Cars was the start of the decline. Ratatouille is a fairly weak movie except for how it resolves. The first half of Wall-E is some kind of fluke and the second half is dramatically weaker, with its ultimate resolution tied up in a fricking 2001 A Space Odyssey reference. Up only had its opening scene going for it, the rest of the film is pretty mediocre.
Luca feels like a DTV film and is nothing amazing but it still feels like more of a complete film and I'd rather watch it than half of the "Golden Age" films on this list for reasons pointed out.
The formulaic "thing but with feelings" approach is what ruined Pixar, all of their movies are the fricking same with swapped out themes, they should start branching out into something other than sob narratives, like action or adventure.
hard to describe any cartoon that isn't about humans as explicitly not "thing with feelings"
imagine if someone said thomas the tank engine ripped off of cars because it's "thing with feelings"
But it's always the same plot once you humanize the thing, why can't the humanized things go on an upbeat adventure plot instead of it always being some tearjeker sob story. Thomas the Tank Engine is just a workplace sitcom/slice of life with trains, that's immediately way more original than anything Pixar ever put out, if Pixar made Thomas the Tank Engine he'd have to abandon his friend at the end or accept that it's okay to live as a museum decoration never on the tracks again or some shit.
>workplace sitcom
oh you mean monsters inc?
not just the movie but the cartoon they created based on the movie
anon you're being vague about pixar and obsequious about anything not pixar
calm down, I promise you pixar is just as creative as anyone else making cartoons
All of their movies are the exact same genre: kids movie adults can also watch, they aren't even trying to do something else and it's damaging the perception of theatrical animated movies in the west.
>oh you mean monsters inc?
Again, ends with a big tearjerker epilogue. >not just the movie but the cartoon they created based on the movie
Yes, the cartoon, not the movie.
again, you're being picky for no real reason
the majority of cartoon movies for children have emotional scenes, you'd be hardpressed not to find something that doesn't evoke "tears" without it being complete trash
Pixar has range, you're just not giving them credit for some reason
This isn't to defend pixar, this is just to say you have a weird focus on them
movie the family can enjoy isn't a genre, it's a marketing strategy
2 years ago
Anonymous
>anon you're being vague >again, you're being picky
make up your mind, sheesh
2 years ago
Anonymous
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=define+obsequious
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the majority of cartoon movies for children have emotional scenes
Yeah, that's the problem, Pixar isn't doing anything to either expand what "cartoon movie for children" means or to expand into other genres.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I think there are plenty of reasons to criticize pixar, but "expanding into other genres" isn't something that makes a lot of sense
It just feels a bit weak to say Pixar does "emotions" and that's its own genre
Was this last Lightyear film not an action/adventure?
Was Luca not magical realism?
Turning Red not bildungsroman?
formulaic, yes, in the sense that all movies for children follow a certain structure
you could say that the plots are tame, but you can't say that they don't try to be creative or don't have multiple genres
2 years ago
Anonymous
They're not just tame, they follow the exact same structure every single time, I've seen Chuck Williams' writing course and they encouraged it at Disney. It just gets boring and predictable after a while because it's continually made for children first, who haven't seen their backlog, like the Pokemon anime that's boring to anyone over 12.
The main reason I liked the last Batman movie was because the structure was so strange and original, why can't Pixar make a movie with a unique 7 act structure like that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>they follow the exact same structure every single time
I mean, I've said it before, if you generalize enough every movie for kids follows the same structure
The last batman movie or the last batman movie for kids?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why should animated movies be movies for kids by default? Why this specific kind of movie even, I've seen and loved lots of non-animated movies as a kid, yet only the animated ones are always the same.
The last Batman movie.
2 years ago
Anonymous
we are talking about a movie studio that focuses on movies for kids rather than in general
There are plenty of animated movies that aren't inherently for kids, but follow a similar structure "of including scenes with emotions" because most movies do
this is a pixar thread
following a similar structure is a criticism of most if not all movies for kids, but again, that's largely if you generalize
In Turning Red they... dehumanized the Chinese? Literally?
What? I get you guys are racist but the way you describe these movies makes no sense. They're already humans (or partly human in Luca's case). Their stories are more varied that "thing but with feelings". Soul is more about finding the value in one's own life regardless of its supposed mediocrity. Luca is more about acceptance. It's not just "imagine a world where [blank] was alive"
It's was the changing of the guard. Toy Story 3 was the true last hurrah for the original Pixar team, as everyone would get shuffled around into Disney itself or moving on to other projects at other studios. Everyone who came after were just given the tools to make these movies, but they never understood the fundamentals of storytelling like the old guard did.
Luca was cute, Soul was good, watched Onward and thought it was okay, Toy Story 4 was good >but probably because I am a nostalgia gay
never got around watching turning Red, just thought it sounded boring
wanted to watch Lightyear, but after reading the plot I gave up on it
between Cars 2, Lightyear and the Good Dinosaur I can't decide which was the worst one
at least the good dinosaur looked cute and Lightyear was sci-fi- so: Cars 2?
>Turning Red's director is a hardcore Ranma 1/2 fangirl >You can see Ranma merch and posters during Turning Red's making off video >The movie doesn't have any nudity unlike Ranma 1/2
Most modern cartoons want to be anime, but they lack the edge to actually have nudity
I don't know the article but I do know the boondocks had to censor their episode parodying Tyler Perry. It could be they played that off as "cultural insensitivity".
>edge to actually have nudity
ESRB rating would make it so Turning Red would become automatically PG-13 if it showed any nudity that wasn't just an ass. You need to stop thinking with you pedo coomer mind and start using some common sense.
MU was good at least in my opinion but it serves as a monument to the idea that it would have work SO much better as a 1 season series.
Everything seemed rushed while only making time to make references to the original
Coco and Turning Red are phenomenal. Inside Out and Soul are very good. Onward wasn't anything new but was just fun. There's more stinkers in the Decline era than the decomposing corpse.
Most of the early pixar movies were planned out way ahead of time, with more time to make, like said, and they were groundbreaking cinema for their day.
New pixar isn't inherently bad (though some of it is awful), but they've gone from being a tight knit studio to something disney compels to push out movie after movie. Some are still great, but they don't have the advantage of forging a brand new path like the original movies did.
tl;dr you can only be a revolutionary industry changing force for so long before you just become the industry itself.
Say what you will about John Lasseters problems with groping womens boobs without consent, and bizarre fixation on the cars franchise. He had a vision and a brain that kept the studio on a consistently profitable and critically/audience acclaimed path. Without that vision things were obviously going to go downhill fast.
> Why do people who turn out to be terrible in person make such great artists, inventors, and leaders?
Because these are exactly the types of people who dwell perpetually in a fantasy world, instead of in the real world where people skills are actually a requirement.
wut do you mean anti-white? 99 percent of the pixar is white.
you meant,woke? it helped a lot but the company was already at a nosedive quite before that,Cars and its sequel are proofs
Cars was the start of the decline. Ratatouille is a fairly weak movie except for how it resolves. The first half of Wall-E is some kind of fluke and the second half is dramatically weaker, with its ultimate resolution tied up in a fricking 2001 A Space Odyssey reference. Up only had its opening scene going for it, the rest of the film is pretty mediocre.
>TS3 was the decline
3 is literally better than a bug's life, cars, wall-e and ratatouille by a huge margin. Maybe the last great Disney movie.
Mostly this, after Incredibles Pixar got worse at developing stories.
TPBP
Luca feels like a DTV film and is nothing amazing but it still feels like more of a complete film and I'd rather watch it than half of the "Golden Age" films on this list for reasons pointed out.
You're so right brotherinho! Pixar could learn a couple things from Disney, you'll never see a non-white main character on a Disney movie, no sir!
>/misc/ cult meeting thread
>if i spam the word cult it will totally own le chuds!
Seething cult inductee
The formulaic "thing but with feelings" approach is what ruined Pixar, all of their movies are the fricking same with swapped out themes, they should start branching out into something other than sob narratives, like action or adventure.
hard to describe any cartoon that isn't about humans as explicitly not "thing with feelings"
imagine if someone said thomas the tank engine ripped off of cars because it's "thing with feelings"
But it's always the same plot once you humanize the thing, why can't the humanized things go on an upbeat adventure plot instead of it always being some tearjeker sob story. Thomas the Tank Engine is just a workplace sitcom/slice of life with trains, that's immediately way more original than anything Pixar ever put out, if Pixar made Thomas the Tank Engine he'd have to abandon his friend at the end or accept that it's okay to live as a museum decoration never on the tracks again or some shit.
>workplace sitcom
oh you mean monsters inc?
not just the movie but the cartoon they created based on the movie
anon you're being vague about pixar and obsequious about anything not pixar
calm down, I promise you pixar is just as creative as anyone else making cartoons
All of their movies are the exact same genre: kids movie adults can also watch, they aren't even trying to do something else and it's damaging the perception of theatrical animated movies in the west.
>oh you mean monsters inc?
Again, ends with a big tearjerker epilogue.
>not just the movie but the cartoon they created based on the movie
Yes, the cartoon, not the movie.
again, you're being picky for no real reason
the majority of cartoon movies for children have emotional scenes, you'd be hardpressed not to find something that doesn't evoke "tears" without it being complete trash
Pixar has range, you're just not giving them credit for some reason
This isn't to defend pixar, this is just to say you have a weird focus on them
movie the family can enjoy isn't a genre, it's a marketing strategy
>anon you're being vague
>again, you're being picky
make up your mind, sheesh
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=define+obsequious
>the majority of cartoon movies for children have emotional scenes
Yeah, that's the problem, Pixar isn't doing anything to either expand what "cartoon movie for children" means or to expand into other genres.
I think there are plenty of reasons to criticize pixar, but "expanding into other genres" isn't something that makes a lot of sense
It just feels a bit weak to say Pixar does "emotions" and that's its own genre
Was this last Lightyear film not an action/adventure?
Was Luca not magical realism?
Turning Red not bildungsroman?
formulaic, yes, in the sense that all movies for children follow a certain structure
you could say that the plots are tame, but you can't say that they don't try to be creative or don't have multiple genres
They're not just tame, they follow the exact same structure every single time, I've seen Chuck Williams' writing course and they encouraged it at Disney. It just gets boring and predictable after a while because it's continually made for children first, who haven't seen their backlog, like the Pokemon anime that's boring to anyone over 12.
The main reason I liked the last Batman movie was because the structure was so strange and original, why can't Pixar make a movie with a unique 7 act structure like that.
>they follow the exact same structure every single time
I mean, I've said it before, if you generalize enough every movie for kids follows the same structure
The last batman movie or the last batman movie for kids?
Why should animated movies be movies for kids by default? Why this specific kind of movie even, I've seen and loved lots of non-animated movies as a kid, yet only the animated ones are always the same.
The last Batman movie.
we are talking about a movie studio that focuses on movies for kids rather than in general
There are plenty of animated movies that aren't inherently for kids, but follow a similar structure "of including scenes with emotions" because most movies do
this is a pixar thread
following a similar structure is a criticism of most if not all movies for kids, but again, that's largely if you generalize
In Soul they tried to humanize a Black person
In Luca they tried to humanize italians
In Turning Red they... dehumanized the Chinese? Literally?
Chinese and Canadians
That's what I said, Chinese.
Worse, Canadians
What? I get you guys are racist but the way you describe these movies makes no sense. They're already humans (or partly human in Luca's case). Their stories are more varied that "thing but with feelings". Soul is more about finding the value in one's own life regardless of its supposed mediocrity. Luca is more about acceptance. It's not just "imagine a world where [blank] was alive"
Also, both movies are good, so why the hate?
The real Pixar formula isn't "Things with feelings", it's "What if things lived in a society?"
It's was the changing of the guard. Toy Story 3 was the true last hurrah for the original Pixar team, as everyone would get shuffled around into Disney itself or moving on to other projects at other studios. Everyone who came after were just given the tools to make these movies, but they never understood the fundamentals of storytelling like the old guard did.
It’s what ruined the West. Get israelites and their pet goys out of politics.
>PIXAR BEING WOKE KILLED IT
>worst movie is an all white cast set in a historically white area
and yes, I'm talking about cars 2
Are Italian's white?
white doesn't really mean anything. it's a social construct.
Luca was cute, Soul was good, watched Onward and thought it was okay, Toy Story 4 was good
>but probably because I am a nostalgia gay
never got around watching turning Red, just thought it sounded boring
wanted to watch Lightyear, but after reading the plot I gave up on it
between Cars 2, Lightyear and the Good Dinosaur I can't decide which was the worst one
at least the good dinosaur looked cute and Lightyear was sci-fi- so: Cars 2?
Good Dinosaur could have been a lot better, Cars 2 would never have been good
>Cars-Up
>Golden age
frick off shitter
>Turning Red's director is a hardcore Ranma 1/2 fangirl
>You can see Ranma merch and posters during Turning Red's making off video
>The movie doesn't have any nudity unlike Ranma 1/2
Most modern cartoons want to be anime, but they lack the edge to actually have nudity
>edge
anon, do you think the thing preventing nudity in cartoons is the people making the cartoons?
not the people selling the cartoons?
>do you think the thing preventing nudity in cartoons is the people making the cartoons?
Yeah
only one of those decisions were made by the people making the cartoon
Why the Boondocks? It was made by a black guy.
I don't know the article but I do know the boondocks had to censor their episode parodying Tyler Perry. It could be they played that off as "cultural insensitivity".
>edge to actually have nudity
ESRB rating would make it so Turning Red would become automatically PG-13 if it showed any nudity that wasn't just an ass. You need to stop thinking with you pedo coomer mind and start using some common sense.
Incredibles 2 belongs in the decomposing corpse phase.
Coco was good. That's all.
MU was good at least in my opinion but it serves as a monument to the idea that it would have work SO much better as a 1 season series.
Everything seemed rushed while only making time to make references to the original
Pixar has been declining since Toy Story 3.
Between Toy Story and Toy Story 3 there 15 years where they put 11 film, now in 12 years they released 16. A good animated firlm needs time.
Coco and Turning Red are phenomenal. Inside Out and Soul are very good. Onward wasn't anything new but was just fun. There's more stinkers in the Decline era than the decomposing corpse.
Most of the early pixar movies were planned out way ahead of time, with more time to make, like said, and they were groundbreaking cinema for their day.
New pixar isn't inherently bad (though some of it is awful), but they've gone from being a tight knit studio to something disney compels to push out movie after movie. Some are still great, but they don't have the advantage of forging a brand new path like the original movies did.
tl;dr you can only be a revolutionary industry changing force for so long before you just become the industry itself.
They were always coasting by on novelty and pretentiousness
What do you mean? White people are currently fricking up Pixar.
Mostly checks out
I came here only to laugh at your shitty tier list.
A Bug's Life is worse than Cars
debatable
Antz was better than Bug's Life
What if we lived in a society?
>cars in golden age
>toy story 3 in the decline
Tell me that this was made by a zoomer without say so.
Well, soul was great and turning red was acceptable,
The third row is better than the second row by far
Say what you will about John Lasseters problems with groping womens boobs without consent, and bizarre fixation on the cars franchise. He had a vision and a brain that kept the studio on a consistently profitable and critically/audience acclaimed path. Without that vision things were obviously going to go downhill fast.
Why do people who turn out to be terrible in person make such great artists, inventors, and leaders?
> Why do people who turn out to be terrible in person make such great artists, inventors, and leaders?
Because these are exactly the types of people who dwell perpetually in a fantasy world, instead of in the real world where people skills are actually a requirement.