Comments on: The 5 Worst Things About Pixar

By: Allaiyah Weyn

Allaiyah Weyn — Thu, 09 Jun 2016 03:50:37 +0000

Personally, I hate their art style. Those huge bulging eyes are the stuff of nightmares (uncanny vally) & the over-the-top facial expressions get on my nerves quickly.

By: Lily

Lily — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:05 +0000

Jesse from Toy Story is a great female character. She has an interesting backstory and is not defined by anyone else. Also, Barbie from Toy Story 3? She was pretty awesome.

By: Nic Kramer

Nic Kramer — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:05 +0000

Just what I needed, more Pixar hate.

I'm starting to see why they called the '20's-50's the Golden Age of Film: There were no bigot Internet biggots bloggers like you.

By: Sam

Sam — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:05 +0000

Wow, posting an anti Pixar article on a site full of Pixar fan boys? You are a braver man than me. Be sure to lock your doors and windows tonight.

(all jokes aside, this is a great article, really)

By: Rich Corle

Rich Corle — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:05 +0000

The #1 problem with Pixar? They're not Studio Ghibli.

By: hank

hank — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:05 +0000

it's as good a day as any to find something to bitch about.

By: Grant P

Grant P — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:05 +0000

I completely agree with Danny below. It is especially obvious that #2 on this list is a stretch and insult to the studio. No room for texture? Give me a break. That is like saying 'Its bad to write great stories with themes that connect… I don't know how, but I'll find a way to talk about what could possibly lack from it!'

By: Manni

Manni — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:05 +0000

Good article. I liked authors points at #2, but I'm seriously shocked about Lasseter firing Chris Sanders and hating "Lilo & Stitch" – that was dissapointing to read…

And I don't find this article anti-Pixar, it's just the dose of criticism that even the best needs, in a way it proves how complex and debatable their works are. And it's better then your usual "hey it's new Pixar, it's gonna be great!" article.

By: Ted

Ted — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:05 +0000

I don't have much to say about the article, other than to address point #5 slightly.

It's really a stretch to call Brave a buddy film. Yes, a relationship is strengthened between two people, but if that is your definition of a buddy film, then a lot of movies are buddy movies. Same goes for UP which seems like more of an father-son dynamic than a buddy dynamic. I'll admit it starts as a buddy film between a grouchy old man and a spry kid, but it quickly becomes a father-son dynamic.

I also have to wonder, would you launch the buddy film critique against Howard Hawks? Aren't most Hawks' best films like Only Angels Have Wings, The Big Sky, Gentlemen Prefer Blonds, and Rio Bravo all buddy films? Most of his other films even carry a buddy film sensibility without being buddy films. Even in His Girl Friday and Bringing Up Baby, the romantic interactions for much of the film are constructed as buddy-like interactions. Was Howard Hawks just a hack repeating the same formulas over and over again? If you want to critique Pixar for reproducing the same themes, you need to be more explicit about your objections – what exactly about returning to the same theme don't you like? Because saying that they are just rehashing the same theme seems like a weak objection.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:05 +0000

I'm sorry. But i justed wasted time reading an article i thought was going to be constructive and good. Instead i found myself reading an article that makes me wonder if the author just picked out small details, enlarged them to a ridiculous exaggeration and started mentioning "wrong things" just to complete this so called list.

I really agree with "Danny" here. The examples used in this article don't even make sense. On the contrary, the examples show positive things Pixar do. Like the mentioned Tuna-scene in Finding Nemo. What makes Pixar the absolut best at what they do are the subtle and not overexaggerated messages that get through if you read between the lines. It's strange just comparing Lilo & Stith to Pixar movies. While Pixar movies connect with people of all ages(trust me, i've seen grown men cry to Pixar movies), Lilo & Stith and most of Dreamworks animated films(Except How to Train Your Dragon) are a lot more interesting to kids. The really obvious and exaggerated messages and character-storys might work for you, but not for me. There's no challenge in watching a movie where everything is explained, where there's nothing for you to fill in using your imagination.

By: starway2001

starway2001 — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:05 +0000

Another Pixar movie must be coming out. Time for another Pixar hit piece. Pixar-hate is certainly fashionable these days.

By: Luke

Luke — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:05 +0000

Agree with both Danny and Rudy.

By: Rudy

Rudy — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:05 +0000

I could care less about the female empowerment crap! Disney inundated us with Disney Princesses for 20 years! So much so that they now have their own brand! So what's wrong with doing movies that don't feature some spunky heroine looking for independence or dating monsters?? There are other stories out there that can be told! And Pixar has done them very well!

By: Danny

Danny — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:05 +0000

This article really shows the snobbiness of some of the writers at Indiewire.
Monsters University is a a sequel to a movie starring two male characters, of course the leads are going to be two male characters. A Bug's Life, Brave, The Incredibles, Wall-E, and Finding Nemo all have main-female characters or female leads, and, in my opinion, they are all strong females. The removal of Bo-Peep didn't start any trend of marginalizing female characters. Bo-Peep wasn't a very interesting character to begin with and she wasn't too useful. It sounds to me like you are looking for a parallel between the marginalization of women in society and the marginalization of women in Pixar, but the problem is Pixar doesn't marginalize women.
I have no clue what you are saying when you say every movie ends in a chase sequence because that simply isn't true. I think you are mixing a chase sequence up with an acceleration in the action.
I think it is ridiculous to complain about an emphasis on story. An emphasis on story is the reason why Pixar is the best at what it does. The texture is seen in the stark differences between the characters. It looks to me like you want extraneous detail for the sake of extraneous detail which would only distract viewers.
The problem you state about multiple climaxes isn't really a problem at all. The action that follows a could-be ending in Pixar movies always contributes to the movies overall message and plot. That can be seen especially in Finding Nemo in the scene with Nemo saving the tuna. That scene shows that both Nemo and Marlin have grown and there is a newfound trust between them.
Pixar makes animated movies that are made for children with stories suitable for all ages. In children's movies one theme has to be either family or be friendship. I haven't seen a children's movie that doesn't feature friends or family because those are two of the few things children can relate to. The Incredibles and Brave feature family while most of the rest feature friends.

By: M.M.

M.M. — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:04 +0000

The Pixar issues with women is long standing. When Toy Story 2 came out in 1999, they did not have a Jessie doll for that Christmas season. They had a new Buzz Lightyear. They had a Woody doll dressed as Santa Claus. No Jessie on the shelves.

By: Nick

Nick — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:04 +0000

This article has clearly been written by a woman. Much of it simply doesn't hold water.

By: Milla

Milla — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:04 +0000

Sorry but what a piece of s***!

By: a guy named joe

a guy named joe — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:04 +0000

Wow, those are a lot of forced points. I would argue that most of your "worst" things about Pixar are actually strengths (except of course the lack of strong female characters. Brave and the Chapman story broke my heart). Most of your points are easily refuted, and as mentioned, are forced. For instance, your definition of "buddy" movies is really, really, really broad. If "Wall-E" is a buddy movie with robots, then "When Harry Met Sally" is also a buddy movie (in which the male and female protagonists end up having sex).

By: Tyler

Tyler — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:04 +0000

"Snow Whit and the Seven Dwarfs"

Whit?

If you don't care about your writing, why should we?

By: jd

jd — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:04 +0000

Pixar makes movies not for kids, but for parents looking for wholesome products for their kids. Mystery and "disturbing" content, which children love, and which animates traditional fairy tales, are nowhere to be found.

The fact that young kids will eagerly consume these denatured market-measured fantasies is not proof of their excellence or even their market acumen, any more than the popularity McDonalds with kids proves it's great food. Despite the producers' best efforts, the Pixar movies retain an element of mystery, because of limited child comprehension and visual aesthetics which appeal to kids. But kids don't see the same movie adults do. Even the most literal plodding storytelling is mysterious for 6-year old.

By: Laura

Laura — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:04 +0000

While I am a Pixar enthusiast, I can say while I did not care for the article personally, I will say that it did give me quite a bit of critical thinking that I will apply for the future.

Still, bugs me that the author called Brave a buddy film; no, it is a tale between mother and daughter, not a story of two bros getting along the plot.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:04 +0000

Whoever wrote this article is a complete moron. And has no clue about good film making and story.

By: Deb

Deb — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:04 +0000

"in which Nemo is reunited with his son and are about to swim back to their little part of the ocean when…"

Nemo is the son!!!! Marlin is the dad…

By: Craig

Craig — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:04 +0000

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, of course, but the facts on Pixar's founding are factually incorrect. The Lucasfilm Computer Division was never part of ILM, and ended up spinning off DroidWorks as well as Pixar.

It's true that Mattel didn't want Barbie in the first Toy Story. Back then they wanted her character to remain a tabula rasa for little girls. (They obviously later changed their minds.) There was a cute bit where she was going to screech into Sid's bedroom in her pink Corvette and tell Woody, "Come with me if you want to live." That's not a "strong female character", it's a "Terminator" reference. She wasn't going to have a lot of screen time in any case. In the end it was a blessing that Mattel denied permission, because it would have taken the solution to Woody's problem out of his hands. That's a Deus ex Machina, and very unsatisfying. The ending as produced is much stronger.

I think the author gets a little desperate to shoe-horn in the idea of everything being a buddy movie. WALLâ¢E was a love story. Calling Merida and Elinor "buddies" is also kind of a stretch. And the director switch on "Brave" was not due to any kind of glass ceiling. I'm not at liberty to say what it was, but that certainly wasn't it.

The kid in "Up" is "vaguely Asian"? He's modeled after a totally Korean guy, and voiced by an Asian kid. I really don't know how much more Asian the writer wants him to be.

By: easton

easton — Fri, 13 May 2016 09:41:04 +0000

Pixar makes great movies for kids and adults. This article is just trying to nitpick tiny aspects of future children's classics. I guess I can't blame a site called "Indiewire" for creating such hipster bullshit. Article's author should stop the "I don't like it because it's mainstream" stuff, and go back to waxing his moustache and cuffing his jeans.