Please contact us
with corrections
or breaking news
Is Pixar Losing Its Mojo? by Karl Cohen
A scene from 'Monster's University', Pixar's big summer release, currently number two at the box office. photo: courtesy Pixar
THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER RECENTLY
called “Monsters University”, Pixar's latest hit and currently the number two box office in the US, a lame, sub-par feature.The June 9th review began, “It should be remedial school, not an institution of higher learning, for ‘Monsters University’ is an alarmingly lame effort from Pixar.”
Indeed, the author, Todd McCarthy, felt the film was the third “sub-par film in a row from Pixar” and that the company is loosing its edge by creating such “inoffensive G-rated larks” about sweet characters learning to be scary. He assumes the film will appeal to kids but says it isn’t what we have come to expect from Pixar.
After reading McCarthy's piece, I saw nicer reviews that found “Monsters University” funny but not memorable. One dared to call it a spoof of “Animal House” (1978) which led me to believe that under Disney’s ownership Pixar’s high standards are being eroded.
DreamWorks never set their standards as high as Pixar’s, so we don’t seem to mind if their products were superficial or light weight. While Pixar’s latest film will most likely make a healthy profit, based on the advertising and promotions for the film, and it just might win an Oscar, will it charm adults the way the pre-Disney Pixar films did?
Woody and Buzz from 'Toy Story' (1995), Pixar's massive first hit but also a surprisingly profound story about friendship, outcasts and disposable culture. photo: courtesy Pixar
I suspect the changes at Pixar are due to pressure from Disney to play it safe and to make money, not art. Before Disney bought the company some of their features were extraordinary, some even masterpieces.
For me the most remarkable were “Toy Story” (1995), “Finding Nemo” (2003), “The Incredibles” (2004), “Ratatouille” (2007), and the first parts of “Wall-E” (2008) and “Up” (2009). The last three were begun before the sale to Disney was finalized in 2006.
The company also created several wonderful shorts starting with “Luxo Jr.” (1986), “Tin Toy” (1988) and “Geri’s Game” (1997). While they did create one sequel, “Toy Story 2” (1999), all the other features begun before the sale were original stories. Sure all were successful at the box office but they were also extremely well received by the critics, except “Cars” (2006), which garnered mixed reviews.
Ed Catmull, Pixar's president, explained in a 2008 Harvard Business Review, the philosophy that Pixar now seems to have abandoned. "We're in a business whose customers want to see something new every time they go to the theater. This means we have to put ourselves at great risk."
"Our most recent film, 'Wall-E,' is a robot love story set in a post-apocalyptic world full of trash. And our previous movie, 'Ratatouille,' is about a French rat who aspires to be a chef. Talk about unexpected ideas!"
Woody and Buzz from 'Toy Story' (1995), Pixar's massive first and a rather profound story about friendship, outcasts and disposable culture. photo: courtesy Pixar
"At the outset of making these movies, we simply didn't know if they would work. However, since we're supposed to offer something that isn't obvious, we bought into somebody's initial vision and took a chance," Catmull concluded, essentially espousing the classic rebel-artist credo.
Unfortunately that philosophy appears to be hard to maintain on the films begun after Disney purchased the company. They include the sequels “Toy Story 3” (2010) and “Cars 2” (2011), the prequel “Monster University” (2013, there was "Monsters, Inc." in 2001) and one original feature, “Brave” (2012).
“Brave” is considered by many critics the most traditional and conservative Pixar film ever. Basically it is a lovely looking action adventure feature starring a standard Disney princess.
It appears Pixar is being extremely conscious of the Disney Corporation’s desire for Pixar to earn them impressive profits so the latter is playing it safe in what they produce. I also feel a major ingredient is being left out from their stories or minimized: a sense of their major characters having a heart or soul.
Earlier films made me really care about their wholesome stars. Now Pixar/Disney films seem to stress light, airy, almost mindless fluff. High production values are still in Pixar films, but not the caring that made us love toys, rats and robots.
The Whacky Wobler Toy, Mike Wazowski, is one of the scores of accessories that can jump a Pixar film's take from 1.5 to 3 billion. photo: courtesy Pixar
The Wall Street Journal said that, when Disney bought Pixar, CEO John Lasseter agreed to make every third Pixar movie with the primary consideration of merchandising. It is possible Pixar has now agreed to make that every film.
Every film? Harsh words but the trade magazines report there are now over 1000 new Disney licensed “Monster University” products that will be available about June 21 when the feature is released. These fine items, made by around 125 different companies, include action figures, play sets, plush figures, apparel, accessories, home décor, publishing products and more. An “exclusive collection” will be available from the Disney stores and on their website.
A friend of mine speculates much of these must-have impulse buys will end up in landfills. And, needless to say, there were also lots of “Brave” and “Cars 2” items available when those films were released.
What is happening at Pixar is part of a major trend in the American animated feature business today: to maximize profits by creating features that have stars that can be merchandised. That is true of every animated feature being released this summer. All of them seem to be entertainment promotions designed to get kids interested in buying franchised products.
Some touchy-feely 'Monster U' toys. photo: courtesy Pixar
Every film this summer is either a sequel of a successful feature or it is a thinly disguised spinoff of a past hit. Will the most original feature be a DisneyToon Studio’s “Planes,” about a crop duster that wants to win an air race championship, essentially a spin-off of “Cars”? (The aircraft have big eyes similar to those seen on the windshields in Pixar’s “Cars”.) Or will it be “Turbo” from DreamWorks, a “Cars”-inspired film about a snail that wants be the fastest snail on Earth?
How many adults are really anxious to see “Turbo,” “Planes,” “Smurfs 2,” “Despicable Me 2,” “Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs 2” or the prequel to “Monsters, Inc.”? I’m sure, each will be entertaining and will sell lots of tickets, but you may feel the film’s target audience is a lot younger than you. Kids love familiar characters and plots, but as an adult I look forward to having wonderful new film experiences, not continuations of familiar stories, and the real art of animated features is doing both.