Pixar, do good movies come out in bunches or do they alternate?

[Scalenex]

Pixar has made some especially good movies. They made Cars and Cars 2. They also made some middle of the road movies which were okay.

Without going into details Inside Out was a stand-out awesome movie. So good at pulling at heart strings it made Up feel like a Vin Diesel movie by comparison.

This worries me. Usually mediocre subpar Pixar movies border the good ones but they had one good streak (Monsters Inc, Finding Nemo, then The Incredibles).

Will the Good Dinosaur be good or bad? Does Inside Out show that Pixar is on a role or did they pull their good people to do that and put the second stringers on the next one (since they are normally working on multiple movies simultaneously. As the foremost Lizardmen community, it is important that dinosaurs be well represented in the media.

Then it's going to be at least 50% sequels by volume with sequels to Toy Story 3, Finding Nemo, and The incredibles in the pipeline. This makes me unhappy. Toy Story 2 is the only sequel Pixar made that I liked.

 

[n810]

 

[Scalenex]

By that standard, almost any cartoon not based 100% on humans (which is pretty uncommon in western animation) would qualify. Brave doesn't work because Scotland doesn't have feelings, it's people do and that was accepted already. But as the second to last part of a tirade it's largely ignored.

Heck, most of our fluff pieces ask "What if LIzardmen had feelings?"

 

[n810]

^ (just something funny I ran across on Facebook, and yea I agree it doesn't hold true with brave)

PSSH... Lizards don't have feeling (ok maybe skinks do).

 

[Slanputin]

PSSH... Lizards don't have feeling (ok maybe skinks do).

PSSSHT yourself. Every Saurus has a heart, they just hide it deep under a mask of duty and stoicism. Poor Saurus, they want to be loved just like everyone else

In regards to the original question, I feel it's a problem with every studio (animation or otherwise) once it expands. The initial core was made by small group of talented people, as the number of employees increase so does the variance in the level of skill and talent. This will be represented in the films made. Additionally, when nurturing new talent it's likely the films they're involved in won't be to the same level as those with greater numbers of stalwart employees under it. I'm not saying Pixar has problems in the talent they employ, however there will be a larger distribution of skill as they employ more people which reflects on film quality.
The obvious factor here which I've not addressed are the corporate decisions in what films they think audiences want/will produce decent revenue/what the creative studio actually wants to do; even if Pixar creates a mediocre film it's likely to draw in a profit.

 

[Lord Grok Of Xillaqua]

I've certainly noticed an alternating trend of great and average Pixar movies. It started after Up! where Toy Story 3 was an amazing conclusion to a film series I originally doubted would have worked in less creative hands....then I saw Cars 2, Brave and Monsters University and had to wonder what happened? Cars 2 was just a mess of ideas and genres without settling for any of them by film's end (that and i didn't find most of the jokes funny), Brave felt like two different movies with very different themes smashed together (& it reeked of traditional Disney storytelling than Pixar's) & MU felt utterly pointless, telling a story that I felt didn't really need to be told.

So, I'm certain there will be fluxes in the quality of Pixar films in the future, but I still firmly believe they are the best company right now in making entertaining animated movies. After all, after great films like Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Cars, Ratatouille, Wall-E and Up! all IN A ROW, the gravy train had to slow at some point.

As for the new Inside Out & Good Dinosaur films, i'll wait til i see them to pass judgement upon them.

 

[Slanputin]

Cars didn't excite me when I watched it, and it was the first time I thought Pixar was losing its touch. Brave only confirmed that - I really liked the ideas behind it, but it just wasn't a cohesive experience in the end.

 

[Lord Grok Of Xillaqua]

Cars didn't excite me when I watched it, and was the first time I thought Picardy was losing its touch. Brave only confirmed that - I really liked the ideas behind it, but it just wasn't a cohesive experience in the end.

True, Cars was never a favorite of mine, but Cars 2 was just a failure in story and execution. Pixar's only successful sequels (IMO) were the Toy Story ones mainly based on the characters and stories growing up with the original audiences it was first presented to, adding a personal attachment that was never present in the Cars series of films.

In truth, I don't believe Pixar really should do sequels to their films since most of them stand the test of time BECAUSE they were individual stories and not trilogies/series trying to set up more ideas/characters than was originally needed. That's why i dread the idea of "Finding Dory", because it really comes across as unnecessary, since the theme of familial reconciliation and identity crisis' (via Dory, Nemo, and his dad) was effectively conveyed in the original "Finding Nemo" 12 years ago.

 

[Hyperborean]

I enjoy most Pixar movies and fully intend on seeing Inside Out when I get the chance. But something about the Good Dinosaur trailer struck me as kind of lazy? Its more than likely just the trailer not the whole movie so we will wait and see.

But I concur, big studios are going to go through their up and down periods but with the upcoming sequel influx with Pixar, it just rubs me the wrong way. Like Cars 2 and MU were nothing fabulous. I may not have been a fan of the first Cars but hey it had its moments!