“The day we start thinking about what the audience wants, we’re going to make bad choices. "

Awesome. So many movie are ruined by trying too hard to appeal to movie goers. I'm a firm believer that some of the best movies are because they are the movies that the filmmakers THEMSELVES want to see realised.

How it should be imo.

I'm sure I'm going to get raked over the coals by the Pixar fans. But I think they're far from "Master story-tellers". I think they're more along the lines of "Story-polishers". They take what's been done before and refine it or put a more Pixar-type glossy shine on it.

As for originality, I don't find them to be there either. I think The Incredibles was their best film in terms of design and overall animation. But again, the character style was heavily-lifted from 50's pop art and comic books in general for it's story. Don't get me wrong, they make great 3d engines and overall compositions. But their films just don't get me excited for the most part like I would other work I have seen.

If I had to choose a current animation "master storyteller" it would easily be Miyazaki for me. In terms of the sheer size of his stories, worlds, and characters he creates. When you go from his first film to what he's done now. Nothing has that "same" feel to it, like you’ve seen it before. Miyazaki also does his best to make audiences think for themselves. He's not so black and white like most animation story-tellers. Miyazaki is one of the few people who really paints me a world I haven't seen before filled with insanely creative inhabitants. Of which you don't know what they're about until they mature in front of you. He's not afraid of pushing away from the typical coddling found I think in most American animation.

But I guess that's a tough-sell here, and I think that's the problem for the most part. Especially for how marketing-heavy the American animations industry is. Subtlety is really lost in terms of story here and I'd love to see a powerful studio like Pixar use their powers to push out of the usual walls and themes they go with.


I'm not asking for "artsy" here. I'm just asking for more imagination to be brought back into it.

Sorry about the really long post. I tried my best to condense it as much as possible.

Full points for turning a story about PIXAR's story-telling method into a M Night Shyamalan bashing. Too cool. :o)

It seems like when an artist has a real vision and/or passion for their story, thats when a great movie gets made. I know there is alot to traverse to getting the movie out there, and poor lighting or bad sound can hamper a picture, but if the artist is willing to go to the wall for his vision, it shows in the end.

of course, you all will turn this argument around when you discuss George Lucas. You can't have it both ways.

Don't know why Shyamalon is singled out here. The same could be said for many filmmakers.

A good artist will do what they think is true to themselves. I think the problems come when they are forced to please not just the audience, but the studio bean counters pressuring the production. Burton(Planet of the Apes)/Proyas(I, Robot).

Pixar has a nice advantage in that they aren't exactly hurting for a hit. I dunno. It's a theory.

Captain - Ratattouille was an animated film about a cooking. Wall-e appears to have very limited speaking parts, relying on pantomime to carry a great deal of the film. You have to agree that these are ideas nobody else would attempt. These ideas are huge story gambles and not exactly the cookie cutter road you are painting. I'm surprised the idea for Wall-e was a go.

How are you going to even attempt to compare M Night Shamalamadingdong's career to the Pixar powerhouse?

This post should have steered clear of the most basic comparison by association flaw in the books. Why even mention a 2 1/2 hit wonder like Night when speaking of the Animation domination that is Pixar?

I'm confused as to why this post is even written the way it is. Did you just see the Happening or something? Just can't live with out taking a shot at another movie with no correlation?

He is 1000% correct.

that's why it's called "art"

Stan Lee said exactly the same thing in his recent interview with iFanboy.com

I was kinda with gocitizen and Lee on why Shammy was brought into the discussion. Not that I don't agree. Just thought it was a bit harsh to drag him into something that was not really about him. I'll bash Shammy with the best of em'. But, this was a Pixar animator on Pixar audiences.

Captain Awesome, that was quite the essay. The most I have ever seen from you here. Very impressive. Although, I would say Pixar is to me as Spielberg is to me. Great story teller, great visuals, childlike excitement for film making, and movies that have you talking for years to come. So, originality isn't there, but they are light years ahead of how others are making movies lately. I hope they continue the magic they have.

Lee: it's a combination of a couple things. Yes, I just saw The Happening. Stanton's quote is a great one, but it also occurred to me that M Night might say almost the exact same thing, but with completely different motivations. And I thought it was interesting enough to point that out.

@Captain Awesome - I agree with you completely.

Miyakazi is a favorite of mine and my daughter's. His
movies are popped into the DVD player 5 times more often
than any of our Pixar movies. Even after multiple viewings
I find myself amazed at the visuals and wonderful storytelling.

I do love Pixar and what they've done for 3D animation. They're stories are always a lot of fun and they're done a great job bringing their characters to life. Monsters Inc is by far my favorite and
Cars was my least. The fact that they made a wonderful
movie centering around a rat who likes to cook impressed the
heck out of me.

I think they have a good philosophy and with their track
record I hope they continue to tell the stories they want to tell.

Quenfis,

I see what you're saying. I think for being such a giant studio. I'd love to see them really just almost exhaust themselves in doing something that would be both amazingly beautiful in terms of design and totally devoid of what they have done before.

Sort of like when Disney went from Snow White to Fantasia, you know? Roy Disney is working on bringing that back with Lasseter with shorts like The Little Matchgirl and Destino. I hope Disney's comeback to traditional really opens them up more like Uncle Walt's vision. Now that Eisner is gone.

I see what you are saying now Captain. It's like taking that top performer and getting them that much closer to perfection. I am actually anxious to see some of the movies that they have in developement.

Meli,

I'm with you that they definitely have it in them to create something in terms of imagination and even store-telling, and they have. I think it's more along the lines of how stories are treated here compared to I think they way Miyazaki does them. He's not afraid of using themes like environmentalism, politicism, and even being anti-war.

But it's really the way he does them. He doesn't pit the sides for you on screen. And tells you, "This person is the good guy. And this person is the bad guy." He shows both sides and lets you make whatever decision it is. But yes it's great that more people are seeing a wider scope of things.

I'm a sucker for Totoro's and Catbuses :)

I have to applaude these guys completely. IMO, it's always better when the director and writers have complete control. It's almost always noticeable when a studio butts their head in. They think that because it's their money, they have should have some sort of creative imput, which is a horrible way of doing business. They hire these people to do a job, let them do it...

The inherent problem here is comparing artists and vision, which is always subjective at best. An artists work exists on its own terms, in light of the world around it certainly, but often in spite of the world around it. OPinions about art change over time as well, which just proves the subjective nature of the work.

Miyakazi is also one of my all-time favorites, but comparing his works to those of Pixars... seems foolish and demeaning to them both. Other than the fact that they both use animation as their medium, what else do they share in common? Two artists may paint in Oils and yet have much different visions, that diminishes neither.

I honestly don't "get" the need to rank everything and I know I've made this comment many times on /film, so I'll stop now. Nothing changes.

For a major studio Pixar is simply amazing, there is no reason why they should even exist in the world and we are blessed to have them and I hope they continue forever. But I could say the exact same thing for all the visionary artists out there, striving to share their visions with us.