-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Do You Consider Pixar Films as "Disney"?
- Thread starter Pongo
- Start date
csaribay
Member
PIXAR doesn't embody what Disney has become in recent history, but it sure as hell qualifies for as being part of what the "old" Disney was, and more importantly, matches the company's current renaissance.
They're no messiah, but they are surely big on what Disney was a long time ago, and what it (hopefully) will become again. As such, I really have no problem with PIXAR's integration into the theme parks, so long as the original levels of creativity and quality that was so critical in the development of the films is poured into their associated attractions.
They're no messiah, but they are surely big on what Disney was a long time ago, and what it (hopefully) will become again. As such, I really have no problem with PIXAR's integration into the theme parks, so long as the original levels of creativity and quality that was so critical in the development of the films is poured into their associated attractions.
WeLComeHomE OKW
Active Member
Corrus said:No Making films hasn't got anything to do with popular demand...
The only film made by popular demand was the re-release of Snow-White... but that was the only one...
You mean Lion King 2 1 1/2 were popular demand???
And what about Cinderella, Tarzan and Jane, Little Mermaid, Hunchback...
So if Pixar makes a sequel it's Ok.. and when DFA made one it was nothing...
Let wake you up... They were made for the money, not because people asked for it...
So it was then, and so it will be in the future... it's called business..
No, you mean in YOUR opinion you like the Pixar stuff more... get my drift???
I agree its called business, but Pixar has not made a sequel specifcally for business reasons only. Like somone said earlier, there was only one Toy Stoy sequel so far and it was nominated for best picture in the golden globes. Everything else has been original entertainment.
While we will see more sequels in the future, I dont think they will lose out on the story like all the cheapquels for disney.
Epcot82Guy
Well-Known Member
The films are very distinct in my mind, but that has to do with the animation style. I remember when Toy Story came out, I thought it was the death knell for 2D (and I hope it is only a lull). Having said that, I ABSOLUTELY think Pixar has done the most Disney-esque films in recent years. They get the classic Disney model and do it well. I hope their story writers can come in an breathe some life into the Disney (original since now they are one) studios.
HunnyPot
Member
I do, I always enjoy the movies. We don't have any children, but we have all the Pixar movies and will keep on collecting them. I'm a firm believer that when I do have kiddos of my own there will be nothing good for them on TV so I collect Disney movies, including Pixar, for them to watch!! Of course, my DH LOVES Buzz Lightyear and is a pretty big kid himself.
Sorry, got off topic. I do consider Pixar movies to be in the Disney spirit. It's Disney Spirit for the next generation!!
Sorry, got off topic. I do consider Pixar movies to be in the Disney spirit. It's Disney Spirit for the next generation!!
ChuckElias
Well-Known Member
Ok, I guess I see your point. There was no public outcry begging for a sequel. Fair enough. But I would never have disputed that. My point was there is a "willing market" (is that better than "popular demand"?Corrus said:
) for anything that Disney produces, even if it is substandard.Ok, I've said it twice now, but you're not getting it. So here's my ONLY point in this discussion: My problem is NOT with making sequels. My problem is that Disney intentionally produces substandard features for the direct-to-video market, instead of investing the time, money, and imagination to produce a sequel that's good enough to be released in theaters. "Cheapquels", as someone else called them.
I think I said exactly that, didn't I? I even used the expression "IMHO" -- in MY humble opinion. Did you think I was speaking for Disney, Inc?
CommandoDisney
Member
how many people even knew what PIXAR was when Toy Story came out? Sure they were around but not like they are now. Disney presented them to the world for the most part.
and i may be completely wrong and this really is actually a question, but isnt nightmare before christmas kind of in a similar situation?
and i may be completely wrong and this really is actually a question, but isnt nightmare before christmas kind of in a similar situation?
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Why the heck wouldn't you see PIXAR movies as Disney movies.
meredetrois
New Member
I see Pixar as Disney. My kids love the films, especially Toy Story & Toy Story II. My husband actually bought Monsters Inc. for himself And I agree that they are more remiscient of what Disney used to make.
And I agree that they are more remiscient of what Disney used to make.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
I agree Pixar = Disney and Disney = Pixar, Its all the same. I love all the Pixar films more so than anything since Lion king. The problem is that without a good story it doesn’t matter what style of animation you use. CG or traditional, go motion, whatever, if the story isn’t very good, the movie wont do well. I hope that Disney sees this and starts up traditional animation again. I think we need a balance of both.
disney.co.nr
New Member
with the merger complete, they are disney films... right?
peter11435
Well-Known Member
They were Disney films even before the merger.disney.co.nr said:
disney.co.nr
New Member
peter11435 said:
oh yeah... duh:brick:
CaliSurfer182
New Member
Yes, most definetly!
Mia319
New Member
I've always considered Pixar to be Disney's little brother.... this little guy that Disney helped nurture and grow. i mean, who do you think the animators at Pixar looked up to when they were growing up? I'm sure Disney played an inspirational role in many of the artists lives. the two just make a great pair! its like the best of both worlds.
SpenceMan01
Well-Known Member
It's funny that this topic has come up. I actually got into a pretty heated argument about 9 months ago with someone because I felt that Pixar movies were Disney movies (even though they were two different companies).
Here was my basis (before the merger):
Here was my basis (before the merger):
- Disney's name is right alongside Pixar's anywhere you see it in conjuction with the movies.
- Disney provided financing for the movie (distribution, etc.), and had a financial stake in the movies.
- Disney owned the characters. After the contract was to expire, Disney would retain exclusive rights to the characters and Pixar would not be able to use any of them for any movies not released in conjunction with Disney.
Legacy
Well-Known Member
I really don't think a sequel was made simply because Pixar "wanted to". The Pixar bean-counters (OMG, they have them too!WeLComeHomE OKW said:
) saw the potential for a even more profitable investment. It's evident in the amount of closure seen in the end of the first film and how different the story was in the second film. If they "wanted" a sequel, there would have been more true build.And Pixar IS NOT Disney. They have plenty of heart, yes, but even the heart they have is very different from the heart found in the original Disney classics. Pixar is Pixar.
And in regards to the ancestory idea... you can also see it in Dreamworks and Fox Animaton. That's what happens when one company starts it all.