixar for. Even their worst films still contain a level of quality that far surpass the worst of the Disney movies and DreamWorks movies for that matter. It’s definitely true that they’re not putting out a slew of original breakthroughs almost every year like they once did, and yes, that is a shame.

But we also can’t discount that their competitors really have caught up to them in a lot of ways. And there are a ton of learning curves to managing a bigger studio that is no longer as unique and creatively compact as it once was. From what I can tell, Pixar has embraced this decade with a new caution, desperate to preserve its best material by investing in more conventional ways of making money. I’m not saying this is necessarily the best choice they could’ve made, and I don’t agree with all of their decisions since Toy Story 3. But all of this does mean that Pixar can still make the masterpieces we want to see from them.

In other words, I very much doubt a movie like Inside Out, heralded as one of the greatest animated movies of all time, would have been able to come out if it weren’t for Cars 2 and Monsters University. These are movies that came out instead of failed concepts like Newt, and Pixar would have been in a tailspin if not for the box office they made off of Toy Story 3. You don’t have to like it, and hopefully this isn’t a new norm for Pixar, but it is the reality of a studio that has reached maturing age. It’s a different time for Pixar, but not necessarily a bad one.


Thanks for reading this. To get updates on my theories, books, and giveaways, join my mailing list.

Or just say hey on Twitter: @JonNegroni


Snarcasm: Pixar Is So Average, You Didn’t Even Notice

pixar

Snark + Sarcasm = what you’re about to read.

Most people aren’t movie aficionados, and most of those people aren’t even sure what the word “aficionado” means. But they do know a good flick when they see it, and more often than not, Pixar churns out some great pieces of entertainment.

Since I’m the most biased person alive to comment on this particular “think”piece about Pixar movies from Indiewire, take everything you read here with no salt at all, because that’s bad for your sodium intake in the first place.

Charles Kenny gets in some choice hits with his write up, “Pixar’s Films Are Average and You Know It.”

Why so salty, Charles? None of us are trying to pull a fast one on you, pal.

Lauded, showered with praise and awards, raking in billions at the box office, and beloved by audiences everywhere.

That’s right, and what better way to cut Pixar down than to start by building them up…with obvious observations and facts?

Seriously, you’ve already proven that Pixar movies are anything but average on every merit above. But I have a feeling you’re about to “explain” why none of those things that matter actually matter, even though they clearly matter.

by digging just a little bit beneath the surface, it’s regrettably obvious that Pixar’s films are far from cutting edge: they’re rather average.

If this article had a mascot, it would be Mr. Peanut with a New Yorker on his lap.

The emperor isn’t wearing any clothes, but everyone believes he’s wearing the
finest robes.

“I bet my third grade analogy makes you feel far from cutting edge, hm?”

Seriously, I can never get enough of these contrarian regurgitations that insist their argument is good because most people will disagree with them. It’s like watching a guy eat asphalt because surely no one believes that’s good because I’m the first to think of it.

This may be hard to accept

Ya, and for good reason.

The argument is based purely on artistic merit and creativity

Believe me, no one is questioning how creative you’re being for making a lot of this nonsense up.

 Box office grosses are no indicator

Box office isn’t everything, but it is something. There’s a reason Pixar movies make more and more money, and it’s because they’re a trusted brand. Your argument is that they’re average movies, so why dismiss cultural relevance for the sake of making your argument seem a hair less crazy than it truly is?

Awards are not an impartial form of measurement

No one expects them to be, but we have basic rules of statistics to measure true consensus. We’re talking about people watching hundreds of movies a year consistently praising movies from one particular studio. To dismiss that because awards in and of themselves are a subjective matter should get the award for lamest duck.

Taste is personal and just because you think Pixar’s films are the best doesn’t mean they actually are the best

Who decides, then? You? I really hope not.

The studio does not make bad films

Cars 2 would like to have a word with you.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, The Secret of Kells, and My Neighbor Totoro all lie much closer to generally accepted animated excellence

A few things. First, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is a masterpiece and in my opinion, the greatest animated film, period. Secret of Kells is great, and Neighbor Totoro is an eventual classic, but it’s the latter half of this sentiment that raises annoyingly loud alarm bells.

Generally accepted animated excellence? How are these films any more “generally accepted” than Pixar’s high points like Toy StoryIncrediblesFinding NemoRatatouilleWALL-E, Up, and Inside Out? It’s confusing because you can’t seem to decide on what imaginary audience is determining what’s “good” or “bad” when it comes to animated movies. You’ve said it has nothing to do with awards, box office, or personal taste, which leaves us with virtually nothing else.

In contrast to these films, Pixar’s are remarkably safe.

Unlike my intelligence after reading this drivel.

So yeah, we have to believe (now) that when Pixar made a movie about a rat using a human to cook food in Paris, or when they did a whole thing about robots falling in love within the backdrop of an environmental message, or when they made Fantastic Four actually look good, and so on, they were avoiding risk.

On the bright side, people who’ve never actually watched a Pixar movie might agree with you.

They convey a narrowly defined range of themes,

OK, assuming that’s true, you’re evaluating Pixar’s catalogue, not any one movie. By that logic, we can then say Snow White is lesser because Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella also have princesses in them. Welcome to Charles’s world, gang.

they are content to reuse a ‘house style’,

Charles doesn’t elaborate on this (probably because he’s too busy trying on those emperor clothes he was talking about earlier), but my guess is that he’s slapping every Pixar movie with a demerit because their consistently good movies do the same consistently good things. The horror.

and sequels aside (another demerit),

I think Charles invented his grading system after watching Idiocracy.

So yes, Pixar movies are “average” because some Pixar movies are sequels. We won’t even talk about how the Toy Story sequels are highly praised and celebrated because oops! That’s subjective! Didn’t you hear that only Charles’s subjectivity holds any value?

their stories are far from unique to filmmaking as a whole.

We’ll just leave out all of the technological innovations made possible because of Pixar since the late 80s. They get credit for nothing, despite routinely delivering some of the most beautiful visuals and stories of the 21st Century—oops! I’m being darn subjective again!

As a result. no Pixar film has pushed the artistic envelope

I want to meet the person who reads that sentence and actually agrees with it. Pixar has never pushed the artistic envelope? Right, and the Pope is an atheist.

they have appeared to without actually doing so.

The Pope prays, but does that really mean he thinks God is like a real thing? Nahhhhh.

They have not revolutionized animated filmmaking outside of their technology.

“They have not revolutionized animated filmmaking outside of the technology they use to revolutionize animated filmmaking. Trust me.”

What Pixar’s films haven’t done, is inspire others to make a creative leap.

Yeah! Not even Walt Disney Animation Studios….oh wait. Or DreamWorks…oh wait. Or Blue Sky…oh wait.

I love how Charles’s rubric for being “average” has everything to do with him assuming no creative person has ever been inspired by Pixar. And as you can imagine, he says nothing to back this up. Not even an anecdote.

The other problem I’m seeing here is Charles’s narrow criteria for what qualifies as artistic merit. It’s not enough to him that something is competently made and original. Apparently, it also needs to be flamboyant and provocative, but that’s just not what Pixar movies set out to do. But because he’s limiting literally ever other piece of criteria for what makes a film above average, he’s constructing a false narrative that just about anyone can see through.

The Looney Tunes and MGM shorts of the day developed as rapidly as they did because the teams behind them were determined to outdo each other creatively. Today, animated films (and especially CGI ones) do not compete creatively, but rather financially.

Charles, if you really think MGM and Looney Tunes weren’t interesting in getting paid for their work, then there’s literally nothing I can do for you. The idea of relevance and popularity tying into financial success is such a basic concept, I’m at a loss for words. Do you really think that Pixar and DreamWorks aren’t competing creatively? Because even when DreamWorks produces an unimaginative dud like Home, guess what happens? They don’t make money.

But what am I supposed to expect from a guy who thinks Pixar movies are “safe.”

any artistic developments as a result are rather coincidental.

Let’s apply this to any other scenario. I walk into a deli and tell the sandwich guy: “Oh, well you’re only using that brand of salami because it’s 9 cents cheaper than the other brand. And the fact that it tastes so good is just a coincidence.”

He’s either going to roll his eyes at you (like most everyone would) or write an overlong Snarcasm about it (like me). Either way, none of us win.

After all, no studio was inspired to create a CGI film because of Pixar’s artistic genius, they saw a concept that was profitable and wanted a piece of the pie for themselves!

Guys, I think I figured it out. Charles meant to write this as a satire essay for his eight grade history class, but oops! Indiewire got their independent wires crossed and published it by mistake. Happens all the time.

But yeah, the real nonsense here is that Charles makes a sweeping assumption that no studio has ever mimicked Pixar because they genuinely saw something creative that they want to replicate themselves. Either Charles is the NSA incarnate, able to monitor all animated filmmakers instantaneously, or he really needs to get those clicks, guys.

To get to the crunch of the issue,

Uh…no comment, I guess.

you have to consider how Pixar’s films are viewed by the general population.

Except you already said we can’t do that because we isn’t smart enough like you.

Their films appeal to all, and in turn are remarkably popular. This is possible primarily because the films are average.

I bet watching Charles do math in his head is adorable.

OK, so the idea is that if people really like something, it might mean the movie is average, so in your head, that means they’re average. Are we done with this yet?

They do not appeal to anyone in particular,

What? Are we on some sort of contradiction carousel?

Look, I get his point (despite him not explaining it well). He’s trying to say that Pixar movies appeal to everyone on a surface level, but they don’t actually make people think or feel. That’s dead wrong to the point of absurdity, of course, and mostly because he doesn’t use any examples to refute the most basic opinion people have about Pixar movies to the point where there are memes about how the movies are emotional: that they appeal to them in unique, deep ways.

For Charles to downplay all of that because he hasn’t had those experiences is more sad on his part than anything else. It also makes me wonder if he watches these movies while texting the entire time.

Next, Charles uses a quote from Simon Cowell that has nothing to do with Pixar to explain how “average tastes” work. I know I was joking before, but that eighth grade book report theory is just getting more and more plausible. At one point he says that Star Wars is artistically average which is…eh, what’s the point.

Imagine if Pixar released a film with casual abandon of all financial goals.

I love how you seem to know everything about the creative process of some of the world’s most creative people. See, Charles has the gall to claim that these guys are hacks who are only in it for the money. Can we all agree that he can keep that moronic opinion to himself?

At the end of the day, it’s fine to look to Pixar as a model for certain things such as its CGI technology,

CGI technology? I mean I figured out a long time ago that you have no idea what you’re talking about, but this is almost too on the nose.

to look to them as a creative leader and innovator is wrong.

Well, if being “right” is agreeing with a bunch self-righteous, unfounded assertions that waste everyone’s time, then you get an A+, sir.

They do not reside on the cutting edge of feature animation, and to accept such a belief is to drink some very strong Kool-Aid.

Said the guy who probably has no idea what Jonestown is.

Before I go, I’ll leave you with this quote from Charles on a different Indiewire post:

The other Pixar film from last year, Inside Out, blew everyone away with its sheer originality and emotional themes and quickly became a favorite. It is currently sweeping all awards before it and is well on it’s way to the status of a classic film.

Hmmm, well methinks Charles has some explaining to do.


Thanks for reading this. Seriously. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. 

Or just say hello on Twitter: @JonNegroni


Snarcasm: Disney is Eating Pixar’s Lunch

disney pixar

Snark + Sarcasm = what you’re about to read.

This week’s Snarcasm will be a tad different and (dare I say it) a little more serious than usual. Rather than take down one of the worst articles on the Internet (which have been nothing but fan theories lately), I’m addressing some fear, uncertainty, and doubt crisscrossing the world of animation.

And it really needs to stop.

See, I’m all for criticizing Pixar when they deserve it (see Cars 2 and the third act of Brave). They’re not perfect, and we can all agree that mistakes were made in how they executed their latest feature, The Good Dinosaur.

But the groupthink has been reaching a bizarre consensus lately that ignores the triumph of Inside Out and yes, the underrated value offered by The Good Dinosaur. It seems that some people want  Pixar to be taken down a notch in the public eye because Disney Animation has been killing it lately with computer animated hits like TangledFrozen, and Big Hero 6.

disney pixar

Is that fair? Let’s dig in.

Germain Lussier at io9 writes:

Walt Disney Animation is Officially as Good as Pixar Now

Look, I know that the tagline for io9 is “Welcome to the Future,” but that doesn’t mean we can just skip ahead to a time period that doesn’t exist.

And I know that the last few movies made by Disney’s own animation studio have been big hits, but has anyone actually considered Big Hero 6 or Frozen to be better than Inside Out? Let’s read what Lussier has to say.

For several years, Pixar’s animated films made Pixar’s parent company, Disney, look good. And meanwhile, Disney’s own in-house animation studio was going through a rough patch—the company wasn’t making the kind of films people expected from Walt Disney’s namesake.

Lussier goes on to explain how most people don’t even realize that Pixar and Disney are separate entities. But a key thing he points out is that Pixar has long made their own movies outside of Disney’s control (even after Disney bought them).

just as Disney was releasing all those Pixar hits, Disney Animation—a branch of the company with one of the most amazing resumes in film history—was still releasing its own films. Films that usually, and unfortunately, were much less memorable.

These movies include decent but forgettable flicks, such as Meet the RobinsonsBoltThe Princess and the Frog, and other “nice tries.”

disney pixar

It took lots of time, effort, blood, sweat and tears—but with films like Frozen, Big Hero 6 and next month’s new film Zootopia, Walt Disney Animation Studios has finally done the impossible: It’s regained its former glory and can easily share the animation throne with Pixar.

First off, Zootopia hasn’t even come out yet. Lussier caught a screening and gave it high praise later in this article, but we have to just assume that his opinion will match everyone else’s. We’ll revisit this later.

But fine, let’s “welcome the future” and assume that Zootopia will be as good as the trailers make it look. Are FrozenBig Hero 6, and Zootopia enough to take this “animation throne?” And “easily” as he claims?

Lussier is at least half correct from a box office standpoint. Obviously, Frozen made tons of money well out of the reach of Pixar movies. But I hesitate to consider cold, hard cash other people have earned to be a reason for liking a movie.

And to be honest, I don’t even want to compare these movies because they’re so incredibly different. For one thing, Pixar movies are original, unique concept movies that make you fall in love with seemingly mundane yet lovable characters. Disney works to be more accessible with glossy characters and environments that are beautiful from the onset because they’re often derived from pre-existing stories. As a result they usually feel more like pretty art instead of affecting art.

I’m here to tell you things are just getting better. Last week, I was lucky enough to catch an early screening of Disney Animation’s latest film, Zootopia.It’s the best film Disney Animation has made in 20 years.

Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely hope that Lussier is right about this because that’s great news for everyone. But watch what happens next.

Not only is it a film worthy of Pixar, it’s light years ahead of Pixar’s most recent movie, The Good Dinosaur.

Frequent readers know that I completely, absolutely disagree, considering The Good Dinosaur was my second favorite film of 2015 and one of the few films I gave an A+ last year. And while plenty of people agree with Lussier’s sentiment, many also find The Good Dinosaur to be an underrated gem like I do.

disney pixar

And then he says this about Zootopia:

Now, is it as good as Pixar at its best? Inside Out or Toy Story good? No, probably not.

Wait, let me get this straight. Disney Animation’s best film in 20 years isn’t as good as one of Pixar’s most recent movies?

Do you see why I chose this article for Snarcasm? It’s obviously well written, and Lussier is a very smart person. But for whatever reason, people are making grand conclusions about the quality of Pixar based on very slim arguments. If the best Disney animation movie isn’t even better than Inside Out, then how can you even argue that the studio itself is “just as good?”

Lussier seems to be basing his argument on the fact that he thinks The Good Dinosaur sucks, but that’s just one movie. And he’s also saying that the pinnacle of Disney isn’t as good as the best of the Pixar movies. So why say they are easily just as good?

I guess it frustrates me because Inside Out proved so well that Pixar hasn’t slipped the way so many people claimed they would over the last few years. And now we’re already hearing the narrative that Disney Animation is getting better while they’re getting worse, and it’s just bonkers.

And yet even with all that, there are other factors in play here too. Disney Animation and Pixar now create films in the same way, and share creative resources, so the two balancing out makes sense.

Pixar movies and Disney Animation movies aren’t even remotely similar. Can you honestly say that Frozen and Tangled are legitimately made like Pixar movies? These are fairy tales that are built up on source material. Wreck-It Ralph comes closer, but it also relies on a huge list of existing entities to make its video game world come to life. And Big Hero 6 is based on a Marvel Comic of all things.

disney pixar

Well, loosely.

Meanwhile, Pixar creates entire worlds. They make you feel for rats, monsters, and even the very idea of emotions. Their creativity is absolutely unmatched when they’re at their best. Even The Good Dinosaur pushes animation itself in ways Disney has barely touched (aside from Big Hero 6) with effects shots and photorealistic landscapes that actually contribute to the narrative.

They may be in the same sport, but Disney and Pixar are in two very different ballparks.

Plus Pixar’s films were so successful in the past, Pixar’s begun to make more and more sequels (Monsters University recently, plus Finding Dory, Cars 3, Toy Story 4 and Incredibles 2 coming soon)

Just keep in mind that Pixar has only made one lackluster sequel. We still don’t know if they can pull off another Toy Story 2, but I’d bet money that Incredibles and Finding Nemo are worthy of the challenge. Lussier sort of points this out as well and even makes the case that Disney is also making sequels for its popular movies with Frozen 2.

But none of that changes this basic fact: From a time when Pixar was ruling everything and Disney Animation Studios was making Treasure Planet and Home on the Range, things have once again aligned. Disney has not only gotten back to the high bar of quality set by Pixar, but that of its namesake, too.

I agree that Disney is back on track when it comes to recapturing its former glory, and Pixar’s own John Lasseter is a key reason why this is happening (Lussier also points this out). But the idea that Disney is somehow on the same level because they’ve made a few good movies in a row is a gut reaction, not a careful analysis. Pixar consistently makes superb, excellent movies, while Disney Animation makes good, sometimes great movies.

disney pixar

And if you don’t agree, then just try to tell me which current Disney movie even comes close to matching Toy StoryIncredibles, Finding NemoUp, and now Inside Out. Because not even Lussier could seem to do that.

One of these days I need to put together a full analysis on The Good Dinosaur and why I consider it to be vastly better than it gets credit for. While I’m not worried about Pixar’s foreseeable future because of the box office failure of that movie, it hurts to know that a movie with so much effort put into it is being considered worse than movies that are, at their core, deceptively generic.

At any rate, I’ll be seeing Zootopia for myself at a screening next week, and despite everything we just talked about, I couldn’t be more excited. Isn’t it great to know that both Disney and Pixar are putting their best efforts into animation right now?

Hey! If you’ve come across a silly article that deserves the Snarcasm treatment, send it my way via Twitter or the comments below!

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

 

%d bloggers like this: