Comments on: Danny Boyle Claims “The Pixarification Of Movies” Is Wiping Out Adult Storytelling in Cinema

By: Frank

Frank — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:01:05 +0000

He raises very legitimate points. On the flip-side, he also directed the $377,910,544 grossing slumdog millionaire; which touched on child exploitation and mutilation, but was ultimately a boy-gets-girl redemption story that featured a popular abc games show and ended on a catchy dance number. There's hope yet.

By: gabriel

gabriel — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:01:05 +0000

4 quadrant films (PG-13 films that appeal to young/old and men/women) will always do better at the box office than R films. Going to the movies is a special occasion for families, but rarely a first date for two adults. If we want R films to succeed, we need more smaller art house theaters and fewer multiplexes.

By: MAURICE EMEL

MAURICE EMEL — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:01:05 +0000

I agree in regards to the family-oriented move for movies, but I disagree with the idea that movies should be the place where young people go to access content that's generally forbidden to them. I hate to say it but this is just a case of not adapting to the times. Any teen or young adult who wants access to unfriendly "ma-n-pa" content will simply go to the internet. Unlike the past when most homes had one centralized TV, today every house member has their own viewing device away from the prying eyes of their parents, in the forms of a TV, a computer, and a mobile device.

I personally feel the move of adult themes moving to TV is better. Its much nicer to see character nuance, ideas and plot roll out over a 13hr period instead of 2.

By: A Guy Named Joe

A Guy Named Joe — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:01:05 +0000

Here's something to think about… In 1979, "Kramer Vs. Kramer" made $109 million, which in 2013 dollars is about $340 million.

a) Would today's audiences go to see an adult themed movie like "Kramer Vs. Kramer?"

b) Would studio execs even greenlight a movie like "Kramer Vs. Kramer?" And if they did, would they rewrite it as a breezy and heart-warming family comedy/drama, where the dad and mom get back together in the end, and there is a fun kitchen scene in the middle where everyone lipsyncs to a Motown song?

By: douglassirk

douglassirk — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:01:05 +0000

Preach.

By: ParcaMortem

ParcaMortem — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:01:05 +0000

Directors who start to take themselves too seriously have been saying the same thing for the past 90 years. In the old days, a creative director would still be "rewarded" with directing a roman movie, a musical, or a Jerry Lewis comedy. A studio is right in not giving $100 million to make a film tt would only generate $20 million, regardless of artistic quality. And if there are no dangerous films, then someone explain the releases of films by Cronenberg, the overrated Von Trier, PT Anderson, and other Cannes favorites? There's morr distribution methods than ever.

By: Todd

Todd — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:01:05 +0000

You know, there were a lot of family movies back then, too. Blaming the pop, sci-fi, and family friendly movies for the lack of adult films seems a bit unreasonable. Blame the producers, or the studios perhaps. A better idea would be to make a good adult oriented movie instead of whining about it – now there's a thought.

By: Benutty

Benutty — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:01:05 +0000

Danny Boyle made Slumdog Millionaire. Like he needs to stfu/gtfo. He has no leg to stand on in this argument.

By: Zach

Zach — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:01:05 +0000

And Danny Boyle actually said "Star Wars" led to the Pixarification of movies? Because SO many great Pixar films came out between 1977 and 1995.

By: Frank S.

Frank S. — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:01:05 +0000

You know I gotta say: Slashfilm's lazy headline and one sentence in the piece with zero context was odious. It was like that Philistine Peter S was leaving him out to dry so the nerds over there could pick him apart without even explaining what he meant about "Pixarification" meant. I found it really gross and I won't be going there anymore. Thanks for a least a couple lines of text to explain what this means, christ, is is that hard?

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:01:05 +0000

I agree with what him and Soderbergh are saying, but neither of them have made the films they are describing in a long time. Boyle has been extremely commercial with his last five films, and Soderbergh's "Side Affects" was laughably Hollywood formulaic. What you don't see are films that are subversive, and as much as these directors like to talk, are they really gun-ho to bite the hand that feeds them?

By: putney

putney — Fri, 13 May 2016 10:01:05 +0000

so what's the excuse for trance being a complete turd then?