Moosferatu Posted March 12, 2006 There's a new trailer out for it now. Like just about everyone else I was a bit skeptical when the first stuff came out, but this new trailer looks quite good. Looks like Pixar's going to pull off another one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Moosferatu Posted March 12, 2006 I heard a rumor that Brad Bird is trying to get the go ahead to make a traditional animation movie. That'd be awesome. Iron Giant is the best. Parts of that are cell-shade though, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oath Posted March 12, 2006 I heard a rumor that Brad Bird is trying to get the go ahead to make a traditional animation movie. That'd be awesome. Iron Giant is the best. Parts of that are cell-shade though, right? Wasn't there at least a rumor about Pixar setting up a traditional animation studio about half a year back? I vaguely remember something about that, but I'm really not in a position to say whether or not it really happened. Concerning Cars then; I'll definitely watch it, but I just can't over how annoying the whole "car with eyes on the windshield" thing is. So annoying! A bit disturbing too. It's feels like the Brave Little Toaster, done completely wrong. The environments are incredible though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marek Posted March 12, 2006 All those rumors are now rendered obsolete by Disney's acquisition of Pixar, and Lassater's rise to uberboss of all Disney animation and imagineering studios. (It seems more likely he'll choose a Disney studio to refocus on traditional animation.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJW Posted March 12, 2006 Oh yeah, the reaquisition of Pixar. That was a bummer. I was looking foward to seeing what they could do once they were independant. Now that dream is shattered (unless the staff of pixar get sick of disney and leave to set up a new studio... ). The cars with eyes thing does look inherently childish (Thomas the tank engine and so forth). Also I can't shake off the premonition that Cars will have roughly the same plot as Days of Thunder. I just can't imagine it being any other way, and I can't imagine it being good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marek Posted March 13, 2006 Actually, Dan, I'm pleased to report that it's not like that at all. Pixar has really come out on top in this deal and it's awesome. Basically, Pixar people are trying to fix Disney right now. The new hierarchy is: Robert Iger (Disney CEO) -> John Lasseter (director of Toy Story, A Bug's Life and Cars, now creative uberboss) -> individual project directors. There's no more layers of management. The creative people report directly to Lasseter, who only reports to Iger. Lasseter has to personally approve each new project (Pixar and elsewhere) and one of his rules is that whatever studio started a franchise gets to make sequels, and only if they really want to do them in the first place. It's a bit of a miracle this happened. http://www.jimhillmedia.com/article.php?id=1829 http://pbcbstudios.blogspot.com/2006/01/first-impression.html http://pbcbstudios.blogspot.com/2006/01/slow-clap.html http://www.sewardstreet.com/2006/02/it_just_keeps_g.html I'm sure Doug could tell you a lot more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tabacco Posted March 13, 2006 Yes. The acquisition means that John Lasseter is now in Ultimate Power at both Feature Animation and Imagineering (which builds theme park attractions). It also makes Ed Catmull the head of Feature Animation. Both of these are Good Things. Instead of "Disney obliterates Pixar" it is basically "Disney pays Pixar to Obliterate Disney" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oath Posted March 13, 2006 Instead of "Disney obliterates Pixar" it is basically "Disney pays Pixar to Obliterate Disney" A bit more like "Disney pays Pixar to stop Disney from obliterating themselves". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vimes Posted March 13, 2006 Apparently,Brad Bird took the lead of Ratatouille from Jan Pinkava whose Geri's Game was simply the best Pixar short ever. I think it's a shame because, from the moment Pixar took over Disney, I had hoped Brad Bird would revive the 2D animation studio and because we might not see a Jan Pinkava feature film. And Cars smells bad : I really don't like the design and the story seems to be one of those "guy from the city discovering real life in a redneck town thanks to the help of his new down-to-earth friends" I really can't bear. What is even more disappointing is that Pixar can't seem to escape anthropomorphism.Meh,que sera, sera. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brkl Posted March 13, 2006 Cars looks pretty bad. The last joke got a chuckle, otherwise... urgh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oath Posted March 13, 2006 What is even more disappointing is that Pixar can't seem to escape anthropomorphism. Come on, it's not like that's what they fill every movie with. For example, their latest endeavors: The Incredibles, Finding Nemo and Toy Story 2; none of those have had blenders with arms and baseball caps or shit like that. This movie just feels like something the old Disney made them do, and that they might stick to their previous methods in the future too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marek Posted March 13, 2006 Talking fish and talking toys are also anthropomorphisms. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nsps Posted March 13, 2006 I heard a rumor that Brad Bird is trying to get the go ahead to make a traditional animation movie. That'd be awesome. Iron Giant is the best. Parts of that are cell-shade though, right? Yes, Iron Giant is the best. In answer to your cell-shading question, The Robot was created in 3-D. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJW Posted March 14, 2006 HMm, what if pixar did a proper animated animal movie, something in the spirit of The Incredible Journey or March of the Penguins. That could be pretty damn good. (anyone see that old Garfield animated movie, Garfields 9 Lives? The animal lab life was kind of moving, maybe because it was so unexpected). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miffy495 Posted March 14, 2006 Dude, I'm sorry, but March of The Penguins was horrible. Just some weepy french filmmaker imposing his own emotions on a bunch of birds. On the other hand, if you have the occasion to rent the DVD, do so and ignore the movie. The making of documentary is feature length and fantastic. Has all the major stuff from the movie, but this time it actually has the filmmakers as well, so the emotions are theirs and not just added in to get kids to like it. Reminded me of Cousteau. It's not a good sign when the featurettes on the DVD are far, FAR better than the movie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oath Posted March 14, 2006 Talking fish and talking toys are also anthropomorphisms. Well, I thought about that, but I think it's a bit borderline. Yes, they're inanimate objects and animals that talk, but the fish don't grow arms and in both those movies their actions are "realistic" and limited to the same things animals and toys are. Sort of. My theory is a bit shaky, especially concerning Finding Nemo. I think what I'm trying to say is more along the lines of "Pixar don't really go overboard with it" than "animals and plastic toys talking are perfectly natural things". I guess I should have written that instead of what I really posted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marek Posted March 14, 2006 Heh yes you can make that case for Finding Nemo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJW Posted March 15, 2006 Anthropomorphing (!) something includes projecting human thought processes and emotions onto to something non human. Like fish, or Rusalka (runs and hides). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Salka Posted March 15, 2006 ;( that was uncalled for! Anthropomorphise MY FIST! I don't have a big problem with Pixar using lots of anthropomorphism... they tell damn good stories, and that's their style, sooo... doesn't really seem like something to hold against them That said, I really don't like that they've done it to cars it looks silly, or something... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spaff Posted March 15, 2006 That's the worst idea they've ever had, and whilst I'm sure it will be a really fun movie that I will toally watch and proabbly enjoy, cars with faces is just a bit shite really. Transformers knew how to do a Anthropomorphic car ¬¬ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick Posted March 16, 2006 It all sounds a bit like Brum to me Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miffy495 Posted March 16, 2006 which raises the question: What the hell is Brum? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJW Posted March 17, 2006 which raises the question: What the hell is Brum? See above Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thrik Posted March 17, 2006 Cars will be fantastic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jayel Posted March 20, 2006 It looks like just another movie trapped in the Disney formula. But it could be good. Who knows. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
