Again, I'm talking about Disney contracting with Pixar to provide the digital animation for their movies. Let Disney provide the storylines/storyboards, and characters. Just, here comes a bad word, outsource the DA to them. They clearly know what they are doing there.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Just Saw Incredibles....Why not Pixar anymore?
- Thread starter HennieBogan1966
- Start date
tigger248
Well-Known Member
I have Treasure Planet, but I'm not sure if I've ever even watched it. (We have a bad habit of buying movies and then never finding the time to watch them.) My guess about why it didn't have a lot of success is that the animation wasn't as good as some movies (at least in my opinion). Animation is often a big key as to whether or not I'm really interested in seeing animated movies. If I don't think the animation looks good, then it often takes away my interest in the movie. I hope this doesn't get me slammed, but it's just my opinion.
About the Pixar/Disney split, I thought it was because they just couldn't agree on who got the rights to the movies/characters. Pixar makes excellent movies and (as has been previously stated) no longer needs Disney to back them up. Regardless of how much money they can make off of each other, if 2 companies can't agree on something (like who gets rights to the characters either for distribution or other purposes) then it's better to just split up.
About the Pixar/Disney split, I thought it was because they just couldn't agree on who got the rights to the movies/characters. Pixar makes excellent movies and (as has been previously stated) no longer needs Disney to back them up. Regardless of how much money they can make off of each other, if 2 companies can't agree on something (like who gets rights to the characters either for distribution or other purposes) then it's better to just split up.
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
HennieBogan1966 said:
A bit dangerous, let them extend their advantage in the technical side and pretty soon theyd be in a position to lure all the best writers and ideas types finaly cutting Disney out of the loop.
phlydude
Well-Known Member
tigger248 said:
I think the reason it didn't do so well is because the futuristic sci-fi feel is not what kids are looking for in their entertainment.
Sci-Fi can still be successful but it's popularity among the youth continues to decline and that was the market they were aiming for with that one.
If anyone wants to see what Jobs can be like, I think Noah Wylie nails him spot on in "Pirates of Silicon Valley". Egomaniacal maniac. :drevil:
no2apprentice
Well-Known Member
Then it wouldn't be Pixar, it wouldn't be Disney, it would be a mess. Pixar is what it is, due to everyone working under one roof as a creative team. The extra material on the Finding Nemo CDs illustrates how well the creative process works at Pixar, something that seems to be a struggle for Disney.HennieBogan1966 said:
It might be different if Disney's last six animated movies were received at the box office as well as Pixar's, and Disney was riding a long wave of success with animation, but that hasn't happened, has it?
longfamily
New Member
The fact that everyone is ignoring is that Disney no longer needs Pixar for 3D animation. As we chat, they are busy "stealing" away some of the most talented people in the industry to build their own studio. Disney is putting forth an incredible effort to begin a 3D program. This way, they keep all profits. Marriages like Pixar/Disney cannot work when the little company is benifitting more than the bigger company. I know all will be sad to see Pixar go but perhaps Disney will surprise us. They surely would have ran after Pixar if they thought that they couldn't do the same quality of work without them.
Lynx04
New Member
HennieBogan1966 said:
I think disney did the right thing by terminating relationships with PIXAR. Disney should be creating thier own animation stories, not relying on an outside company. Disney fell far behind in the 3D animation department because they were very short sighted in seeing how 3D was the future for animation. Like I said before, the only thing that I blame Eisner for with this issue is that he didn't move to create a Disney 3D animation department sooner.
Computer Magic
Well-Known Member
Exactly. The only way to stop direct-to-video moves is for the public to stop buying them.speck76 said:
The thing is Disney use to have a "quality" to its name and thus confused the public with the early direct-to-video movies. The fool me once but not twice statement. Now the public should understand just because it is Disney doesn't automatically mean "quality". Sad but true. But does (or when will) the average Disney fan know this? Many people are this buying the direct-to-video movies.
Will the same hold true for direct-to-video Toy Story 3? I would not be happy If I was PIXAR, to the point of getting on board with the project. Pixar has "quality" to it's name. Will Toy Story 3 and other Disney solo Pixar sequal hurt Pixar?
DisneyJill
Well-Known Member
HennieBogan1966 said:
I think you've gotten the response that you asked for in your original post. You say that you are simply looking for opinions, yet every opinion that is given that you don't agree with, you argue and then state the SAME question again. If you think that Disney and Pixar should maintain a relationship, fine. The fact remains, they are not going to do so. You don't have to like it. But, maybe we could try acting like the grown ups that we are and stop giving Steve headaches with all the arguing. It's getting a little ridiculous. Please and thank you.
longfamily
New Member
These straight to video projects are a good idea. Let us not forget that the purpose of a company is to make money. If the films were going to be spectacular they would have been marketed in the theatre. However, as long as a franchise has money making potential, why not take the opportunity to "cash in" on it?Legacy said:
As a consumer, you have the choice to spend your money on a product. Disney has earned your trust over the years that is why you love it so (we are here aren't we?). And because of that trust, you too picked up your copy of Cinderella 2. I'm even willing to bet that those who rented or purchased this film and other sequels like it also shared it with a child. Children love the idea of another part of a story and are typically thrilled with the outcome no matter the quality of storyline. You, the adult, are not the target audience for these straight to video movies, your kids are. Disney makes money, kids are ecstatic, and the world makes sense again
This has nothing to do with whether or not Disney is capable of quality 3D animation. To tell the truth, I have yet to find a Disney feature that was not fun and entertaining. Even the box office bust "Brother Bear" was not a bad film. It was actually a great movie but it lacked modern animation techniques and this is the only reason that it was not as successful as other recent Disney products. HOTR suffered from the same delima.
Try to be open minded about the future of Disney. It has not let us down in 75 years.
Woody13
New Member
Disney did not walk away from Pixar. Steve Jobs was the one who walked out on Disney. The relationship might yet be saved, but only if Jobs gets off his high horse and stops his long history of destructive business practice. Jobs missed the gold ring with Apple and let Bill Gates catch it. If Jobs continues this behavior, Pixar will suffer the same fate and become a footnote in history.
So Speck you're going to try and convince me that it's the people who buy the straight to dvd/vhs movies who are the problem here? What? No they are not the problem. If there's a niche for a product like that, then the company is going to produce it for it's profitability. Nothing wrong with that idea.
What I'm saying is that I hope that there are plans for Disney to jump full force back into the animation race, so to speak. We can debate whether or not Pixar and Disney can or should work together. But, I see a current trend of studios pumping out feature length animated films, and Disney is losing out, with the exception of those already in the can, which were produced by Pixar.
True, they need fresh storylines, and original scores. But when you cut your budget on imagineers/animators, aren't you in fact, moving away from and out of the animation business?
What I'm saying is that I hope that there are plans for Disney to jump full force back into the animation race, so to speak. We can debate whether or not Pixar and Disney can or should work together. But, I see a current trend of studios pumping out feature length animated films, and Disney is losing out, with the exception of those already in the can, which were produced by Pixar.
True, they need fresh storylines, and original scores. But when you cut your budget on imagineers/animators, aren't you in fact, moving away from and out of the animation business?
longfamily
New Member
Fresh storylines and original scores?
It is easy to accept the belief system that because a story has become a sequel/trilogy (or beyond) that it is not new or original. This is simply a myth. Sequels must be original movements in order to progress a storyline. New songs are introduced in every movie as well. Let's look at the Lion King sequel as an example. Simba's Pride is a Romeo & Juliet take on the Serengeti. 5 new songs were created for the film. Even the message for the film is different. How is this not original and new?
Some misunderstand a new storyline because familiar characters are used to tell the story.
On the other hand....
People are disappointed that Disney has marketed a film as a sequel but it ends up being a compilation of shorts (Cinderelia 2). Disney has misguided the consumer by calling these films sequels. Unfair? Yes. Profitable? Yes.
But let us remember that these toons are created for those that are curious as to what happened after the girl gets her prince. And the targeted audience is not the parents but the children. Research these films if you are curious about this. The humor has been toned down and aimed at kids, the stories are short for short attention spans. They were not meant for adults, sorry guys, not everything can be for us too. This is an age when sequels are the norm. Almost every movie that comes out is structured for a sequel in the event that the first is sucessful. People expect this.
It is easy to accept the belief system that because a story has become a sequel/trilogy (or beyond) that it is not new or original. This is simply a myth. Sequels must be original movements in order to progress a storyline. New songs are introduced in every movie as well. Let's look at the Lion King sequel as an example. Simba's Pride is a Romeo & Juliet take on the Serengeti. 5 new songs were created for the film. Even the message for the film is different. How is this not original and new?
Some misunderstand a new storyline because familiar characters are used to tell the story.
On the other hand....
People are disappointed that Disney has marketed a film as a sequel but it ends up being a compilation of shorts (Cinderelia 2). Disney has misguided the consumer by calling these films sequels. Unfair? Yes. Profitable? Yes.
But let us remember that these toons are created for those that are curious as to what happened after the girl gets her prince. And the targeted audience is not the parents but the children. Research these films if you are curious about this. The humor has been toned down and aimed at kids, the stories are short for short attention spans. They were not meant for adults, sorry guys, not everything can be for us too. This is an age when sequels are the norm. Almost every movie that comes out is structured for a sequel in the event that the first is sucessful. People expect this.
longfamily
New Member
This is not to be blamed for the success of LOTR or Matrix sequels as both stories were written as a complete story and had to be broken into sequels because of time constraints.
ClemsonTigger
Naturally Grumpy
longfamily said:
I have a bit of a different take on your example. Yes LOTR was conceived filmed and presented as a trilogy, but the story is a continuum (as with the books that were one story broken up as a single volume would be too large (and to present updates while the book was still being written).
For Matrix however, I believe the original was presented as a standalone (yes with the story thread in the brothers mind continuing). Only after the success of the first were the second and third written and filmed (together).
tigger248
Well-Known Member
HennieBogan1966 said:
Why did you aim this at Speck directly, when in fact many have also commented on that subject? It seems to me that you're the one starting arguments where they shouldn't be based on some past grudge that you obviously still hold against him. You stated that you thought you and Speck were past your differences, if that's the case then why must you continue to start trouble between the two of you? I have seen nothing wrong with any of his posts. I think we need to grow up and put our past behind us.