Wall-E

[ajp]

That's not a bad list. Best screenplay would be a big wrap as there's some good movies out there.

I might actually sit down and finally watch it this weekend on DVD.

[ajp]

Finally got to see it on the weekend ....

... I absolutely loved it! To make a robot appear so human with so many emotions is just genius. I did like the plot about how we have treated earth and at the same time have been rendered all but useless through generations of automation. It was done quite cleverly, and those yanks that complained about that part of it should take a long hard look at themselves.

Definitely a classic for sure!

[mushu mama]

yay... does that mean everyone's seen it now and we can discuss it a bit? -/


Lisa.

[churros]

I finally bought the DVD and saw the shorts. They didn't show the short with the movie on the cruise

[KeithS]

Wall-E got six Academy Award nominations - but once again there was no overall Best Film nomination.

Well, he did pick up the Best Animated Film award, but didn't get anything else - but Best Animated Film is nothing to be sneezed at.

Pixar's Presto missed out on Best Short Film - which is a shame because that was really funny!

[calisota]

This may be a stupid question but...what is it that makes Pixar films stand out?

Giving percentages for each, how much of what makes them good is the story, the writing, the animation, the characters, the acting?

What I'm thinking is, is it the animation quality that carries a movie like Wall-E or could the story carry it if the animation was poor?

Greg

[ajp]

Very good question. I think that none of those categories is a standout, and that they are contribute in their own right. The animation is obviously extreme quality and always improving. Just look at the scenes and rats in Ratatouille (spelling?) and Sully's coat in the snow in Monster's Inc. The storyline is always entertaining and unique, and the scripts are extremely well tailored for adults and children alike. (Although Disney Animation used to do this too, Alladin was a classic of mixing adult humour with childrens story telling, and the Disney insider jokes in Lion King were well delivered too). They are always recruiting well suited good name actors who are able to deliver what is meant to be acheived, and they're not afraid to laugh at themselves either. Would it be as good if the animation was not as good? I think so. But the high quality animation is what definitely gives them an edge.

But another point to make is that all Pixar did originally is make feature lengths using a tried and true method pioneered by Disney animation and successfully resurected in the 80s and 90s. All they did different was use CGI and not traditional hand drawn. Disney Animation had fantastic story lines, great scripts, appealled to adults and children, and employed well known well suited actors for voicing. And their hand drawn animation was high class.

There is only one company that comes close in my mind and that is Dreamworks. They have pretty well adopted the same basics to their own products and produced some very good movies. The difference though between Pixar and Dreamworks, is that Pixar have not released one dud (although I am not a fan of Bugs Life, this is my only exception). Whereas I feel that Dreamworks has had a couple of misses in amongst their hits.

[mushu mama]

This may be a stupid question but...what is it that makes Pixar films stand out?

Greg

I think ultimately, it comes down to the team you have doing the stuff.... if you have a kick arse team of innovators, then they will feed off each other to keep the standard high and then raise the bar with each swing.

Clearly, the people in the hot seat have been able to recognise the like minded amongst the wanna-be's and then build a team that will deliver the kind of exellence across the whole spectrum of requirements of an oscar winning product. To acheive that you have to hit all the bases (script, animation,actors etc)... simultaneously ... and then babada bing.... Oscar comes a calling. Wall E, for instance, could have been a dreadful flop like so many other 'robot' movies, but the fact that heart was injected into it in the right places and at the right level, elevated it above the crowd. That couldn't have happened if the writing wasn't spot on, or the CG was a little lacklustre, or the concept was a little off the mark.
I actually think that Pixar has given themselves enough breathing space between themselves and their nearest competators, to have a flop, but I don't actually think they would release anything that might have the remotest chance of dropping the ball... I think they'd tinker till it was to their exacting standards. And that right there is what makes them better... They followed Walts example ( whether by coinkydink or design) of having the best of the best doing the work and then allowing them enough space to create magic.

Thats my 20 cents anyway...

Lisa. -/

[KeithS]

This may be a stupid question but...what is it that makes Pixar films stand out?

Some good answers from Lisa and Anthony, and I'd like to add one more thing.

Their stories are very original - they don't have to play on pop culture jokes or the modern day cynicism that is so prevalent in the Dreamworks movies. I'm sure that the contemporary cynicism and jokes will date the Dreamworks movies, whereas the Pixar films will still seem fresh to people watching them for the first time 20, 30, 50 years from now. This is the same quality that a lot of the Disney animated features have.