Jump to content

Pixar's Inside Out


Jay
 Share

Recommended Posts

Pixar has released a still and plot description for Inside Out

fvabpcymwtwdntl8uho7.jpg

Growing up can be a bumpy road, and it's no exception for Riley, who is uprooted from her Midwest life when her father starts a new job in San Francisco. Like all of us, Riley is guided by her emotions – Joy (Amy Poehler), Fear (Bill Hader), Anger (Lewis Black), Disgust (Mindy Kaling) and Sadness (Phyllis Smith). The emotions live in Headquarters, the control center inside Riley's mind, where they help advise her through everyday life. As Riley and her emotions struggle to adjust to a new life in San Francisco, turmoil ensues in Headquarters. Although Joy, Riley's main and most important emotion, tries to keep things positive, the emotions conflict on how best to navigate a new city, house and school.

http://io9.com/heres-what-we-know-about-pixars-next-movie-set-inside-1582104347

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they still doing the dinosaur film this year?

Pixar had been releasing one film per year since 2006 (Cars, Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up, Toy Story 3, Cars 2, Brave, Monsters U) and the plan was for that to continue, with Good Dinosaur in May 2014 and both Inside Out (June) and Finding Dory (November) in 2015. However, The director and producer of The Good Dinosaur left the project, and Pixar shuffled things around, moving The Good Dinosaur to Dory's November 2015 spot, and moving Dory to June 2016, leaving 2014 bereft of a Pixar film for the first time since 2005.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far, Pixar has had a pretty amazing run of well received films and wonderful scores. I seem it fair to give them the benefit of the doubt.

That Pixar died with Cars 2. What we gave now is a watered-down, Disney-fied Pixar that might create some what entertaining flicks now and then. Toy Story 3 was the last film of the studio's glory days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, Brave was great!

Agreed. Not their best, but there's certainly nothing wrong with it either. And Lasseter has done great things at Disney, too.

I still haven't seen Cars 2, no interest.

I'll see it someday. I liked the first one.

I also have yet to see Monsters University. I already have the Blu-ray of that at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brave was meh, closer to a DreamWorks pic than a Pixar one. Monsters University was entertaining, but again, both films aren't even close to their greats like Finding Nemo, Toy Story, etc.

There was a time when DreamWorks couldn't hold a candle to whatever picture came from Pixar. Now its all fair game, and you can expect mediocrity from both studios and can expect better from the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it has a nice giacchino score that fits the film very well!

Indeed. And the theme is pretty cool :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last animated film I saw was Toy Story 3

I don't plan on seeing another one

Not even The Wind Rises?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned, Pixar died quite a bit with Joe Ranft. Toy Story, Bug's Life, Cars, Wall-E; all these were his ideas.

Up to me was its last truly "Pixar" film. It's also one of the few Giacchino scores that I actually enjoyed.

People, Cars 2 is better than Cars, (that's not saying much, though)

What blasphemy is this!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Pixar died with Cars 2. What we gave now is a watered-down, Disney-fied Pixar that might create some what entertaining flicks now and then. Toy Story 3 was the last film of the studio's glory days.

I hate it when people automatically asociate Disney with blandness. When Pixar was good is because they were taking the classic Disney approach (the one before the stupid Renassaince) to the modern world, something that Disney completely forgot how to do. 101 Dalmatians and Jungle Book are the two most modern Disney films and they still feel quite contemporary. Pixar is that, is modern. The Renassaince -except Lion King- is completely stuck in the non-descript medieval fantasy world and why Disney is still trying to do that is beyond me -apart from monetary reasons of course. When are people going to look back beyond the 90's? It's like they have completely forgotten that Pinocchio is thousands of years better than Beauty and the Beast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far, Pixar has had a pretty amazing run of well received films and wonderful scores. I seem it fair to give them the benefit of the doubt.

That Pixar died with Cars 2. What we gave now is a watered-down, Disney-fied Pixar that might create some what entertaining flicks now and then. Toy Story 3 was the last film of the studio's glory days.

I can't quite dismiss Pixar out of hand just yet. In one sense, it's too bad that neither Cars 2 nor Monsters University were as ambitious as the Toy Storys and seemed to have been primarily made to guarantee box-office and sell merchandise instead. They previously had a reputation for not franchising their properties too easily and they've long since blown that, but it also means that it's down to the original material to prove to me whether or not the dream factory really is out of ideas with this current streak. Brave, while perhaps a step or two down from their highest standards, was still the most interesting of their last three offerings and not incidentally their only original, so I'm curious to see if Inside Out and The Good Dinosaur will be a return to form or a disappointment. If it's the latter, well, maybe then we can start talking about golden ages and glory days...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Pixar died with Cars 2. What we gave now is a watered-down, Disney-fied Pixar that might create some what entertaining flicks now and then. Toy Story 3 was the last film of the studio's glory days.

I hate it when people automatically asociate Disney with blandness. When Pixar was good is because they were taking the classic Disney approach (the one before the stupid Renassaince) to the modern world, something that Disney completely forgot how to do. 101 Dalmatians and Jungle Book are the two most modern Disney films and they still feel quite contemporary. Pixar is that, is modern. The Renassaince -except Lion King- is completely stuck in the non-descript medieval fantasy world and why Disney is still trying to do that is beyond me -apart from monetary reasons of course. When are people going to look back beyond the 90's? It's like they have completely forgotten that Pinocchio is thousands of years better than Beauty and the Beast.

Right, I think Disney came up because I was pinning the blandness mostly on John Lasseter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate it when people automatically asociate Disney with blandness. When Pixar was good is because they were taking the classic Disney approach (the one before the stupid Renassaince) to the modern world, something that Disney completely forgot how to do. 101 Dalmatians and Jungle Book are the two most modern Disney films and they still feel quite contemporary. Pixar is that, is modern.

I read a very interesting book about Disney (Walt) by Neal Gabler that describes how Disney felt that he lost his mojo after WW2 begun. He wasn't happy with PINOCCHIO, either, due to an untested and chaotic way of assigning different parts, not characters to animation teams. Though he pressed for innovation in the technical and storytelling department all the time, his influence on later movies was relatively small compared to SNOW WHITE and FANTASIA - by the time of CINDERELLA and ALICE he was knee-deep in developing Disneyland and never looked back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a very interesting book about Disney (Walt) by Neal Gabler that describes how Disney felt that he lost his mojo after WW2 begun. He wasn't happy with PINOCCHIO, either, due to an untested and chaotic way of assigning different parts, not characters to animation teams. Though he pressed for innovation in the technical and storytelling department all the time, his influence on later movies was relatively small compared to SNOW WHITE and FANTASIA - by the time of CINDERELLA and ALICE he was knee-deep in developing Disneyland and never looked back.

Yeah, you can see his lost a lot of interest in the medium after Sleeping Beauty. But you're right, WW2 affected his box-office greatly. After years and years of developing Bambi, the most ambitious-looking animated film so far -and in my opinion it still is- it bombed. Apparently he was quite frustrated at how the more ambitious pictures kept failing at the box-office and with Sleeping Beauty they realized it was the last time they could do something like that. After that, the Xerox process was invented to make the movies cheaper, and it's quite a leap of difference between Sleeping Beauty and 101 Dalmatians -although I love how the movies of that era look, the scratchy drawings feel more artistic and personal- but Walt absolutely hated how the films looked with Xerox. By the time Sword in the Stone was in production, his full atention was in the parks. He only regained some interest when he made the production of Jungle Book start from scratch, and I like to think that somehow it shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Renassaince -except Lion King- is completely stuck in the non-descript medieval fantasy world and why Disney is still trying to do that is beyond me -apart from monetary reasons of course. When are people going to look back beyond the 90's?

Enchanted is "modern", though perhaps that doesn't count. But the underrated Princess and the Frog is certainly more contemporary and quasi-realistic than the average Disney fairy tale.

Recently (beginning with Enchanted I guess) they've focused more on subverting their own cliches to a bigger and bigger extent. Which also worked out nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true, Princess and the Frog tries to be more contemporary but tries too damn hard to be a 90's Disney movie. Despite some major script problems, the animation is absolutely fantastic. Probably the high-peak of traditional animation till this point.

Enjoyed Tangled quite a bit, but still haven't seen Frozen. Something doesn't call me much into watching it, but eventually I will to see if it deserves the fuzz it got. Wreck-it Ralph I really enjoyed, too. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea but it just clicked for me. The ending is beautiful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen every Pixar film and I think they took a huge dip in quality with Cars 2 and Brave.

Brave was good, but really didn't offer anything particularly original or special, storywise. (Although I love Doyle's score)

Cars 2 marked the point where selling merchandise was too much to resist, over making a film that people really wanted to see. Lasseter being co-director is a bad sign - suggesting the film had problems. And if what was released wasn't very good, how bad must it have been before? The storytelling is all over the place and lacks any particularly interesting characters.

I'm sure I read somewhere that The Good Dinosaur had problems with its last act, and that a new director was fixing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I hate it when people automatically asociate Disney with blandness. When Pixar was good is because they were taking the classic Disney approach (the one before the stupid Renassaince) to the modern world, something that Disney completely forgot how to do. 101 Dalmatians and Jungle Book are the two most modern Disney films and they still feel quite contemporary. Pixar is that, is modern. The Renassaince -except Lion King- is completely stuck in the non-descript medieval fantasy world and why Disney is still trying to do that is beyond me -apart from monetary reasons of course. When are people going to look back beyond the 90's? It's like they have completely forgotten that Pinocchio is thousands of years better than Beauty and the Beast.

Disney also did Atlantis and Lilo and Stitch, both of which I found quite modern in their own respects. The directors picked the time period for Atlantis purposely (1914) because it was that time in history where it was the "golden age of exploration." And I'm personally glad the director chose to set Lilo and Stitch in Hawaii instead of where it was originally supposed to take place (Kansas). Modern stories can still have that sense of originality that Disney films can deliver with the right decisons in the studio's upper echelons.

As far as Pinocchio is concerned, Disney was using its most advanced technology at the time to portray the story. The same was the case for Beauty and the Beast, so you would have to elaborate on how "Pinocchio is thousands of years better than Beauty and the Beast." Just for curiosity's sake.

But I do agree; the studio needs to regain some ground in more "modern" stories than just sticking to the magical, medieval fairy-tale fare that's been dominating their film canon as of late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Is this different because it says "Disney and Pixar" rather than Disney Pixar? Looks more like a Pixar film to me after that trailer, seeing the family at the table rather than just those dreamworks'y coloured characters.

??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First point, isn't it usually Disney Pixar. Ie it's made by Pixar Studios which is owned by Disney. This one is 'Disney and Pixar' as if a team from Disney (ie the one that made Planes) is collaborating with Pixar.

OK, gotcha.

Second point, those initial screenshots didn't look particularly great to me, looked like a Dreamworks film. But seeing those people sitting at the table makes it actually look like a Pixar Animation.

You think Dreamworks movies don't look great? I think they look fine, on the same level as Pixar. Honestly, I can't tell the difference between a Dreamworks and a Pixar movie, unless I'm told what it is.

I don't know what in that particular shot immediately makes you think of Pixar. It just look like a generic 3D animated movie shot to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is something unique in the pixar films.

Dreamworks, bluesky and whatever other studios you can truly spot a difference. Its probably in art design and polished finish...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pixar's animation quality has always been far superior to Dreamworks, but Dreamworks has been catching up (HTTYD 2 looked great).

The emotions here look like very Dreamworks-like though....

Pixar stories were also almost always very special. But that was before Cars 2. Now they're either on the same plane as Dreamworks or worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pixar stories were also almost always very special. But that was before Cars 2. Now they're either on the same plane as Dreamworks or worse.

I prefer Cars 2 to the previous year's Toy Story 3. At least Cars 2 knew what it was (a fun, lighthearted adventure movie) and ran with it. Toy Story 3 felt like it had 10 different writers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pixar stories were also almost always very special. But that was before Cars 2. Now they're either on the same plane as Dreamworks or worse.

I prefer Cars 2 to the previous year's Toy Story 3. At least Cars 2 knew what it was (a fun, lighthearted adventure movie) and ran with it. Toy Story 3 felt like it had 10 different writers.

:blink: You're the first person I've ever heard have that opinion!

Most people I know considering Cars 2 to be easily the worst Pixar film. Shit, I still haven't even seen it!

And most people I know think Toy Story 3 was good, and roughly as good as the first two. Sure, it's probably the worst of the 3 Toy Storys, but it wasn't a drastic dip in quality from the first two at all. I was surprised by how good it was (because I was expecting it to be a needless money grab without much merit).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toy Story 3 just feels really sloppy to me. The humor is noticeably more immature (much more bodily fluid humor), the tonal shifts are egregious, and the overall theme was already covered satisfyingly in Toy Story 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pixar and Dreamworks are like the Medal Of Honor and Call Of Duty franchises to me. Sure, there might be a few subtle differences, but at the end of the day, they're pretty much the same thing!

Agreed, they're both basically mimicking the Disney-house style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.