Is Anyone Getting Sick of Pixar Films and Computer Animation in General?

[PragmaticIdealist]

I saw "Cars" a few days ago, and, like all the other Pixar films, it was watchable but not particularly compelling.

Before the film, though, there were more than a dozen previews for Disney and non-Disney digitally-animated features. It was a nauseating procession to say the least. One film was even devoted to ant characters because, apparently, "a bug's life" and "Antz" has not satisfied the public's appetite for digitally-rendered ant pictures.

This is a bad situation because, sooner or later, the public will tire of this genre from this flood of less-than-imaginative product. Even Pixar's films are starting to look formulaic.

[disneytim]

Computer animation isn't a genre. It's just another choice in a wide range of animation styles. It's the current style of choice, however, because it's far more cost effective than hand-drawn 2D animation and gives a feeling of realism and depth that other animation styles aren't capable of. It's also a style that the public has responded too, largely because of the immense success of the Pixar films, and animators at other studios have been clamoring to duplicate that success with mixed results.

So, why are the Pixar films successful? Is it just because of the eye-popping animation, or is it something else . . . like the story?

I'm a big fan of Pixar, not because of how their movies look, but because of the stories they tell. They're literate, well-paced and immensely entertaining. Because of that, I suspect Pixar films would be just as fun to watch in 2D, because the story ALWAYS comes first.

2D animation has faded in the U.S., not because of how it looks, but because of how bad the stories in recent offerings have been ("Home on the Range" anybody?). If you want to see the potential it still has, take a look at "Howl's Moving Castle" from Japan, or reach a few years back and see "The Iron Giant."

As far as Pixar films being formulaic, they are. They've done buddy films ("Toy Story"), family relationships ("Finding Nemo"), and comic book superheroes ("The Incredibles"). At their core are storytelling basics we've certainly seen before, they just execute it so well with an original point of view.

If you're criticizing the story being told, that's one thing. But computer animation, in and of itself, isn't to blame. Personally, I'd love to see a well-told 2D animated film and I'm glad to hear that John Lasseter is talking about making them once again.

[Disney Wrassler]

I think Pixar does an incredible job (No pun intended ) I can not explain how much I love their Character details. I mean I watched the trailer for Cars and was fascinated with all the little teeny tiny sparkles in the red cars coat of paint. Now that is detail.

[lazyboy97O]

disneytim took the words right out of my mouth.

And Catmull also has expressed an interest in WDFA returning to 2D animation!

[Alice's Wonderland]

I'm still undecided about how I feel about PIXAR. Although I thought cars was a HUGE improvement of the Incredibles which upset me on many levels. I like computer animation but I miss the traditional animation as well. I don't want to think that Home on the Range was the last Disney animated classic. Because, well it really wasn't a classic

[eeyore'snumber1fan]

they aren't stupid, the market is flooded with CGI right now, so why not be different and go back to 2d. as far as cost effective,, It costs pretty much the same to make a hand drawn movie as it does cgi. CGI is just the new kid on the block and everyone thinks it's going to save their animation division.

[Cousin Orville]

I think there is a novelty to computer animation and the accountants are runnning the development show with all the formulaic gross humor, and calculated kid targeted stories. If 2d is dead why is Spongebob the most popular character out there? The top 3 animated movies last year were not computer generated. Ask Wallace and Grommet. i thought Cars was just ok and dragged in the middle.

[Disney Wrassler]

Wasn't it Disney who first started to really invest into computer animation? I mean other companies may have done stuff with Computer animation before Disney in America, but I think Disney was the first to really popularize it by using it in films like Beauty & the Beast & Aladdin.

[Gemini Cricket]

I guess I'm getting tired of the CG look. The quality of the Pixar stories are excellent though...

[lazyboy97O]

I guess I'm getting tired of the CG look. The quality of the Pixar stories are excellent though...

I must say look is a big part of animation. I keep seeing the ads for Monster House and just cringe at the look of the animation.

[SpookyBear]

The only aspect of Pixar that I'm annoyed with right now is that Disney feels they have to theme every single attraction after one of their movies. I wish they would just come up with something original!

[PragmaticIdealist]

I'd love to see classically-animated films, again, but the digitally-animated pictures have their place, too. The problem is that this level of production is excessive already, and, now, I understand Iger may want to double output at Pixar. Doing so would yield disastrous consequences, in my estimation.

Eisner's decision to double production at W.D.F.A. was one of the reasons for that unit's downfall.

[Princess Picard]

In answer to the over-arching question-

No.

[RooBear]

I guess I believe the story must be told, whatever the format. If the story is good, I'll watch it. As for the format? That's up to the filmmakers. I've seen hundreds/thousands/gazillions of movies about humans being humans doing human like things. There's a tired genre. Take me some place different!

I do also agree, however, of the continued Pixarfication of the parks. But then again, since those are the only new movies from the Disney Studios, well, I guess that's the way it's going to be.

Maybe I should become a screenwriter.

Peace out and thanks for the thread--a very good discussion.
Roo

[Sweetie]

I love 2D animation and there is an audience for it.

Remember, Curious George was a sucessful little 2D film not too long ago.

In 2002 Disney released Lilo and Stitch. Since then several 3D animated films have been released that were unable to top it's box office.

These films included Robots, Chicken Little and Hoodwinked.

In fact, Over the Hedge has an almost identical gross despite the hike in ticket prices since 2002.

3D films are also great, but the concept that they are a "sure thing" for the studios has been eroded over the years. There was a time when you saw one maybe two 3D films a year. Now they are almost WEEKLY.