Why Pixar PWNS the $#!t out of EVERYTHING

Pixar is awesome. If you don't agree with that statement then maybe you should check to make sure you still have your soul. Pixar, Queen, and the Lion King are the trifecta of things that everyone should love (I thought Journey was on that list, but apparently my father-in-law can't stand them).

But why is Pixar so amazing when everyone and their uncle is trying to do 3D animated features? How many came out this spring?

Rango
Gnomeo and Juliet
Mars Needs Moms
Hoodwinked Too!
Rio
Hop

And the list for this summer is insane with spinoffs for Puss in Boots and the Penquins and another Kung Fu Panda! The market is saturated with these movies that are quickly forgotten, but Pixar prevails. Here's why!

Pro Tip: To craft a good story, take the best of two extremes--fantasy and believability--and find a way to merge them.
-@DisneyPixar Twitter

90% of everything we create, draw, or think of will be thrown away--by choice. That's just as it should be. Only the best ideas can survive.
-@DisneyPixar Twitter

Pixar edits. Pixar takes YEARS to develop and idea. They work through brainstorming sessions and develop ideas until they are perfect. Did you know that Wall.E was actually part of a concept that Pixar developed in a brainstorming session that lead to A Bug's Life? That means they worked on Wall.E for over TEN YEARS.

How much time do you think these mass-produced, star-studded movies like Robots and A Shark's Tale took? Judging by the sheer volume of pop culture references... six weeks.

"You should have something to say in a story. But that doesn't always mean a message. It means truth." --Andrew Stanton

Another quote off the DisneyPixar twitter train. Profound, really. You can see that these pop-culture splashes on the big screen don't really tell a truth. They find a moral that parents are going to agree with, populate it with celebrities, and then shoot out a silly nonsensical blur of ADHD and product placement.

I watched Robots with a group of four and five year-olds a few weeks ago and the plot actually had major holes in it (though I forget what they are now-- mainly because it was not really that memorable of a movie). They didn't get any of the jokes. The movie is only six years old but these kids weren't alive for any of those references, so they talked through the whole thing. The only parts they laughed at were really due to Robin Williams doing silly voices (they think it's the best thing in the world when I read The Day I Swapped My Dad for Two Goldfish in a British accent). They were bored because the story was weak, the heart wasn't there, and the jokes were obsolete in less than a decade.

When your script is a loose thread for stringing together endless pop culture references, your product has a shelf life of one year or less.

Then there's Wall.E, which barely has any dialogue for half of the movie and yet they were enthralled. Four year-olds knew exactly what was going on and were worried about their little rusty hero.

Pixar did have a fair amount of naysayers who saw Wall.E as an environmentalist plug, but what really stuck with the audience was the heart of the hero and the truth that convenience has been the downfall of human capacity.

Nobody does things without making mistakes. But we try to take our mistakes, understand them, and then replace them with something better.
-@DisneyPixar Twitter

People should learn from their mistakes. I think Pixar has. A Bug's Life was not my favorite movie of theirs. Really, each new release tops the one previous. I would argue that Toy Story 3-- while relying on Toy Story the original to set up its tale-- was the real masterpiece of the trilogy. So why aren't these other producers learning from their mistakes? They don't see them as mistakes because they keep making money. They know the formula-- make a few jokes that are hip and current and shove a few hip and current celebrities in their films and everyone will want to see them.

Now, Pixar has celebrities. Pixar has Bonnie Hunt and Owen Wilson and Ellen Degeneres and Tom Hanks. Pixar casts these people, but not because of their name. They cast them because they are talented actors with unique voices. They also have people who might have a famous filmography, but aren't current (like Albert Brooks and Holly Hunter). Pixar casts them for their voice and you only see who they are on webisodes and Disney Channel behind the scenes clips (and do you think kids watching Wizards of Waverly Place know who Michael Cain is?) It's all of these other competitors who make the basis of their ad campaign "WILL SMITH IS PLAYING THIS FISH!"

Pixar wins Oscars and everyone else makes a quick buck before their movie fades into obscurity. Face it, despite SMASH box office and DVD success, Cars, The Incredibles and Toy Story were the only REALLY marketable properties off the Pixar line. Wall.E toys didn't do so well because it's not action centric and Up was never going to move action figures.

So now I wrap up with the one comparison that may not be fair. Pixar has way better animation than almost every other movie out there. I leave this for last because this is the one point where it comes down to money. Pixar invented software and a GIANT COMPUTER called the Renderman than most big Hollywood films use for their effects now (like Pirates of the Caribbean). But they are pioneers in their art for that.

I am convinced that, if you tell a great story in a timeless way, your budget shouldn't really hinder you. But, just because I want to keep slapping Pixar on the back, I leave you with a comparison of Pixar versus one of this year's big franchises...

 

So who's excited about #Brave?