Pixar - following Walt's Way?

[acroyear]

The Disney Blog: Ratatouille:

So they way I see it, Pixar really has no choice but to keep moving forward with Walt's Way. The way that resulted in Snow White, Pinocchio, and Fantasia. To divert is to risk greater financial ruin with mediocre product; where as having a number of films with decent profitability and the occasional box office break-through means continued success for the studio. That emptiness in my stomach was just the lurch realizing what a big step Pixar had made with Ratatouille.

That is not the conclusion I thought I would arrive at when I sat down to write this piece. Indeed, I had convinced myself that Pixar had strayed too far away from the traditional animated children's film with Ratatouille. But what is a traditional animated children's film? That is decided anew with every genre busting film that's released. All you can do is to find what you love and keep doing it to the best of your ability. That's the lesson of Ratatouille and the philosophy behind Pixar. That Walt's Way and it's a recipe for success for us all.

Comments

[thelongshot.livejournal.com]

I'm really beginning to feel that Brad Bird is pulling Pixar's ass out of a potential fire that they were heading toward. For me, "Monsters, Inc." was the first film I felt Pixar was resting on their laurels and were starting to have some "sameness" to their films. I haven't seen "Cars" yet, but I got the same vibe there. I didn't feel the impending need to see it from day one.

But both "The Incredibles" and "Ratatouille" have both had me genuinely excited to see them.

The strange exception was "Finding Nemo", which I didn't see until much later. While the plot itself was rather derivative, it gets by by being exceedingly well executed.

And I'm glad that we are getting away from the "Traditional animated children's film", because I think traditionally Hollywood tends to dumb it down for kids. I think Hollywood underestimates what a kid can handle in a film. Certainly, Walt's films can be enjoyed by both adults and children. They are true family films. An adult shouldn't have to check their brain at the door to "enjoy" a children's film.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Cars really is something special, but its kinda "regional" - it really plays on the emotions and memories of those who've done the "tourist" thing from the 50s and its later remnants and watched it all fall apart as increased gas mileage and the interstate system created a whole new generation of ghost town. though it focuses on Nevada and Rt 66, that kinda thing happened everywhere.

So there is a different layer to it that many (but not all) adults get that kids might kinda sort get, but not really, because they won't really know how real it was.

now in this, its kinda related to another Lasseter nostalgia idea used in Toy Story 2 - there, Woody was part of a large-scale merchandise empire that suddenly disappeared thanks to the new next big thing (a fictional parallel of the real-life transition from the Disney-instigated Davy Crockett fad to the space fad caused by the Sputnik launch).

What was different was this I could directly relate to, having seen the demise of many an attraction over the years (I have a better memory for that sort of thing than most of my generation, I've noticed). The closest any non-traveling north-easterner might have is watching the ups and downs of Coney Island, or maybe the ups and downs of Niagra as DisneyWorld overtook it as the #1 honeymoon destination in the world.

I hate country music and i hate auto racing and i loved every minute of Cars.

Plus, visually it is absolutely stunning. Nemo and Monsters are *nothing* as far as background and effects animation go.

The Pixar characters may be a little overused in merchandising and especially in the new and refurbished rides in the disney parks (Nemo is on at least 2 attractions per park in all 5 Disney parks, plus the cruise line), but to my interpretation i can see he's more trying to get them to reach that state of timelessness rather than "just an early 2000s fad" the way Crockett was also (to quote Peart quoting someone else) only immortal for a limited time. The very timelessness that Mickey and the Princesses have today.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

as for Bird's more mature feel for things compared to the standard pixar kids thing?

I'm always of the "why isn't there room for both" camp on that. Incredibles is great for the 10+ range, but I wouldn't show it to a 4 year old. Conversely, Nemo works for parents as well as kids under 12, but you'll lose the teenager crowd.

As for adults "checking their brain at the door" - there's bigger social factors than that. Far too often, their brains have already been checked out for them long before they get there. Movies that are intelligent tend to flop because they're "too difficult to follow".

When an college educated film critic tells me that "At World's End" was too complicated for him to make sense out of, I want that university to yank the diploma back because he didn't f'in' deserve it. Yet he spoke for masses out there that simply decided that entertainment shouldn't make them think.

And I wonder, really, who decided that for them...

[thelongshot.livejournal.com]

I'm always of the "why isn't there room for both" camp on that. Incredibles is great for the 10+ range, but I wouldn't show it to a 4 year old. Conversely, Nemo works for parents as well as kids under 12, but you'll lose the teenager crowd.

Actually, I wouldn't exactly say that for "The Incredibles". When I went to see the first Fantastic Four, I saw a lot of young kids there and they were having a ball. I have a feeling the same kids enjoyed the heck out of "The Incredibles".

But yes, not all movies will work for all crowds, but you also don't have to aim for the cheap seats all the time to get the LCD. That's where the Shrek sequels fall flat.

Course, there is also the attitude that animation is just for kids. Animation is a medium, not a genre. It is why I embrace animated film that take on more mature themes and are not always appropriate for young kids.

As for adults "checking their brain at the door" - there's bigger social factors than that. Far too often, their brains have already been checked out for them long before they get there. Movies that are intelligent tend to flop because they're "too difficult to follow".

That goes right into my argument, that movies shouldn't be dumbed down for kids, because a lot of those people probably didn't get much that challenged them, plotwise. Even if some aspects go over the kids' head, later on they probably could figure out things and realize that their favorite kids film had more depth than they thought.

Personally, I usually get complex plots on the first go. I don't need it "explained" to me. Hell, I like films that make me think. For all the flaws of AI, it certainly succeeded in making me think.

Disney & Pixar

[rennfoole.livejournal.com]

We saw Ratatouille on Friday night...late...to avoid the little children. And yes, even at at 10:20pm show the theatre was about 3/4 full. Walt knew not to aim his movies at children but at families. He also knew when to stay one step ahead of others. He was always trying to keep Disney at the forefront of family entertainment!

Yes, I believe that John Lasseter of Pixar and the newest head of Animation subscribes to the same philosophy. About a week ago he changed the official name of the animation division to Walt Disney Animation Studios. He rolled all of the various animation divisions (features, TV, etc.) together under this new banner. He also put an end the multitude of cheap straight-to-DVD sequels that Disney had recently become infamous for. Some were pretty good but most were awful. "Little Mermaid III" will be the last, thankfully.

He's also the chief creative guru of Walt Disney Imagineering and, in doing dual duty, he has more pull than Marty Sklar (former head of WDI and one of Walt's own) had in recent years. Projects would go to fabrication with a budget of "X" amount of dollars and the financial people would trim, cut and slash it to death even as the project was being constructed. Not so with the new "Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage". When Lasseter came on board last year, this project had already had much of it's budget cut. Lasseter had that plus more put into it. That would have been Walt's way. He knew that you have to spend money to make money. Lasseter is showing that he cares about the upkeep at the parks when he visits, as well. He just had the "It's Tough To Be A Bug" screen replaced...for the third time in a year...because a misting valve (used for special effects in the show) had malfunctioned and damaged the screen. You could see the spots on the screen even when the movie was running. You should see it now...and that's not cheap!

We like Bob Iger and John Lasseter at Disney. Michael Eisner and Frank Wells saved the company from disintegration in the 1980's and made it a major player in Hollywood. Iger and Lasseter are seeking to bring Walt's Way of working back and, with it, more quality and integrity.

Besides that "Ratatouille" is a fabulous motion picture!!!!

Re: Disney & Pixar

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

I'm of mixed minds about Sklar, only in that its hard for me to tell where the "flaws" in the system really lie and whether or not Sklar could (or would) have fought for WDI to be more stable than it became under Eisner, or if resisting Eisner at the worst of the excesses would have been a one way ticket to early retirement.

He's "professor emeritus" @ WDI, and well-deserved, but WDI really needed someone to bat for them to keep the Disney Parks division from asserting so much control over the creative process. The separation of Disney Parks from WED might have worked *IF* someone higher up had already started agressively marketing WED/WDI as a creative design firm in order to keep them busy and not go through what Florida's been suffering through, with constant build-up, new park, massive layoff, sudden rush of Imagineers to work for the competition (I've no doubts that MUCH of the new Harry Potter park @ Universal is going to be done by ex-WDI people).

Had they done a better job of promoting WDI as a firm in its own right, they could have done that 3rd party work without leaving the Disney company and been available (with even more experience) for the new parks and rides as they come in. Granted, they wouldn't be doing it for Orlando competition as such, but more projects like the Top of the Rock elevator would have been cool.

Imagine a WDI designed convention center done by experienced people with an intention to care for the plussing the existing environment (as opposed to that monstrosity next to the Contemporary, and as opposed to the almost pure concrete slab that is the new DC convention center).

Lasseter had that plus more put into it. That would have been Walt's way.

As said almost exactly by Leonard Maltin in an interview I just read about 20,000 Leagues (the movie) - where expensive though it was, the rain storm in the squid attack (originally proposed to deal with the low quality of the squid itself), improved the story enough, "plussed it" as it were, to make it worth it for Walt. "How much more would it cost" was simply a question Walt almost never asked.

*Roy* would ask it, of course, but not Walt. ;)

But then again, Roy would then turn around and find the money, which put him infinitely more resourceful than many of the middle-management successors out there today.