dp you agree /co/?
>>77393459
I do not.
>>77393459
Idon'tlikeLasseter.jpg
I'm afraid I don't really follow.. Pixar cares too much about story? It's wrong to sacrifice 'arty' animation for having a cohesive plot that the masses like?
It keeps trying to make Pixar sound like something criminally bad for the industry, but... why? Pixar's made some great films with CG, and part of what drove those films was building good story to back up their visual effects. You're telling me Finding Nemo was bad? You're telling me Wall-E was bad?
No, sir, I don't agree with it.
You know, I always hear people pining for Kingdom of the Sun, but outside of Eartha Kitt's awesome number that was cut, the plot sounded like a formulaic "Prince and the Pauper" story.
There's some good points in there, but also some hyperbolic vitriol.
There's certainly a spectrum that on either end is defined by "Mass Market Appeal" and "Personal Artistic Express", and media can be far on one side, or hit a point where they can have a bit of both. I don't think that spectrum has necessarily any connotation with "Quality" necessarily, as well, personal tastes judge so much of that.
I dunno, ideally I'd love to see more really challenging and experimental animation, as well as very safe, but fun Disney/Pixar stuff (a lot of which has merits too, but certainly aren't immune to criticism), but I don't think you can really expect a big corporate entity like Disney to focus on delivering auteur-driven work (even "producer as auteur" material) anymore.
I don't really have any answers or conclusions, but I think it's okay to not pretend like I do.
>>77393459
Isnt animation really just a tool used to tell a story? Focusing on the narritive is not a bad thing in my book
>>77395982
Not always. Much like drawings in comics, while you can produce serviceable or good stuff focusing solely on the story, the visual part of the medium should not be ignored.
>>77394119
Fucking this
Kitt's song was the only real casualty. Emperor's New Groove was a fun film
Wait, so story telling became the new thing and it drained away animation as more focus was put on story, but then how does that explain the degradation of story and animation? Frozen wasn't impressive, New Groove, Atlantis, weren't impressive in both categories, but other movie like Walle, UP, Toy Stories had both good animation and story. Lilo and stitch had good 2d animation and story. I'm seriously confused by this. Maybe I read too fast?
>>77395982
>Isnt animation really just a tool used to tell a story? Focusing on the narritive is not a bad thing in my book
If all you care about is the writing, then make the movie in live action. There's no reason for it to be a cartoon, at that point.
>>77393459
>John Lasseter has spent most of his career destroying the careers of others in the name of storytelling efficiency
This may not be the dumbest sentence in the piece, but it represents a primary issue with it. From what I can tell, the author is conflating a few completely unrelated issues: "Story" and the death of 2D / popularity of formulaic trash / homogenization effect of CG / rise of extreme risk aversion and sequel-infatuation.
Story Is King. If you were a tiny cog in the Hollywood machine the same as I, you would never find release from the full weight of this phrase. Narrative film/TV is called "narrative" because it's a story-driven medium. Narratives are the most popular and accessible form because they most closely resemble how our brains construct our realities. Storytelling is as old as language, deeply embedded in our psyches. So of course most of the media consumed by humans is going to be narrative! And so of course people that want to be popular and get lots of money are going to sell narrative-based products! That is how supply and demand and shit works.
I really don't understand what the author wants. I mean I can understand complaining that today's stories aren't good anymore, but it's more like he's saying they're TOO good???
>Hey guys I want people to realize how shitty CG is. Stop distracting people with all your thought-provoking human condition exploration. It's causing your movies to be too profitable, and taking away all the money that my shitty "experimental" stop-motion college thesis truly deserves.
tl;dr this guy's stupid
>>77401338
>>77395982
If all you care about is writing, write a novel. Film, no matter if it's live-action or animation, should be visually engaging.
>>77401338
Talk about missing the fucking point. So any story-driven film HAS to be live action? Cartoons should only be made with shitty scripts?
Have you never heard Brad Bird discuss the reasons to animate vs. record live actors? It has nothing to do with the presence of a good screenplay; among other considerations, it is to answer the question of whether a caricatured reality would better serve the movie.
The abstraction of animation may work better to streamline a path toward Truth, but it may also be detrimental. It all depends on the context, the setting, the themes, the style. The QUALITY of a script is unrelated.
>>77401536
> Stop distracting people with all your thought-provoking human condition exploration
lol, I really hope you're not talking about Pixar.
>>77401833
Like I said, the author of the original thing seems to be praising Pixar as having stories that are TOO GOOD. I don't necessarily agree with that; I was just mocking his stance."Inside Out" really was that good though
> he watches film/television for literally anything other than the story
why.jpg?
>>77401920
>Like I said, the author of the original thing seems to be praising Pixar as having stories that are TOO GOOD.
Not really. He's saying that Pixar/modern Disney films are designed to be easy for audiences to swallow. Safe, inoffensive fluff that's easy to market and profit from, but with no room for personal expression.
>>77402394
>Safe, inoffensive fluff that's easy to market and profit from, but with no room for personal expression.
Do you believe this?
>>77402394
Then he should have fucking said that. I would have agreed.
But he didn't. He just went on and on about how "capital-s Story" isn't the focus that he wants animation to have. He also says that Pixar films lack artistry beyond the structures of their narratives, which is also untrue and bizarrely over-simplified? Of the Hollywood-style CG producers, they're by far the most artistic. Attack the lazy copycats or the people that made shit like The Lorax first. Jesus.
>>77393459
>Stop liking what I don't like
Well, I suppose people just don't like experimental animation or whatever.
I think what the author is trying to get at is that animation has taken a backseat in animation. Part of what made Pixar good were there for a reason. Now they're just there.
Was there any reason for Frozen, Brave, Tangled, or Big Hero 6 to be in 3D? Not really outside of market appeal and audience expectation. Was there a reason for Caroline, ParaNorman, How To Train Your Dragon, or Rango to be 3D? Yes, and it gave the movie a lot of flair, even though only two of these movies did well in the box office, and all of them lost Oscars to their Disney competition.
Pixar, along with Blue Sky and Illumination, set a certain precedent for 3D movies, and that precedent is that 3D is the standard for animated movies. While Pixar has pushed the medium shockingly forward, it has also gotten to the point where it's beginning to stall out. Remember how Anna and Elsa and Rapunzel all have the same face? But this is for multiple reasons, and not just because of Lasseter and Katzenberg being producers-masquerading-as-directors, as the author believes, though it admittedly doesn't help. What's mainly to blame is the inflated budget of movies and inflated advertising.
The author is just a dumbfuck who made a poorly-worded point. Probably a college freshman.
