Big Joel - 2017-07-28
Pixar is obsessed with its characters worrying about the future, worrying that a day will come when they're no longer useful. These is a deep dive analysis of why this is, particularly in Up, Toy Story, and Wall-E Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/bigjoel Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/biggestjoel
I love how he ignores the second car movie
I say even in Cars 2, the message still applies, Mater feeling obsolete and loosing his friend.
I don’t what people say, I don’t if it objectively bad, Cars 2 is amazing.
@Shnobbs THAT WAS HIS MISTAKE
Glad the Cars 2 wasn't in this topic. Doesn't even show the main subject.
Just like the Studio themselves
There is no Cars 2 in Ba Sing Se
All dreamworks movies are about not having to conform to what people expect of you.
@HuxleyCreature all of Laika is good or great I maan their weakest movie is Missing link and that's still pretty good.
Yeah, if Pixar is about feelings, DreamWorks is about rebellion.
Oh my god that’s right
@David Hong Lol this is painfully accurate
That's one of the most baseline and shallow ways to analyze Pixar I've ever heard.
Disney is the optimist
Pixar is the realist
Both are necessary in life.
Exactly. You watch a Disney movie when you feel down on your luck and need someone to give you a hug and tell you not to give up. You watch a Pixar movie to understand where you are right now, and what to do about it.
Totally! This made me think of a quote from modern family:
“There are dreamers and there are realists in this world. You'd think the dreamers would find the dreamers and the realists would find the realists, but more often than not the opposite is true. You see, the dreamers need the realists to keep them from soaring too close to the sun. And the realists, well without the dreamers, they might not ever get off the ground.” -Cam, s03e09 modern family
I'd Argue Dreamworks is the Optimist.
Well, Pixar's latest film "Coco" kinda follows both a Pixar AND a Disney formula. It's about a boy who is not allowed to play music, but he wants to (Disney), and about the passed family members who wants to be remembered (Pixar).
@Carmenifold THIS, but also, Migel's goal of being a musician didn't exactly get fulfilled. Yes, the ban on music in his family ended, but Migel also learned to let go of the role he built up in his head for his life as a superstar musician one day and put value on the family he'd be resenting and working together with them.
Mixing Two Different Formula, DOESN’T WORK
I agree, but the main through line is Miguel fighting to bring back music which to his family is obsolete.
you watch that scene where héctor plays juanita and tell me that movie ain't about the fear of becoming obsolete
I said it was BOTH a Disney and Pixar formula. BOTH
While Disney is fantastic of establishing a stable narrative from well know stories, Pixar creates new ones, with such tenderness and intelligence. Yes, I like Disney, but the desert island test? Pixar all the way
what test?
Sebastien-Loik Ntsangou-Kanda Pixar is owned by Disney but people that did inside out aren’t the same people who made Moana, they have different set of animators and writers.
@Jack Keenan The island test basically goes like this: "If you were in a desert island and could only take with you a few movies, would they be from Disney or Pixar?"
Zootopia is probably the best Disney original animated movie that has come out in a decade and it was an ORIGINAL story for a change.
disney has more variety and more films doe...give me them...pixar is limited
What I really like about this video is that, where most analysis of Pixar focuses on how it manages to appeal to an adult audience, or how it finds emotional resonance with people of all ages, this focuses squarely on how Pixar hits home for children, the ostensible target audience of their work. Not to say Pixar isn't great for us older folk. Pixar has been, with a few exceptions, awesome for just about anyone who watches. But it's an angle that I feel has been underrepresented, and this video makes a great case for it.
Edgar Nackenson it seems that Pixar's fear of obsolescence theme is more relevant to adults. Now that I'm grown up I don't feel like I have a whole new world to explore. I'm there already and I'm happy in my role.
This man, edgar, he is my brother. I am proud of him for getting top comment.
Yeah, the case of moving especially as a kid is a lot harder to process than as an adult. For one, its not so much the choice of the kid as it is the parents, which isn't meant to sound bad, just kids don't really have the responsibility of taking care of stuff like that. I know especially as a kid the feeling of obsoleteness in terms of going away from a place I had grown used to and moving to a place I had no prior emotional or social connections to. I think also think with adults, they can at least understand and know what they're going through. When you're a kid, you're going through those emotions for the first time, at least making sense of them can be overwhelming.
The inside out one sounds like grasping at Straws: especially when you consider that Riley is growing out of her childhood. Joy no longer holds the same roll she used to. Bingbong and a lot of childhood memories are becoming obsolete. It's there, but you focused on the control panel
Inside Out has so many layers. To view it as one dimension in that the control panel is obsolete is wrong, yes. However, to overlook what that old control panel represents is also wrong. The old control panel is her childhood. You can make just as strong of a point that her childhood is obsolete, but it would be so long winded. His theory is far more prominent and easy to explain in other films, such as up and toy story. Inside out is a rarity in that it hosts multiple intertwining story lines, much like great films such as Dunkirk, Pulp Fiction and Snatch. They all share the multiple story line narrative but none, i don't think anyway, are as tight as between Joy's story and Riley's. It is a film that is so clever before you even look at the delivery of the film. It is a winner straight of the bat, the perfect elevator pitch. So complex yet easy to watch that to begin to analyse on any kind of deeper level is a huge, huge task. I think that's why he chose to go for something simpler and that got his point across for this essay in a much more punctual way.
Omg, yes. I mean why the control panel? Joy is getting obsolete and you focused on a goddamn control panel?!
Oh wow, this made me cry. (These movies all make me cry, too, haha.) But those themes you talked about resonate with me immensely. I don't think they're just themes in children's lives, but for all of us throughout our lives. And they're such worthwhile themes to explore over and over again. Terrific analysis!
Shut yo sensitive ass up
the Up soundtrack probably didn't help haha.....
....
;_;
"These movies all make me cry haha".
WTF, "haha" is not how people cry. That's how people laugh. You heartless robot.
I thought I was the only one - thanks!
saaame
So... Pixar tells the story of Zuko and Disney tells the story of Katara?
Aang is Blue Sky Studios.
Toph is 20th Century Fox.
Calico C who??
Nooo, Sokka is a goofy - sometimes low- character who ended up to be more than the heavy joking guy, grew up and have greatness in him.
avatar the last airbender @Tarponpet
@WaxonWaxoff Sokka is Dreamworks because he was expected to be a third wheel. The lowest common denominator for humor. However, as he watched his friends grow and realized his own shortcomings, he grew into something unique himself. Still goofy, but he can carry himself now.
Aren't Disney and Pixar kinda like the saying:
Change what you can't accept and accept what you can't change.
Accepting something is like changing something within yourself, whereas changing what you can't accept is more like having an external influence.
Also all that obsolete talk reminds me of The impermanence of things, one of the three marks of existence in Buddhism.
Let's be honest : using Wall-E's soundtrack is the best idea in the world. It's such a masterpiece of a creation, perfectly completing the wholeness of Wall-E.
This is an exceptionally good theory. While I've seen many theories about how Pixar creates meaning in its films, I very rarely see it connected to the oft-forgotten underlying purpose: that Pixar is in essence making films for children. It certainly reshapes my understanding of the Pixar ouvear. I wonder if this dealing with obsolescence has any connection with Pixar as a company, perhaps as a bunch of guys using a new style of animation that no one could be sure would remain a force in movie making or was just a fad that would quickly become obsolete? Either way, nice job!
Yes! I had that same thought about their history as a company. It's even more interesting to look it at now, with Pixar 3D animation being the new and 2D animation becoming "obsolete"
this is really solid man
love your cartoons man
Wow very funny to see you talk to big joel
You mention Wreck it Ralph as one of the several Disney movies brought up in this video, and that Disney films genereally do not have the same focus on the theme of characters or things becoming obsolete, but of all the Disney movies mentioned here, that one that features that same theme the most. In Wreck it Ralph, Turbo, the main villain, his entire motivaiton was the fear of becoming obsolete, that's what drove him to escape his own game, and begin taking over other games as a virus in the arcade. Interesting how arguably the best example of this theme (character afraid of becoming obsolete) from Disney has said character being a villain, but in many of the Pixar films, this is the problem facing and often, motivating, the protagonist.
Yeah, I think you're right here. Disney films sometimes do have characters who are desperate to reclaim their former roles. Ariel's father wants to go back to having a dutiful, happy daughter. The beast wants to go back to being a prince. Maui wants to regain his former power and be thought of as a hero again. It is interesting that none of these characters are the protagonists of their films. They exist as a compliment to the protagonist, a protagonist who constantly strives for a new, better, different role.
The other interesting thing about "Wreck-It Ralph" is that the protagonist doesn't get what he wanted at the start of the film. Ralph goes back to his old job in his old game, albeit under very different, better circumstances. In that sense, "Wreck-It Ralph" might be the closest Walt Disney Animation has ever gotten to Pixar's sensibilities.
Sarr Cat also Fix it Felix the game is going down and all the people are afraid in not being. Therefore being afraid of not being know. Plus Ralph wants to be a good but by the end he figures out that being Bad does not mean you are a bad guy. Coming off that is that Wreak it Ralph is all about coming to understand that you will change but not in the way you want.
@Greg Elchert Wreck-It-Ralph always felt like the most Pixar-like Disney film to me, this is probably why
Some Pixar movies also portray those who fear being obsolete as the villains. In A Bug's Life Hopper fears becoming obsolete via losing power over the ants. In Monsters Inc the villains are afraid of their sources of energy, their purpose, becoming obsolete as kids are less and less scared, so they concoct their scheme to steal children and harvest energy from them directly. With Randall a lot of it is purely sadistic, but for Waternoose the motivation to "KIDNAP A THOUSAND CHILDREN" is based on fear and the deluded belief that change is bad and preserving the status quo is the greatest good.
Very insightful! You make some great points, and I admire your ability to see the big picture. We need more thoughtful commentary about animated storytelling here on YouTube - I would love to collaborate with you sometime!
thanks for watching, I'm not sure what you mean by collaborate, but your channel seems cool, so if u have any ideas, let me know.
Wait, you mean Up is longer than 15 minutes?
I just assumed those were closing credits I was sobbing over uncontrollably for the next several hours.
I think these two messages/themes not only don't contradict each other, but also thrive alongside each other. You're not powerless; there are things you can do to change your world and you should pursue your dreams because they can come true. But while you're not powerless you're also not all-powerful, and things are going to change and to happen outside of your control. And maybe not every dream will come true. But you'll still be okay. Because whether you're in a position to change your circumstances or not, a power you always have is to make a place, a role for yourself in what does happen.
Those two types of stories come together into one message about growing up and, really, life in general.
You could argue that Ralph in Wreck-it Ralph ends the movie happy in the role he was given instead of somwhere new. It's just that the people around him have learned to apreciate his role and he learns to accept himself and not pretend to be something he isn't. Just a thought.
I like Pixar movies more since Disney movies seem somewhat monotonous. Pixar makes its movies in a very wide spectrum and albeit in a relatively same format, they still make great movies Like UP, Wall-E, Cars, and more. I guess the base of why I love their movies is because I can relate to them, and I think a whole lot of other people can too, and that's what makes them so powerful.
I've always noticed how content and better I've felt with my life after watching a Pixar movie
Very interesting observation. I'm just realizing this actually explains something I've noticed a while ago regarding Disney and Pixar. I've long come to see Toy Story as a redemption story for Snow White's antagonist. They both have similar premises of a character in a position of prime learning that a new face on the scene stands to usurp them, to which they attempt to hijack this newcomer from taking their place and making them obsolete. The main difference is that Snow White focuses on the younger, wide-eyed character, and lets the audience experience coming into their own with this character, while Toy Story focuses on the the original top-dog, and lets the audience experience the feeling of being threatened with this character (followed by a redemption arc, of course, because American G movies tend not to do tragedy). This totally exhibits all the nuances in theme you just described. Interesting that you made sense of it.
Strangely enough, I actually recall a video which argues nearly the opposite of what you said - it claimed that Disney, particularly before its CGI movies, was against change and progress, whereas CGI films like Pixar supported them. It cited trends such as 2D-animated Disney movies often having a happy ending where things return to how they were before (such as the monarchies of Triton, the Sultan of Agrabah, and Mufasa being returned from the hands of a deviant usurper), whereas CGI movies such as Pixar movies more likely have a happy ending where things change and move on (see laughs replacing screams in Monsters Inc., for instance). I guess Disney does have a shade of bourgeois-ness which is a tad strange odd considering Disney's existence as an all-American company which one would expect to be totally for progress and growth. I guess one could, to borrow an apt phrase from Jack Saint, call Disney's canon White Roses with varying degrees of Red Paint. Though, that might be a bit of a questionable dismissal considering the obvious pro-progression trends you've demonstrated.
And really, this makes me wonder if A Bug's Life is the un-favourite for a lot of Pixar fans because it goes against this theme - it centres around an innovative protagonist who wishes to expand his role in life, and proceeds to do so. I guess that makes a lot of people see it as just a product of Pixar's early floundering to truly find its footing and take root into its proper niche, but its divergence is actually probably what makes me like it - most of the other Pixar movies of its time starred big, beefy heroes who versed wily gadgeteers threatening to push them into obsolesence with their tech. A Bug's Life's doing the opposite balanced Pixar's early canon out in a way I found nice. Plus, it's a bit nice to have a break from themes of helplessness, which could borderline on depressing if thought of too deeply - really, it's a bit ironic that one of A Bug's Life's most outstanding motifs was imagining a pebble as a seed; by the end of that story, all the protagonists proved themselves to be genuine seeds full of potential for growth which they exhibited throughout the story. Dot was able to spread her wings and fly, while Buzz was never so lucky. That's another theme of Pixar I'd love to hear you expand on - it's always made me kind of curious that I found Monsters' University to be much more frustrating, unsatisfying and borderline depressing than Toy Story, despite Buzz and Mike both ending up similarly learning they are incapable of achieving their goals. Maybe that's not how you see it, and maybe it's just a product of my age making me more critical of the newer movies, but it is something that would be interesting to ponder.
Woah, this quite very long... I only read the first two paragraphs, and yeah I agree with you about the Snow white redemption arc
Steve Jobs wanted to invest in Pixar so that generations of children would be accepting of obsolescence, which also happens to be the core business strategy of Apple Inc.
I watched this video essay shortly before giving Ratatouille a rewatch after a number of years and being able to develop a finer appreciation for the film (not to mention Brad Byrd's phenomenal work, as per usual.) My big thought while watching the film was, "Well this is Pixar, and it could be one of the few films where the character is looking for change rather than a force adjustment to it." But after thinking about it, I realized that every character within the film is the representation of Pixar's obsession, disregarding the main character. The main chef is fearful his position will be compromised, Linguini goes through so many hyperbolic scenarios to ensure his life remains constant and he is not put into uncomfortable situations, and almost every character has this same theme. An important aspect I've always appreciated about Pixar is their focus on side characters and those minor details. Obsolescence doesn't have to be the main story line, but Pixar will ensure it's utilized just about everywhere else. And it really is something to give props too, their attention to detail is and always has been impeccable.
While I find Disney and Pixar's storytelling methods to be equally good, Pixar films will most likely leave a bigger impact on children, as well as adults, because the fear of being obsolete and irrelevant is more universal and adds realism to their films, even ones that involve anthropomorphic cars, as well as the understanding that not all changes are evil, and sometimes there are things in life you can't control. It doesn't pander or talk down to an audience, not to say Disney does, but some of their films do display elements of retconning for that old happy ending. Then again, Disney has been around a lot longer than Pixar, so there's obviously going to be some dud movies.
I hate, and always have hated, Pixar films. They are boring. Really really really uninteresting. Maybe it's because I have asperger's, but I cannot project anything humane into the characters in pixar. They are toys! Or cars! They are things! I don't give a crap about some toy who worries if it will be useful in the future. It's a freaking toy. And the animation... People look creepy. Especially in toy story. Those people look freaky as f***. Dead eyes o.O
I did like the incredibles. One of my favorite movies of this genre. But that is disney/pixar collab so that might explain it... I'm actually really looking forward to the sequel.
I have always wondered what is with pixar, that I just can't bring myself to like any of their movies. Maybe it's because protagonist are mostly inanimate things?
I didn't like Up either, because the whole premise of the story is so cliché. Old man left alone, losing his house and all that. The adventure part wasn't really exciting either. Talking dogs were just stupid. Only interesting part was the antagonist, even tho his backstory was weird and questionable. How old is Munz? How the hell did he survived decades in the forest middle of nowhere. Doesn't make any sense. But he did make the movie a little bit interesting.
Well, the thing is, kids, especially at a young age, tend to connect more with toys, dolls or some other kind of inanimate object, cause they're still learning about the fundamentals of the real world, which can be a tough and confusing, and they're a lot more imaginative and expressive around those ages. I mean, chances are when you were a kid, you probably had an attachment to some object that you couldn't quite comprehend and now find it to be silly.
That's essentially what Pixar taps into in terms of environment, and in terms of writing, I don't think they're trying to say that toys, cars, monsters, etc. are people too, but rather trying to offer a different perspective on a universal topic/issue, like how Toy Story 3 and Inside Out tackle the issues of growing up, but from the point of view of toys and emotions, respectively, like how "they" would react to these certain situations, or what a superhero going through a mid-life crisis would look like, or what a monster going to college would be like. It's at least something to speculate about, then again, it doesn't always work, such as a movie starring anthropomorphic cars, which is just silly.
As for the animation, I think it only looks creepy when they try to make the people look too real. Pixar doesn't do that, which is one thing I admire about them. I do agree that the people in Toy Story look very odd, but to be fair, it was the first CGI animated movie and the technique itself was still evolving. They've come a long way since then.
I'm not trying to infringe on your opinions or anything, but I'll just say, Pixar films run more on emotional logic than, well, actual logic, and by this point, every possible story premise had been done before, hell the "toys coming to life" premise had been done many times before Toy Story. It's the unique ways in which Pixar chooses to tell theses stories that make them very memorable to both kids and adults. But if you already know that and still can't connect to them, that's fine, at least for me.
1717Dave Yeah I get it and I do understand why people love these movies. They are good movies, I am just unable to relate to them.
I don't really remember any of the toys I had when I was kid. Except the huge pink house made for barbies. But what I liked most about it was the fact that I could organize all the little items in it. It had a bathroom with bathtub, and with it came little mirror, brush and hairdryer and shelves to put them in. But I don't remember how I played with it with my barbie dolls. I guess I just stuck em in the bathtub and tried different clothing on them. I didn't ever have any dolls that had their own personalities. They were just pieces of plastic. When I played with my friends they always came up with the personalities.
Oh and I had a remote controlled car. I loved it. It was fun to just drive it, see what kinda terrain is good for it, trying to drive it through obstacles... Boys' toys were always way cooler :D
Nope, I have never worried about being useful at one point and then becoming obsolete. Maybe that's because I went from being a child, to a mentally ill teenager, to a physically ill adult and have, by society's standards, always been obsolete. Being a bisexual disabled woman, progress in general and particularly in my lifetime has been a unanimously good thing for me. I can't connect to being a middle aged man who's sad because other people are allowed to succeed.
well, I tend to like Pixar movies, but don't love them to the degree that many seem to. like I can appreciate them but ultimately they aren't as interesting to me as other things... although I'm not quite in a state of mind right now to unpack why they don't necessarily do it for me atm
The protagonist has something. Then loses it. Then wants to get it back. But get something new instead (Pixar)
In writing we call it Want vs Need. What the characters want form their motivations, it's the thing that makes them act. What the characters need is whatever brings their character arcs to a conclusion. These don't have to be the same thing, and making them different things is a neat trick for making the story feel less predictable and more poignant.
Disney does this as well: What Aladdin wants is to turn into an awesome prince so he can marry Jasmine. What he needs is to stop pretending he's something he's not and be true to himself, otherwise whatever life he has with Jasmine is a lie.
It's more that Pixar goes for this very consistently and uses the fear of growing obsolete to give the character very strong wants and emphasizing the character growth resulting in getting what they need.
@Fervidor yeah, This my outline when writing video game characters.
In some ways, this idea reminds me of the novelist Anne Tyler. Her most well-known book (which was adapted into a wonderful movie) was "The Accidental Tourist," which is (like all her books) about characters trapped into a single way of living, a single way of thinking, and a single way of doing things until something disruptive (usually a love interest, but not always) happens and makes them shift slightly. Her books are much more subtle in their shifts than Pixar characters, but she writes for a different audience. Great video!
Your Insideout argument was very weak. I think referencing obsolete memories would’ve made more sense. Thats the entire subplot of the imaginary friend.
Frank Egle calm down, Carl Fredricksen
@Frank Egle Umm............ whatch behind the scenes. It was a very personal story to Pete Docter. He said that the film was inspired by his daughter. Whe she was a kid she was upbeat all the time but as she got older she was more silent and distant. Also he said that he had to move from Minisoita to Demark and that was tough on him. Also they consulted actual child psycologists to make the movie. It was anything but lazy. Also she wasn't trying to be a brat she was just really sad from the move.
@Jascha Bull wow, i never thought of it that way. this really changed my view of Joy. thank you for this!!
Ye the imaginary friend and his inherent connection to Joy. The older the kid gets the more complex her emotions become, and bc of that Joy isn’t as influential or as important as she used to be
@Frank Egle I don't know, seemed sincere enough to me.
I think another way to look at the core differences is through the lens of the hero's journey. In a Disney film, there isn't really a refusal of the call. The characters want adventure from the beginning, like you said they want "more". The transformation is usually an external one like with Aladdin moving up in the social hierarchy. In Pixar the drama is the refusal of the call and characters are unwillingly in their situation. The transformation is also usually internal; at the end of Toy Story, Buzz is still there, but Woody is no longer threatened.
im starting to appreciate both sides more
but sometimes Disney can't let go of they're greatest hits and decided to continue the live action shtick, i wounder if Pixar is trying to say something to Disney in a way.
Dang. I haven’t realized that Disney animation is obsessed with their characters wanting more. Good observation.
That's absolutely right! Each one starts with a brief intro saying "everything has been one way until today", it's usually about someone average (like us),& they must learn. We learn with the characters & many of them relate to us by having real problems. In my opinion, Pixar teaches good life lessons through presenting these things& it's just beautiful.
Pretty decent video man. Keep up the good work.
Zentagon man+
An astute observation on his part.
I love these video essays. They're very smart and well thought out.
Really insightful. Exceptionally well said.
I think the values and differences with these two ways of story telling is what makes movies where Disney and Pixar work together really shine. For a recent example, look at Coco- Miguel wants more. He wants to be a musician, and at the end, he gets that, though it also comes with the message of the importance of family, as the movie is incredibly focused on loved ones becoming forgotten, or obsolete. The way that these two themes work together is truly beautiful, with the main character understanding things in a new way that maybe isn't what they wanted in the beginning, but also being able to achieve their dreams.
Ah now i see why alot more people enjoy pixar films
Even if they dont realize it
The studio that ushered in the 3D animation craze tells stories about obsolescence. How poetic.
God damn I love this video. I love the polarity it shows between both animation studios. In a way it's like a comparison between a realist and an optimist. I think this is one of your best yet. Keep it up!
“I think both stories have a reason to be there.”
^ This. It’s common for people to dismiss Disney’s empowerment and “wanting more” focus as vague and silly, but I don’t think it’s ever vague or silly. What each character wants is always well-defined and understandable.
Belle wants “adventure in the great wide somewhere,” more than the “provincial life” that confines her and and places social expectations on her that she doesn’t fit (“I want so much more than they have planned”). Ariel wants to be part of the human world and go out from under the thumb of her father’s strictures. Aladdin wants to be more than a “street rat” in the eyes of the people around him and wishes people would only “look closer” at who he really is. Quasimodo wants to get out from the walls of Notre Dame and be among the people of Paris “out there” and be accepted for who he is. Anna wants a better relationship with her suppressed, self-hating sister, Elsa, and to be outside the castle walls. Etc.
And I like your balanced discussion of Pixar’s “obsession” with obsolescence. Not that never changing is good, but that finding continued purpose is still possible when change comes. Woody wants to recover the status quo but ultimately has to learn to cope with Buzz being added to the mix and find a new way forward. Marlin wants to constantly protect Nemo by smothering him but learns that he can continue to be his father and trust Nemo as he grows up at the same time. Carl wants to fulfill the dream he never got to fulfill with Ellie when she died but finds his calling and continued purpose in a new way as a father figure to Russell.
Empowerment and finding one’s continued relevance are both themes all humans deal with.
It's interesting that this article came out before Coco was released. I've seen that film about 6 times now, and I think there's an interesting point to be made about Disney protagonists vs Pixar protagonists. The character of Miguel fits the archetype of a Disney protagonist. He is a young boy in a life he doesn't want to have, who dreams of something else. Meanwhile, Hector is the character who is fearful of becoming obsolete, as he is literally a dead man who is being forgotten. By putting these two characters together, we get to see how these two ideologies clash, and how both of them must work together to achieve their goals.
Wow. Really great breakdown of Disney and Pixar story philosophy. You definitely touched on it, but there's a meta narrative in there as well, such as how hard John Lasseter worked to bring forth 3D at Disney. As he saw the future in it. Even Brave Little Toaster, which he worked on, made heavy use of the 'going obsolete' theme. Also the idea that Disney never stops growing and getting more for itself is kinda interesting to think about.
There studio cultures are also similar from my understanding.
My friends and I had a debate a few weeks back on what is the true difference between disney and pixar narratively. I pointed out they should just combine as one company since their ips are shared, and people can barely distinguish who’s movies is who’s. But your video gave me a whole new perspective on Pixar’s/ Disney’s story structure and themes, and I realized why they ultimately are their own separate but shared companies. I loved that two sides of the same coin example ♥️
Very interesting and well thought-out comparisons. I like that you covered them both. I love them both, but still think Pixar are the master storytellers.
The way I see it, Disney is about making an imaginary childhood last forever, while Pixar is about the poignant, fleeting nature of the real thing.
This was really well done and analyzed. Great job.
I wonder, on kind of a meta level, how much this fixation on obsoletism started with the fact that Pixar made hand-drawn animation obsolete. Many of the people working on these movies loved that medium, had worked in it, and didn't intend for computer animation to become the only one that major studios used. But that happened, and it happened because of their early successes. That will always be part of Pixar's legacy and it seems likily that that fact fed into the focus on the obsolete just as much as being a counterpoint to Disney's themes did
You know, I never noticed that theme came up so much in PIXAR, but that would explain why I've liked them more consistently than Disney. For me, the stories seemed to resonate more and were very uplifting and encouraging, overall. Then again, I wasn't one of those "I can't wait to grow up!" kids. I didn't want to grow up and found it frightening. :')
Joel, this was an amazing video. I love these types of videos that look in depth when talking about movies and movie studios. You made a very valid argument and made me notice Pixar's similar plots along with Disney's. I look forward to watching more videos like this in the future. Good work 😀
thanks so much
This makes me think of how obvious it is that Brave (Pixar) and Wreck it Ralph (Disney) were conceived at one studio and developed at the other. in both films you can see influences of these two mentalities, a character wanting more in life but having to learn the hard way that what they were looking for is not what they truly needed. There is also a strong theme of obsolecence in Wreck it Ralph
Danjal Waziri - 2018-03-01
I actually saw most of the Pixar films as dealing with ADULT fear, not childhood anxiety. The feeling of being made obsolete without much control about it is somethig that adults face to an even greater extent than kids. Children may fear the rapid changes they get put through by seemingly uncaring adults, but adults really get hit hard by these changes: Economy, Job Loss, changing roles due to age (which are a mixture of biological changes and external societal norms)... To me most of the Pixar films deal with a version of these issues (at least in part). Woody in Toy Story 1 is basically afraid of losing his job, due to a restructuring of his workplace that he cannot control. The small town in Cars is hit heavy by changes in the economy. Carls life changes for the worse (at first) due to him getting older and society moving on without him. These are very real and understandable fears associated with adult life. Pixar to me does not so much address the fears of children, but attempts to prepare them for these things in a way they can understand and cope with.
Icybubba - 2019-03-23
@Ethan Ray Disney has made stuff like Wreck it Ralph, Big Hero 6, Lilo & Stitch, and of course The Lion King which all honestly feel like Pixar style movies. But of course they've also made stuff like Tangled and Frozen.
Chuck Batman - 2019-10-12
I think they can be doing both, the fears Pixar films present can apply to children as much as adults. However the way they are presented offers far more long-lasting emotional resonance than the arcs of most Disney films. Because the ideas they present and things they deal with are more mature, they hold more emotional value to adults and older adolescents. Some of their films are even more enjoyable as adults, such as The Incredibles. Not that the way Disney does storytelling doesn't have a purpose, but the way Pixar does it feels aimed to hit a wider audience than just children
Eden Land - 2019-12-02
Wow, well said
Coolfred - 2021-01-13
This is why pixar is so great. The stories can be enjoyed by both children and adults.
Adrian Åslund - 2021-08-03
Sure for alot of people that's probably true but I was very afraid of change and the process of becoming an adult as a kid. Of losing sympathy. And the acquiring of guilt. And the loss of genuine connections to people not based on sex or economics.