Prognosticating Pixar: Is the moment of "story comes first" gone?

"Story comes first."  It's a simple concept that has been the defining force behind the greatest critical and financial run in Hollywood history.  Not one of the greatest, but unquestionably the greatest.  Other studios, directors, actors, and other artists have had comparable runs of financial success and others have had similar critical praise, but no one has ever had both at the same level as Pixar Animation Studios.  From 1995 to 2010, Pixar produced 11 films, all of which were runaway hits at the box-office and 10 of which were among the most critically-acclaimed films of their year of release (only 2006's "Cars" had to live with just being "mostly well reviewed").  What was it that made Pixar so different from the other animated movie producers?  Sure, Pixar movies look amazing, but so do the films made by DreamWorks and Disney.  Pixar films make sure there's plenty of humor for adults and children, but that seems to be the sole goal of every other animation studio anymore.  No, Pixar got where they were because of those three simple words....."story comes first."

John Lasseter, the creative head of Pixar and now the head of animation at Disney as well, has emphatically stated Pixar's dedication to story and character from the beginning.  The mantra "story comes first" pops up on almost every Pixar "making-of" video, from conception to animation to publicity.  This is how they built their kingdom and how they became the best in the industry.

In January of 2006, something happened that worried fans of the studio however.  Disney purchased Pixar for $7.4 billion.  Why would that worry fans?  Aren't Disney and Pixar the perfect team?  After all, Disney had distributed every Pixar film up to that point, it seemed like it would be a natural fit to the casual observer, but Pixar fans were worried that Disney's influence would now be more aggressively visible in Pixar's output, which was a bit upsetting,  considering that Disney had been playing catch-up in the animation game for the first half of the decade, a genre that they used to not only lead, but monopolized.

Disney made the very wise business decision of making Lasseter the head of Disney animation as part of the deal.  This helped calm the Pixar fan base a little bit.  It seemed that their goal wasn't to make Pixar more "Disney-fied" but to infuse Disney with a little Pixar magic.

"Cars" was the first film to be released after the deal, but it would be unfair to consider it an accurate gauge of Disney's influence on Pixar's films because it was mostly completed at the beginning of 2006.  However, that didn't stop the tongues from wagging after the reviews started coming out.  The critics didn't consider it a flop, but they also didn't consider it to be the home-run classic that the previous Pixar films had been.  Many began questioning the amount that Disney paid for Pixar, wondering if it had been a terrible business deal for the company.  By the end of the summer, their tunes had changed.....

You see, while "Cars" wasn't a critical darling, or even a "Finding Nemo"-sized smash, it made over $6 BILLION dollars in merchandising.  Let that number sink in for a little bit.  $6 billion dollars.  In fact, the "Cars" brand-name is the 2nd most successful film-based merchandising name of all-time.  It's 2nd only to "Star Wars", which invented movie merchandising as we now know it.  So, while the movie itself didn't win Pixar any big awards, it earned Disney BIG money.  Therefore, Disney was OK to let Pixar do what they wanted for a little while.

"Ratatouille" remains my favorite Pixar film.  I love that little rat.

That decision, to leave Pixar alone and let them do their thing, lead to four of the most acclaimed animated features of all-time:  "Ratatouille", "WALL-E", "Up", and "Toy Story 3".  All four of these movies received across-the-board raves from film critics and each of them broke the $200 million mark at the box-office.  This is a pretty amazing accomplishment considering that "Ratatouille" is about rats in the kitchen, "WALL-E" contains virtually no dialogue for the first half of the film, and "Up" is an action-comedy starring an 80-year-old with a bad hip and a chubby little kid.  None of these three movies had stories that screamed "BOX OFFICE SMASH", but each of them had intricately created stories nurtured by truly gifted and passionate artists.

"Toy Story 3" was, for me, the make or break movie.  It was the first film that wasn't in development at the time of the Pixar purchase by Disney.  It would be the first movie to truly show whether there was upper-management influence on the films at Pixar.  Heck, even it's existence pointed to there being at least a little influence, because Disney had been clear from the time of the purchase that they wanted to see more sequels from the studio.  However, the great thing is that Pixar waited to revisit Woody, Buzz, and the rest of the gang until they had the right story, and they were right to do that.  "Toy Story 3" became the top box-office film of 2010 and the most critically-acclaimed wide release of the year.

So why am I worried about the future of the company?  It's only been two years since "TS3" blew away audiences and skeptics alike.  What could've happened in the interim?

Even Mater's big heart couldn't pump an emotional core into this one.

Well, first off, "Cars 2" happened.  Let me state from the outset that I don't think "Cars 2" is a bad movie.  I do, however, think that it's WAY below the previously set standards of the company, and I think that is because it's the first that didn't follow the Pixar motto:  "Story comes first."

"Cars 2" didn't get produced because the people at Pixar were passionate about the characters and had figured out a wonderful way to incorporate them into a new adventure.  "Cars 2" was produced because "Cars" sold $6 billion dollars in merchandise.  Even though Pixar did a great job making the movie as visually exciting and as humorous as it is, it still comes off as the worlds most elaborate toy commercial.  You don't get the feeling that the creative force at Pixar said, "I have a great idea for a 'Cars' sequel!"  You get the feeling an executive said, "How many more Mater toys could we sell if he were rocket powered and armed?"

Of course, the critics, for the most part, savaged "Cars 2".  It remains the only Pixar film to get a "rotten" score on the critic compilation website Rottentomatoes.com.   Even the best reviews (including my own) could only say that if it were from any other studio, it would be a passable entertainment, but coming from Pixar came as a major disappointment.

I held out hope though, because the next Pixar film wasn't a sequel.  In fact, it wasn't the type of film anyone had seen from Pixar.  It was a princess film set in medieval Scottland called "Brave."  I was also excited because it was directed by Brenda Chapman, an incredibly talented animator and story-teller.  The thought of her getting to tell a female-centric story with all of the talent and passion at Pixar was more than enough to wipe out the memory of "Cars 2" related disappointment.

Surely, this Scottish lass would save the day, but could she save the studio?

Then Chapman was rather suddenly replaced as director by Mark Andrews (she still retains a co-director credit in the final film).  This didn't necessarily sound any alarms.  It wasn't the first time the reins of direction had switched mid-production at Pixar.  If anything, it indicated that the creative force wanted to make sure it was as good a film as it could be.  In fact, it wasn't until earlier this spring, when interviews from the filmmakers started to come out as part of the "Brave" publicity push that I started to have my doubts.  

In the interviews, Chapman talked about how "Brave", like all of the great Pixar films, started out of personal experience.  It was based out of experiences as a daughter and a mother.  It was fueled by her passion for creating a story that brought the mother/daughter relationship to the center, something that had never really been done in animation.  Conversely, Andrews talked about how he was brought on to bring more action and humor to the movie because there was concern it wouldn't play with little boys.  It was really the first time I'd heard someone from Pixar say that they made major creative changes in a story, not because of the story itself, but because it wouldn't play with a certain demographic.  Did they back away from "Ratatouille" because the idea of rats in the kitchen is just kinda icky?  No, in spite of the fact that I actually know people that still won't watch it because of that very ickiness.  Did they make WALL-E a wise-talking robot because they were worried little boys wouldn't have the attention span to watch a mechanical Charlie Chaplin?  No, and the movie was all the better for it.  Little boys and little girls love good stories, just like the rest of us.

When I finally saw "Brave" earlier this summer, my worries were simultaneously eased and confirmed.  Chapman's movie was clearly still there.  Merida's relationship with her mother is very much the heart of the story.  However, Andrews' movie was there too.  There were odd-fitting pop-culture references (including a joke about the witch's cauldron doubling as an answering machine, which is ripped right out of "Shrek 2") multiple brawls, and a surprising amount of jokes centered around seen and implied nudity.  I feel that "Brave" is two-thirds one of Pixar's best movies and one-third one of their weakest.  I really think that if they had let Chapman finish her film and gave Andrews an entirely different movie to work on, they would've really had something.  Andrews is also a very talented writer and filmmaker, but I don't think his sensibilities were best served on this deeply personal story from Chapman.

That having been said, two-thirds of a great Pixar movie is still a pretty darn good movie.  There's no doubt in my mind I will enjoy "Brave" for years to come.  I also don't doubt that I will watch it with a twinge of sadness for what it might have been.

Then, a few weeks ago, I heard a bit of news that made my Pixar-loving heart cry a little bit.  They announced "Finding Nemo 2".  First off, this is a story that was beautifully told, but it ended.  There was nothing about that story that was left unresolved.  There's not an area of that story that begs to be revisited.  It's perfect as is.  However, it's not even the existence of a sequel that concerned me the most.  It's how it came to be.

You see, "Finding Nemo" was directed by Andrew Stanton, one of the original "supah-genuises" at Pixar.  He worked on "Toy Story" and "A Bug's Life".  He also directed "WALL-E".  He is the man.  However, after "WALL-E", he wanted to work on another passion project of his.  He decided to make his first live-action motion picture for Walt Disney studios.  He wanted to take a shot at bringing Edgar Rice Burroughs' "John Carter of Mars" to the big screen.  His film "John Carter" premiered earlier this spring to mixed reviews and a disastrous box-office. (I still recommend it though.  It's a pretty fun movie.)  He still wanted to make more live-action films, to which Disney said, "Sure....if you make 'Finding Nemo 2' first".  

Now, I'm sure that Stanton will bring all of his considerable talent to the table.  There's no doubt in my mind that he will work as hard as he can to create a wonderful film.  The thing that worries me is that old Pixar mantra....."Story comes first."  The decision to make a "Finding Nemo 2" or a "Monsters University" (coming next summer to a theater near you!) should not be made by a studio executive.  Leave those kinds of fiscally fueled decisions to the people working on another "Ice Age" movie or the newest adventures of the "Madagascar" penguins.  A Pixar sequel should be made because a terrific idea sprung from one of the gifted artists employed by the studio.  It should be made because a character had room to grow at the end of the first film and a great story idea of how to perpetuate that growth had sprouted from the creative playground/working environment of Pixar's famous headquarters.  A Pixar movie should never come into existence as matter of career bartering.

In order to explain my final area of concern regarding the future of Pixar, I need to explain my theory of "movie moments."  I believe that every truly great film has at least one "moment".  A moment that surprises you or takes your breath a way.  A moment that makes you move to the edge of your seat just so you can immerse yourself in it.  A moment when the story, the visual, the music, the dialogue (or lack thereof), the character development all come together in such a perfect way, that you realize you're no longer watching a movie, you're witnessing the creation of a lasting work of art.  Every classic film has at least one of these surprising, beguiling moments.  Furthermore, every Pixar movie had at least one of these moments....until 2011.

Would you say we've had a plethora of great Pixar moments?

Unsurprisingly, "Cars 2" was never really concerned with providing moments that elevated it to high art.  At its best, "Cars 2" is amusing, at its worst, it's crass commercialism.  However, I'm disappointed to say that "Brave", a movie that should have been filled with such moments, never had one, at least not for me.  As much as I enjoyed it, there was never a moment that surprised me, there was never an image that took my breath away, there was never a line of dialogue that connected me to the characters in a deeply emotional way.  Again, I think there might have been had Brenda Chapman been allowed to see her vision through from beginning to end, but as is, there simply are no "classic" moments.

In full disclosure, I do not right this blog as a casual observer.  I'm writing it from a room in my house affectionately known as "Pixarland".  There is a large sign above the window that says "Welcome to Pixarland."  Original theatrical posters from Pixar films are framed and make a sort of wallpaper around the entire room.  At the side of my desk hangs a talking "Flik" room alarm that Ruth bought for me while we were dating.  There are two curio cabinets to my left filled with Pixar toys and memorabilia.  Atop the two cabinets are talking WALL-E and Dug toys and a plethora of Pixar-based "Little Golden Books".  Behind me is a WALL-E clock and home-made placards that outline different facts about every single Pixar movie.   I am a Pixar superfan.  However, I also write this blog as a lover of film in general and the place that Pixar has carved out for itself in the history of film is a pretty impressive one.  It is, as such a fan, that I am concerned about the future of Pixar.  It is my sincere hope that Disney realizes that the thing that makes Pixar unique and, as a result, successful, is its utter lack of concern for focus groups and demographics.  It is my sincere hope that the creative forces at Pixar remember to put more trust in their artists than in toy sales.  It is my most sincere hope that recent films and behind the scenes developments at the studio are merely a hiccup and that the dedication to the idea that "story comes first" will re-establish itself at Pixar, a studio that has proven itself time and time again as a haven for those that believe movies can be great art and great entertainments at the same time.  Here's hoping......