Pixar Merger with Disney Has Hurt Quality

[bigdaddy]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

Was "Incredibles" pre- or post-merger? That was the last Pixar film I thought was really worth anything.

Disney has been creatively stagnant for well over a decade now.

It was before. The merger was 2006, and the films take a few years to make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pixar_films

[propita]

VulcanJedi wrote:

---

Sitting here, finally watching Brave. Would have seen it sooner, but poor reviews turned me away.

Right away the problem is clear; overuse of expository in place of showing. This is writing 101; show us don't tell us.
Cars 2: we take a film that actually had a anti-establishment message and turn it into happy feet 3 or back to the barnyard. Pixar films were on a streak of being profound..now, just blah. What happened? Disney?

Beauty and the Beast had that voice-over intro for exposition. True, it was short and was visually great. But it was needed, though made no sense logically. But who's watching a fairy tale for logic, right?

[Christopher]

"Show, don't tell" is not an absolute dogma. As with anything else, it depends on the needs of the particular story. There are cases where getting the exposition out of the way with a quick narrative infodump is the right choice because it lets you get on with the important part of the story. I don't remember Brave well enough to recall how I felt about the exposition, but one shouldn't just make a kneejerk assumption that telling is invariably inferior to showing. Rules like that are guidelines, not straitjackets.

[Owain Taggart]

Christopher wrote:

---

"Show, don't tell" is not an absolute dogma. As with anything else, it depends on the needs of the particular story.

Agreed. It's definitely contextual. It's often necessary in terms of world building in order to set the scene for what's to come, and when done well, it can really add to the story.

However, I hate it when it's simply a wall of text. The recent terrible World Without End miniseries did this, being the first thing you see, and it took away from what they could have shown and felt incredibly cheap. In a way, it did set the tone because the rest of the miniseries was incredibly bad.

[Sci]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

Was "Incredibles" pre- or post-merger? That was the last Pixar film I thought was really worth anything.

Disney has been creatively stagnant for well over a decade now.

The Incredibles was released in 2004, two years before Disney acquired Pixar. Their 2006 film was Cars. It's kind of hard to classify any particular film as a "post-merger" film, though, because a lot of the films released in the first few years after the acquisition would have been in the works before it.

[Christopher]

^Right. It takes years to make an animated film as elaborate as Pixar's productions, and they always have several overlapping productions going on at any given time -- which is why each of their films is able to include an Easter egg foreshadowing the next film.

[J. Allen]

I loved Toy Story 3. Waterworks broke out, and everything. Strongly disliked Cars 2 (much to my huge surprise), even though I loved the first one. The movie just felt wrong. It's hard for me to explain. Brave, which I finally saw the other day, was good. It had a nice feel to it, but yeah, I wouldn't say I was head over heels with it like I was many of Pixar's other ventures.

To be fair, no matter who you are, you can't always push perfect quality. For me, Cars 2 was a big sign, for me, that something was wrong. I mean, I used to believe Pixar on a bad day was better than anyone else on a great day, but after that movie, I don't believe that anymore. Still, Pixar has a lot of greatness in them, and I hope to see more of it in the future. As of now, though, the latest Pixar contributions are Cars 2, and Brave. Both less than their stellar standard. In theaters right now is "Wreck-It Ralph", which is playing to great reviews, and is made by Disney's in house animation team. The playing field has opened up enormously, so I do have some worry for Pixar. It's not the idea that they'll fail, it's the perception of them already failing, and perception is reality in the movie industry.

[Ian Keldon]

Christopher wrote:

---

^Right. It takes years to make an animated film as elaborate as Pixar's productions, and they always have several overlapping productions going on at any given time -- which is why each of their films is able to include an Easter egg foreshadowing the next film.

Either way, that was the last Pixar film I thought really worked.

I miss the annual-or-18-month, Disney animated summer blockbusters of the 90s.

[Bob The Skutter]

J. Allen wrote:

---

I loved Toy Story 3. Waterworks broke out, and everything. Strongly disliked Cars 2 (much to my huge surprise), even though I loved the first one. The movie just felt wrong. It's hard for me to explain. Brave, which I finally saw the other day, was good. It had a nice feel to it, but yeah, I wouldn't say I was head over heels with it like I was many of Pixar's other ventures.

To be fair, no matter who you are, you can't always push perfect quality. For me, Cars 2 was a big sign, for me, that something was wrong. I mean, I used to believe Pixar on a bad day was better than anyone else on a great day, but after that movie, I don't believe that anymore. Still, Pixar has a lot of greatness in them, and I hope to see more of it in the future. As of now, though, the latest Pixar contributions are Cars 2, and Brave. Both less than their stellar standard. In theaters right now is "Wreck-It Ralph", which is playing to great reviews, and is made by Disney's in house animation team. The playing field has opened up enormously, so I do have some worry for Pixar. It's not the idea that they'll fail, it's the perception of them already failing, and perception is reality in the movie industry.

I don't know how anyone can out Cars 2 and Brave in the same sentence when talking about quality. Brave was a wonderful film, I would easily put it up there with my favourites, whereas Cars 1 and 2 would both be at the bottom. I can see other's wouldn't agree with placement but I don't understand putting them together anywhere on the list.

[J. Allen]

Bob The Skutter wrote:

---

I don't know how anyone can out Cars 2 and Brave in the same sentence when talking about quality. Brave was a wonderful film, I would easily put it up there with my favourites, whereas Cars 1 and 2 would both be at the bottom. I can see other's wouldn't agree with placement but I don't understand putting them together anywhere on the list.

Aside from being in the same sentence, I've made it clear that Brave is quite superior to Cars 2.

[Bob The Skutter]

J. Allen wrote:

---

Aside from being in the same sentence, I've made it clear that Brave is quite superior to Cars 2.

As of now, though, the latest Pixar contributions are Cars 2, and Brave. Both less than their stellar standard.

Was what I was going off. Brave was a fun, non-traditional take on the traditional Princess needs a Prince story, the animation was beautiful and the story, moral and intent of the story were everything it should have been for a film like this.

It just seems to be another case of people being given what they asked for then not liking the fact it wasn't exactly what the would have done. People have asked for a Pixar film with female leads and their take on the traditional Disney Princess story and that's what they did.

[Gaith]

J. Allen wrote:

---

Strongly disliked Cars 2 (much to my huge surprise), even though I loved the first one. The movie just felt wrong. It's hard for me to explain.

Not for me (though I haven't seen Cars 2): no one has arms! An entirely planet full of creatures without arms, hands, fingers, thumbs, or wrists! Or legs, for that matter! Doesn't that freak anyone else out?

[Christopher]

Gaith wrote:

---

Not for me (though I haven't seen Cars 2): no one has arms! An entirely planet full of creatures without arms, hands, fingers, thumbs, or wrists! Or legs, for that matter! Doesn't that freak anyone else out?

Meh, it's no worse than My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. Although at least the unicorn ponies have telekinesis to manipulate things with.

[J. Allen]

Bob The Skutter wrote:

---

Was what I was going off. Brave was a fun, non-traditional take on the traditional Princess needs a Prince story, the animation was beautiful and the story, moral and intent of the story were everything it should have been for a film like this.

It just seems to be another case of people being given what they asked for then not liking the fact it wasn't exactly what the would have done. People have asked for a Pixar film with female leads and their take on the traditional Disney Princess story and that's what they did.

The first part of that post was this:

Me wrote:

---

Brave, which I finally saw the other day, was good. It had a nice feel to it, but yeah, I wouldn't say I was head over heels with it like I was many of Pixar's other ventures.

Which, when compared to Cars 2:

Me wrote:

---

For me, Cars 2 was a big sign, for me, that something was wrong. I mean, I used to believe Pixar on a bad day was better than anyone else on a great day, but after that movie, I don't believe that anymore.

Shows that I consider Brave to be superior to Cars 2.

Gaith wrote:

---

Not for me (though I haven't seen Cars 2): no one has arms! An entirely planet full of creatures without arms, hands, fingers, thumbs, or wrists! Or legs, for that matter! Doesn't that freak anyone else out?

All you can really do is figure it as something you have to accept as a part of the universe.

[Bob The Skutter]

J. Allen wrote:

---

The first part of that post was this:

Which, when compared to Cars 2:



Shows that I consider Brave to be superior to Cars 2.

Sorry, I somehow misread that bit.