Editorial: Are We Giving Pixar Too Much Credit?

By Josh tyler: 2008-07-03 00:38:39

No movie studio among the ones I’m willing to take the time to research (read: no research) has accomplished what the guys at Pixar have. Simply put: they’ve never made a stinker. Every film they’ve ever made has met with critical, audience, and box office success. Nine movies, nine great movies which nearly everyone has the good sense to love and maybe when no one’s looking, even hug. Pixar’s string of success has been so incredible, so unprecedented that now I find myself wondering: Are we giving them too much credit?

Hold on to your Luxo Jr. shaped pitch forks, don’t roast me over a spit just yet. Hear me out, it’s what Buzz and Woody would want you to do. You’ve got a friend in me! No really. It’s only natural that once someone has so much consistent success that you start to take their greatness as a given. It works the other way around too. Uwe Boll makes crummy movies. Even if you’ve never seen one of them, you instinctively know that. When you hear there’s a new Uwe Boll movie coming out, you automatically assume it’s bad and, even if for some strange reason you went to see one you’d walk in not only expecting it to suck, but perhaps even looking at it through the lens of discovering why it sucks. When you go looking for something, more often than not, you find it. Uwe Boll is Uwe Boll, most people aren’t even going to give anything he does a shot at this point. He’s dismissed out of hand, and perhaps deservedly so.

The same and opposite now seems to be true with Pixar. When Pixar makes a movie, we’ve all learned to assume that, no matter how strange the concept or subpart the trailers (hello Cars) it will not only be good, it’ll probably be one of the best movies you’ve seen all year. When we walk into a Pixar film, we walk in not only expecting something spectacular, but in some cases perhaps, looking for reasons to justify how spectacular we know it must be, without bothering to sit through the whole thing and determine if it deserves that kind of positivity first. In particular with Pixar, I wonder if perhaps this sort of attitude has started influencing critics.

Case in point: WALL-E. WALL-E is a nice little movie and I mean that sincerely. It is also the best reviewed movie of the year. That ought to mean it’s a lot more than simply a nice little movie. But it isn’t. I accept that some people may generally think it’s the best movie of the year. Heck, Cinema Blend’s own Mariana McConnell gave it a shiny 5/5 stars, our first perfect review on the site in 2008. Film is subjective and no matter how great a movie is or how bad, there will always be differing opinions. Yet objectivity aside, making WALL-E the best movie of the year and touting it for best picture feels weirdly out of whack.

It’s not that good is it? It’s a fairly simple film. There aren’t many layers to it. Sure there’s social commentary and romance mixed in with adventure stuff, but none of it’s particularly layered or subtle. It’s intentionally constructed to be as obvious as possible. And it’s short, not just short but maybe even a bit rushed. The movie flies by, it’s barely on screen the 90 minutes required to qualify it as a feature film. On an animation level it’s nice, but compare it to Kung Fu Panda and the action isn’t as exciting and neither the scenery or the film’s relatively few main characters are nearly as visually detailed or breathtaking. WALL-E is smart science fiction, but constructed on the most basic, easy to grasp kids level, sometimes at the expense of explaining the behavior of characters. It’s solid kids entertainment, but not the kind with a stunning amount of complexity or depth. Even its most staunch supporters seem to rate it well below several of Pixar’s other movies. Few would make a case for it being better that Toy Story, The Incredibles, Finding Nemo or even Ratatouille. Meanwhile audience response on comments sections and in places like our message board has been decidedly mixed. Yet WALL-E, as every Pixar movie is at this point basically pre-ordained to do, is receiving those same, obligatory, amazing, drool-soaked reviews. After being gifted with hit after hit after hit, could critics (whether consciously or unconsciously) be taking it for granted that everything Pixar does is solid gold?

I’m not saying WALL-E isn’t good, I’m just wondering aloud here if instead of gold it might be silver… and if it is silver, then how did we end up in a spot where we’re now forced to place it in the pantheon of animation’s greatest all time films? Pixar, your streak is impressive. Your movies are wonderful. Maybe, just maybe, it’s time for you to really screw one up, if only to give us all some sort of obvious reference point. A Bug’s Life doesn’t cut it anymore, a movie that’s merely good won’t do. We’ve all got Pixar blinders on. It would take more than an even a mediocre effort to get us to take them off and treat you objectively again. We need something we can point to and say, “ah yes, this is what it looks like when Pixar screws up.” Pixar needs an All Dogs Go To Heaven 2, just so we can all see where the obvious bottom is, and then work our way up from there. Then as a wise man once said, they can bound, bound, bound and rebound. You can’t bound without a rebound.

Luckily, I have a solution. There’s a filmmaker out there with financing trouble, a guy who loves churning out movies but is guaranteed to deliver the kind of crapper Pixar needs to delineate a proper low point. His name is Uwe Boll. John Lasseter, consider giving him a call. Once you do, we can all get back to praising you, secure in the knowledge that we’d actually notice if Pixar truly did screw one up.

RELATED: rant, editorial, wall-e, pixar

Latest Headlines:

Ron Livingston Heads Back To The Office

Australia Shifts Dates

Summer Box Office 2008: Kung Fu Critics

George Clooney Up In The Air

Stiller Spoofs Superheroes With RDJ And Tina Fey

Valkyrie Extras Sue United Artists

Edgar Wright Has Geek Cred For Ant Man

Continuing To Bring It On

Cher Not In Batman And Neither Is Nolan

Trailer: Brittany Murphy Is Across The Hall

Comment on “Editorial: Are We Giving Pixar Too Much Credit?”

Note: This website is not intended for use by minors. The views expressed in this comments section are not necessarily our own. Comments that we deem to be poorly worded, off topic, or threatening will not be published. For free, uncensored discussion visit our forum.

Katey Says:
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:17
I think you're right that the hype is a little overblown at this point, but it tends to calm down by year's end, when the studios actually start releasing good movies again. People who didn't like Ratatouille aren't afraid to admit it anymore, and the general consensus has become the Cars wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

Pretty much the exact same thing will happen when The Dark Knight comes out-- any critic who doesn't love it will be burned alive. But it'll all sort out eventually with some time.

Sam Says:
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:17
I agree strongly that there is definitely a herd mentality when it comes to Pixar films or really any film that people think are going to be excellent or awful for that matter . If you have a spare moment today, you should run by RT and look at some of the comments on the negative reviews for Wall-E.

As for Pixar, are they a tad over-rated? Maybe, but there still best studio of the past decade IMO.

Also, the animation in Kung Fu Panda? Really, Josh, Wall-E is insanely over-rated(9th best film ever according to IMDB users) but its animation is light years ahead of Kung Fu Panda's.

Dalton Says:
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:18
I don't know if disturbing is a strong enough word for that really absurd suggestion. Thinking outside the box is one thing, but thats just a little much.

How about another weird suggestion: Joel Schumacher? It's not like he is really busy with anything interesting after the Number 23 barely turned a profit. He could definitely provide the bad misfire that Pixar needs. Because as much as Ratatouille was really better than the mediocre Cars, it still didn't reach the heights of greatness of Finding Nemo and The Incredibles, let alone the two Toy Story films.

To me, Cars lacked the interesting characters and strong story that the other films had. It was rather run-of-the-mill with its execution. Ratatouille was better in this respect but those same flaws were still prevalent.

Plus, besides the first two Shrek films and Horton Hears A Who! (I've yet to see Kung Fu Panda sadly), what other animated films have made a notable impact in this decade? None I can recall off the top of my head (Although if you could point some of them my way I'd be thankful (:). After Shrek crashed and burn in a huge, incredibly disappointing way, theres not really much competition to stand up to Pixar, traditional animation or otherwise.

What we need is a completely amazing animated film that will show that not only Pixar makes great animated movies. Kung Fu Panda may be that type of film (as I've said before I haven't seen it yet) but we need is an animated film that will truly knock us off our feet thats not made by Pixar.

Andrew James Says:
July 3rd, 2008 at 15:58
First off - Dalton, check out Persepolis. Enough said.

Second, the author here is dead on. I can understand praise for Wall-e and Ratatouille. They are fine films. But genius? Brilliant? 10/10? Best picture of the year? Hardly.

Wall-E is an extremely cute story with some beat you over the head social commentary that isn't particularly deep or even exciting - what dialogue there is, is generic at best. It's gorgeous and fun with lots of little homages to other films. That's about it.

I COMPLETELY agree that it is fashionable these days to over-praise a Pixar movie. If you don't like it you must be stupid. It's the opposite equivalent of Bush bashing. It's so funny and hip to do so. Mention one small thing that he's maybe gotten right in the past 8 years and you're automatically an idiot.

Kurt Says:
July 3rd, 2008 at 17:11
Bullshit. WallE has so much going for it as a love letter to a bygone era of silent cinema, to Kubrikian and Spielbergian elements, and a complex kids film on top of stunning visuals, convincing characters (particularly in the way the two robots are 'humanized' without any dialogue beyond 4 words (WallE, Eve, Directive, Plant) and a big, big heart.

It is worthy of all the praise it is getting and a fine addition to the Pixar ouvre.

The Incredibles, Ratatouille, Finding Nemo and WallE take complex cultural problems and probe them in an accessible, but still intelligent way.

Cars is the only film that Pixar has dropped the ball with story-wise.

colby Says:
July 3rd, 2008 at 17:11
I do agree that some of the praise thrown Pixar's way is a little overdone. But to use WALL-E as the example is far off base.

It's not as though there was a lot of pre-release buzz for the movie. In fact, I recall there being a lot of print & online comments that WALL-E was going to be Pixar's first flop.

As for me, I've seen Toy Story once ... forced to watch Finding Nemo ... never seen Cars, Ratatoullie, Bug's Life ... watched about half of Monster's Inc. because my 4-year-old niece wanted to. But when I saw the first trailer for Wall-E, I knew it was one I would want to see over and over.

I watched clip upon clip before the movie came out, saw it the Friday it premiered, and I'm seeing it for the second time this evening. I also plan on buying the score/soundtrack this weekend.

For someone who obviously doesn't fit into Pixar's typical demographic, I fell head over heels in love for this movie.

AllisonH Says:
July 3rd, 2008 at 18:36
Hmm, well that is for thought, but I think you may have it a bit wrong. I think it's actually more trendy to bash a non-Pixar films than to over-praise a Pixar ones. My point is made by how many people felt free to bash the animation on Kung Foo Panda.

I am going to let the cat out of the bag here. THEY ARE THE SAME ANIMATORS. The same people may have worked on Toy Story and Shrek and Lion King.

Living with a four year old means that even though I'm a fan of animation on my own means that I have seen most animated movies SEVERAL times. It seems to me that many films have been underrated because they were lacking a Pixar title card.

Jimmy Says:
July 3rd, 2008 at 23:06
"On an animation level it’s nice, but compare it to Kung Fu Panda and the action isn’t as exciting and neither the scenery or the film’s relatively few main characters are nearly as visually detailed or breathtaking."

Really? Another irrational comparison? You’re trying to bring some perspective and you are very biased right there. Both films are great but the character designs and visual of WALL-E is far better, that is the fact.

KFP just re-uses the CG techniques many have done before, in a new cultural context, China and martial art. WALL-E tries new things, like using lens focus as a story-telling device and its environment and characters is as detailed and well animated as, if not more than that of KFP.

Perhaps Pixar is overrated, but they are still the best out there, we trust them to never deliver something like Barnyard or The Wild. And I think we’re smart enough to underappreciate other animated films just because they’re not Pixar’s.

Happy Feet (WB) won over Cars and Shrek (DW) won over Monsters, Inc. There are Ghibli and Aardman studios, and many others too.

CMS Says:
July 4th, 2008 at 15:02
The one major crack in foundation of this article is that it supposes that an entirely subjective opinion (e.g. Wall-E was good but not THAT good, eh? Eh?) is the correct one, and that all differing opinions (e.g. yes, it IS that good) are somehow the result of conditioning and hype. Which is fine, it's an editorial piece after all, but you wander into some questionable territory when you basically suggest that everyone who rates this film as high as they do aren't really examining it critically and are just giving it credit based on past Pixar successes, without considering that maybe, while you personally may not have found it as satisfying, maybe people actually do think it's worth all the praise.

Kung Fu Panda is certainly the best film to have come out of Dreamworks, but in my opinion that studio still has a long way to go to reach the technical sophistication and narrative ambition of Wall-E.

JD Says:
July 4th, 2008 at 23:30
"The one major crack in foundation of this article is that it supposes that an entirely subjective opinion (e.g. Wall-E was good but not THAT good, eh? Eh?) is the correct one, and that all differing opinions (e.g. yes, it IS that good) are somehow the result of conditioning and hype."

Well said.

Wait until the awards season, even if WALL-E wins over KFP, Horton, Waltz with Bashir, Ponyo in every major animation awards, they still cry foul and extra-overrated.

Or maybe it will lost to Madagascar 2, because the sequel is unexpectedly greater and more ambitious than anything else.

Andrew Lenahan Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 13:01
Ah, but such praise IS deserved. There are many good movies to entertain little kids, and many movies for intelligent adults. Pixar is the only studio on the planet consistantly able to do both of the above in a single film with any regularity... one might argue that Studio Ghibli comes close, but anyone who's dozed through their Earthsea flick knows not everything they make turns to gold. Even Disney is no longer able to deliver entertaining movies for both kids and adults anymore: it's been a long 15 years since The Lion King, and it doesn't help that those years have been filled with DVD sequel dreck like Sleeping Beauty 5: Sleeping Beauty On Mars (ok, I made that up, but the real ones are equally bad). You can't fault a studio for being consistant and continuing to deliver what has worked perfectly for them in the past, and a nine-film perfect record is something worth celebrating, not deriding.

After all, it may never happen again. Let's enjoy it while it lasts.

Back to Editorial: Are We Giving Pixar Too Much Credit?

Editorial: Are We Giving Pixar Too Much Credit?

Comment on “Editorial: Are We Giving Pixar Too Much Credit?”

Leave a Reply