Another Pixar film, they're starting to come out thick n' fast now; not so bad while they remaining charmingly entertaining I suppose ...
Well we can say Brad Bird is "fallen" in the sense that Tomorrowland kinda nuked his live-action directorial career into the ground. He won a lot of runway off the back of MI: Ghost Protocol - which gave the franchise a big shot in the arm - but then helmed a giant flop. Still directed/wrote Incredibles 2 but interesting how he returned for a sequel to the film that put him on the map in the first place.
Okay - with Lassiter’s name in there it has me thinking it was about being “handsy “ and I knew Bird & Burton had done nothing wrong so I was confused
Perhaps I worded that poorly, I mean't the grand institution founded by Disney to train the next generation animators (many of it's first graduates were visionaries that I listed) but which now churns out Tumblr artists, that said, I don't think anybody is clamboring for Alice in Wonderland 3 or Tomorrowland 2 that's for sure.
How are Tim Burton and Brad Bird “fallen”?
The 'Cal Arts' asthetic has become pretty common in cartoons these days, you can see and example of it's 'bean mouth' below, notice how every gob is a simple kidney bean shape, just as every face is largely made up of the same collection of very basic and easy to reproduce shapes?
Now take a look at the character design for Turning Red in the trailer image:
The whole Cal Arts asthetic is just a simplistic style intended for low budget animation that won't tax unskilled animators.
The California Institute of the Arts (which that particular style of animation is associated), was founded by Walt Disney to train animators, among it's first graduating class you had the likes of John Lasseter, Tim Burton and Brad Bird. How far the mighty have fallen.
If you are a top tier animation studio maybe don't employ a symplistic style designed for cheaply and quickly produced animation to be churned out by animators that can barely draw.
Could you elaborate a little on the "bean mouth Cal Arts aesthetic"? Not looking to argue or disagree, just curious. Was there a movie when you felt the animation style changed for the worse?
I was never gone on A Bug's Life or the Cars sequels. Toy Story 4 was not needed but didn't screw up a perfect trilogy (It's still redundant but worth it for Keanu Reeves).
Encanto and Luca were pleasant. But this looks very funny. I'm well looking forward to this. And God, look at that fur animation.
I have yet to see anything from Pixar that is garbage. They have ups and downs but never make something terrible.
Soul is wonderful and I have heard nothing but praise from Luca from people I work with.
They were both free so it isn’t about the quality of it.
Especially so when you consider that Sing 2 is the first film to crack 100m at the box office during the pandemic. Kids films have in fact performed remarkably strongly at the box throughout the pandemic, so it seems an odd decision to leave that money on the table. I can only assume that the Disney marketers have decided that content driving subs to Disney Plus provides a better long term return. That or it's garbage. There's something about the 'bean mouth' Cal Arts asthetic that has infected Pixar lately that makes me want stuff like this to fail, it's horrible, horrible animation. I just got done watching Arcane and was amazed at what putting a bit of effort into animated features can still achieve. Leave that cheaply animated, asthetically ugly Stephen Universe kack to the Cartoon Network.
It will be free according to Empire
It really strange. Pixar is a massive money maker - is it possible that the people who subscribe just lastest Pixar equals the money at they box office that they have it online at no extra charge? Could the Premium for Disney films be because they can’t generate the same money?
It really feels like Disney is treating Pixar films like b-tier fare with this approach - tossing them on to a streaming service as if they’re an inconvenience. Doesn’t look great at all after three films in a row, given the amount of films they are happily putting into actual cinemas. Especially a shame that two first time feature directors haven’t had a chance to see their films get a proper theatrical release. Hell, I’ve seen several Netflix films in a cinema over the last two years and no Pixars :/
So for the third time in a row, a Pixar movie will head to Disney+ instead of cinemas. Release is still March 11, and no confirmation yet if it'll be "free" with the service or a Premium add-on.
A full trailer has just appeared; honestly, I laughed a good few times. Definitely looks to be channeling the Luca side of Pixar more than anything else
She's a Red Panda, the one true Panda, so it's going to be great. Even if it isn't, Red Panda.
I'll say one thing; if I had to choose either Soul or Luca as a film to rewatch today, right now ... while the former is probably the better film, the latter was far more enjoyable, personable entertainment. The charisma and empathy jumped off the screen, its messaging of love curiously rare these days in blockbuster cinema. It told such a simple, low-stakes story with such effortlessness.
And the pasta. The pasta.
Santa Mozzarella.
I don't think any Pixar film is aimed at adults in particular. They're all family-friendly, aiming to work for pretty much anyone who watches it. Some absolutely have themes and ideas that will resonate strongly with adults and some are pitched more overtly at younger audiences. But I think anyone of any age should find something to enjoy in any Pixar film - whether that's Up or Luca.
I don't mean that entirely in a positive way, though. There's no doubt Pixar's approach of 'try to make something for everyone' has made some fantastic films, particularly in the glory days. But it's also what holds them back creatively, especially recently - what was once refreshing has become formulaic, and why even some of the more 'mature' films like Soul are weighed down with goofy creature antics and the like. Studio Ghibli has done a much better job diversifying the style and tones of their films over the years.
I never understood this common criticism of Luca. It's a movie for children. Inside Out and Soul (another of those children's movies where the protagonist is a middle-aged pianist) are existentialist and clearly aimed at adults, hence their lack of appeal compared to the merchandising behemoths of Frozen and Cars. There's nothing 'slight' about aiming your movie at the appropriate audience.
Hard to quantify I suppose but Luca felt very slight to me compared to something like Soul or Inside Out. More about the execution than premise itself.
out of curiousity, what would you peg as "Pixar" appropriate? :-) This and Luca seem to be going for stories about "identity" and coming to terms with yourself (even Soul to an extent), which if nothing else feels emotional complex enough to be broadly in Pixar's wheelhouse
I get the feeling that some of these films are more Disney than Pixar and they are just sticking the logo on there to give them a bit more credibility. Having said that Luca was grand but it didn't really feel like a Pixar film to me (compared to something like Soul for example).
