Turtle
Well-Known Member
UP IS A PIXAR MOVIE NOT DISNEY.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Will Disney ever produce a "classic" movie anytime soon?
- Thread starter Walt Disney1955
- Start date
Turtle
Well-Known Member
THAT IS PIXAR NOT DISNEY. HUGE DIFFERENCE 2 COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STUDIOS
Turtle
Well-Known Member
Toy Story is Pixar not disney.. and if you just said Pixar isn't going anywhere then you don't know anything about them because they've made amazing films such as Toy Story, Monsters Inc, Finding Nemo, Incredibles, Ratatouille, UP, list goes on.
Turtle
Well-Known Member
The Toy Story movies, Finding Nemo, and the first Cars are classics along with Monsters Incorporated. You could make an argument for Tangled given it's continued popularity. I have high hopes for Wreck It Ralph given it's never done before concept and Frozen based on the Snow Queen fairytale. We all know how much Disney loves to re-tell classic fairytales. I heard they're pretty good at it too
The first ones you mentioned are Pixar films...
Turtle
Well-Known Member
Brave is a pixar film..
unkadug
Follower of "Saget"The Cult
Disney owns Pixar.
Turtle
Well-Known Member
But the films are made by Pixar. So they're Pixar films but Disney distributes them
unkadug
Follower of "Saget"The Cult
Turtle
Well-Known Member
no i'm just a big pixar fan and it's my pet peeve when people say that a pixar film is made by disney
invader
Well-Known Member
They're still Disney movies and are made by Disney.
Turtle
Well-Known Member
No. They are made by Pixar, people at the Pixar studio make the films and all that Disney is involved in is distributing them lol.
unkadug
Follower of "Saget"The Cult
Pixar is a division of Disney. Whether you admit it or not, it is still the facts.
FettFan
Well-Known Member
Turtle
Well-Known Member
Well Disney owns Pixar like Disney owns Marvel.. Pixar started off without being part of Disney (but their films were distributed by them) but then Disney bought the company. I'm just saying that this thread is about Walt Disney Animation Studios getting another success, but people are posting about the success of some Pixar films claiming that they were made from Walt Disney Animation Studios.
Now do you understand? I was being a bit unclear last time lol
jensenrick
Well-Known Member
Well Disney owns Pixar like Disney owns Marvel.. Pixar started off without being part of Disney (but their films were distributed by them) but then Disney bought the company. I'm just saying that this thread is about Walt Disney Animation Studios getting another success, but people are posting about the success of some Pixar films claiming that they were made from Walt Disney Animation Studios.
Now do you understand? I was being a bit unclear last time
You make an interesting point. When was the last true Disney Animation Studio picture that did as well as well as any of the Pixar films?
invader
Well-Known Member
MarkTwain
Well-Known Member
This is a really interesting conversation, but I gotta ask... are we talking "classic" in the sense of meaning a highly critically-acclaimed work, or something that becomes an immediate box office hit and center of public conversation? Keep in mind they're not the same thing. Fantasia and Pinocchio were the former and not the latter; The Lorax and Ice Age III were the latter and not the former. Or are we talking both?
Couple of points:
First, I wouldn't cut the "Golden Age" off cold-turkey after 1994's Lion King. Mulan and Tarzan both have scores on Rotten Tomatoes comparable to those of Lion King and Little Mermaid, and were pretty strong box-office winners in their own right. The problem with both of these and other animated movies of the late 90s/early 00s is that they had to share the limelight with the new guys on the field, Pixar and post-CGI Dreamworks. Don't forget that the buzz around CGI was very, very high in the initial years after Toy Story (which, at 1995, came out right after the Lion King), and even masterfully-painted animated epics like Tarzan had a hard time competing with the CGI spectacles of Toy Story 2 and Phantom Menace.
Which brings the discussion of "classic" to its second conundrum: getting the public to acknowledge something that is high-quality. A lot of the buzz surrounding "great" movies is just that: buzz. Making a movie that you want to be a classic isn't as simple as finding a good idea and throwing a ton of money and talent at it. There are animators that believe Disney is on the best streak of high-quality since the 1990s, with movies like Princess and the Frog, Winnie-the-Pooh (91% on RottenTomatoes... that's right, 91%), and, yes Tangled. But if you were to ask the $7 million of people that went to see Pooh on opening weekend, you would never get that impression. Even Princess and the Frog had a soft opening at $27 million, and that movie easily could stand side-by-side with Aladdin or Little Mermaid on a musical, narrative, or artistic level. I think if P&tF had come out between Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin, it would easily be as fondly remembered as any of the other '90s films. A lot of it is just timing and finding the right audience at the right time.
I guess that brings me to another point: changing audience tastes. A lot of people loved the Pixar classics in part because they rejected the Disney staples of musical movies with wacky sidekicks and mustachioed villains. I think people were getting a little tired of Disney's "formula", and that's partially why audiences laughed so hard at Shrek's jabs at Disney movies. In other words, when Pixar and Shrek filled in the "demand" audiences had for a new kind of animated movie, they became the new classics.
So in other words, there really isn't a formula per se for making an insta-classic. That IMO is why Lasseter has such fondness for quirky concepts and unusual situations in movies (and you can see his fingerprints all over the upcoming Reboot Ralph) - because if anything, it's the newness and freshness of a movie that makes a movie the most memorable. The problem is that is a very high-risk strategy for making movies, and the public can just as likely reject what they see as unfamiliar. And it also doesn't bode well for those wishing Disney would make Little Mermaids and Aladdins over and over.
Sorry, this post got really out of hand...
Couple of points:
First, I wouldn't cut the "Golden Age" off cold-turkey after 1994's Lion King. Mulan and Tarzan both have scores on Rotten Tomatoes comparable to those of Lion King and Little Mermaid, and were pretty strong box-office winners in their own right. The problem with both of these and other animated movies of the late 90s/early 00s is that they had to share the limelight with the new guys on the field, Pixar and post-CGI Dreamworks. Don't forget that the buzz around CGI was very, very high in the initial years after Toy Story (which, at 1995, came out right after the Lion King), and even masterfully-painted animated epics like Tarzan had a hard time competing with the CGI spectacles of Toy Story 2 and Phantom Menace.
Which brings the discussion of "classic" to its second conundrum: getting the public to acknowledge something that is high-quality. A lot of the buzz surrounding "great" movies is just that: buzz. Making a movie that you want to be a classic isn't as simple as finding a good idea and throwing a ton of money and talent at it. There are animators that believe Disney is on the best streak of high-quality since the 1990s, with movies like Princess and the Frog, Winnie-the-Pooh (91% on RottenTomatoes... that's right, 91%), and, yes Tangled. But if you were to ask the $7 million of people that went to see Pooh on opening weekend, you would never get that impression. Even Princess and the Frog had a soft opening at $27 million, and that movie easily could stand side-by-side with Aladdin or Little Mermaid on a musical, narrative, or artistic level. I think if P&tF had come out between Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin, it would easily be as fondly remembered as any of the other '90s films. A lot of it is just timing and finding the right audience at the right time.
I guess that brings me to another point: changing audience tastes. A lot of people loved the Pixar classics in part because they rejected the Disney staples of musical movies with wacky sidekicks and mustachioed villains. I think people were getting a little tired of Disney's "formula", and that's partially why audiences laughed so hard at Shrek's jabs at Disney movies. In other words, when Pixar and Shrek filled in the "demand" audiences had for a new kind of animated movie, they became the new classics.
So in other words, there really isn't a formula per se for making an insta-classic. That IMO is why Lasseter has such fondness for quirky concepts and unusual situations in movies (and you can see his fingerprints all over the upcoming Reboot Ralph) - because if anything, it's the newness and freshness of a movie that makes a movie the most memorable. The problem is that is a very high-risk strategy for making movies, and the public can just as likely reject what they see as unfamiliar. And it also doesn't bode well for those wishing Disney would make Little Mermaids and Aladdins over and over.
Sorry, this post got really out of hand...
stlbobby
Well-Known Member
Pixar is not the same as Marvel. Marvel existed for almost 80 years before Disney outright bought them.
Pixar was a small start-up lead by a former Disney animator with a couple of shorts under it's belt when Disney partnered with them on feature films. Disney has always had creative input, including script approval, on all of the Pixar films and Disney has owned the character rights to all of the Pixar movies from the beginning.
All Pixar movies are Disney movies, but not all Disney movies are Pixar movies. Pixar is a sub-division of Disney and shouting otherwise doesn't change anything.
stlbobby
Well-Known Member
Just not true.