Some early reviews of Onward, which got out mere weeks before its theatrical bow, haven’t been so glowing. Some writers have expressed disappointment over the fact that it wasn’t up to “Pixar standards”. Even the blurb on the almighty Rotten Tomatoes, predictably, reads “It may suffer in comparison to Pixar’s classics”. Naturally, I wanted to talk about that, since the film is already here and ultimately has gotten pretty positive critical reception for the most part…
Ever since the release of the Emeryville-based studio’s Brave in 2012, I’ve frustratedly disagreed with this whole “Pixar standards” thing. This whole idea that every movie of theirs has to be this 15-out-of-10 super-perfect masterpiece in order to be considered a worthy film.
Why can’t we just like a “good” Pixar film without having to jab “it’s not up to their other films, though”? Let’s just excise that from the vocabulary, especially some 9 years after the disastrously-received Cars 2 came out. I’ve been asking for this ad nauseum for such a long while.
With the release of Onward, a film that was largely produced after the departure of former Pixar Chief Creative Officer John Lasseter, it becomes more apparent to me… I think we should look at Pixar’s films as films by their individual directors/writers/teams… Not as “Pixar’s films.”
I know, this is a shocking concept.
I look at Onward as director Dan Scanlon’s Onward, animated and produced at Pixar. Same with the upcoming Soul. Pete Docter’s Soul. Same with last year’s Toy Story 4. Josh Cooley’s Toy Story 4… And so on, and so forth…
What films set those very lofty “Pixar standards” anyways?
Well, there’s the three Toy Story films. The fourth one – critically acclaimed but rather divisive throughout the Internet – is kind of up in the air at this point so I won’t include it right now. The first two Toy Story movies were directed by John Lasseter. Lee Unkrich – an editor on the first Toy Story – served as “co-director” on Toy Story 2, and directed Toy Story 3 all by himself. The studio’s 4th feature, Monsters, Inc., arguably comes next in the line-up of “Pixar standards” Pixar films. It’s Pete Docter’s feature directorial debut, which Lee Unkrich also “co-directed” alongside Simpsons mainstay David Silverman. Finding Nemo comes next, that was Andrew Stanton’s feature directorial debut. Guess who co-directed it? Lee Unkrich. Then comes The Incredibles, directed (and written) by Brad Bird, who had previously directed Simpsons episodes and later The Iron Giant at Warner Bros. Animation. Then there’s Ratatouille, also directed by Bird, a revamp of a failed project by Geri’s Game director Jan Pinkava. Not the first to-be director to be shunted aside for a veteran, for one Ash Brannon got shuffled off of Toy Story 2. WALL-E follows Ratatouille, it’s an Andrew Stanton film. Up follows WALL-E, it’s a Pete Docter film.
The films that DON’T meet “Pixar standards”? I’ll start with Brave, which was going to be Brenda Chapman’s film until John Lasseter fired her and brought in Mark Andrews to finish it. It’s often debated whether the “good” parts of the film were Brenda’s or not, given that Brave is a very woman-centric story and given that she has far more experience than her replacement. Monsters University, the prequel to Monsters, Inc., was directed by Dan Scanlon, who had been given the film after the previous director (long rumored to be Doug Sweetland) walked. Docter and Unkrich only served as executive producers on the prequel, with no Silverman in sight. (The original Monsters, Inc. was his only Pixar film.) The Good Dinosaur, the studio’s first money-losing endeavor, was to be veteran Bob Peterson’s project, but Lasseter took him off of it and handed it to co-director Peter Sohn; the film is a complete restart of Peterson’s project. Aren’t I forgetting one? Yes, I know, the Cars movies. Those dreaded Cars movies… The most contested of the Pixar bunch… Those are strangely complicated to talk about in this context because the first Cars film was largely the work of the late Joe Ranft and an animation veteran named Jorgen Klubien (he was the one who pitched the project, to begin with); John Lasseter ended up taking directorial credit for the film. Ranft died during post-production, Klubien was fired well before it entered production. Lasseter also took over the much-disliked sequel halfway through its production, it was to be long-time animation producer Brad Lewis’ directorial debut. Cars 3 was directed by newcomer Brian Fee, with seemingly no hassle, and in some circles it’s considered the best of the trilogy. A Bug’s Life could fit this “criteria”, too. That was also a Lasseter movie, co-directed by Andrew Stanton, and it was Pixar’s 2nd ever feature film.
You see the discrepancy here? It becomes clear to me that the Pixar films that “disappoint” – barring any sequels – are the ones not directed by Pete Docter, Andrew Stanton, Brad Bird, and Lee Unkrich. You’re essentially saying that Dan Scanlon’s new movie, or anyone else’s Pixar movie for that matter, doesn’t live up to the films of Docter, Stanton, Bird, and Unkrich. Four directors who aren’t Dan Scanlon. If we were doing this with live-action directors, it would sound even more ridiculous. You wouldn’t measure the latest film from a relative newcomer to the works of Christopher Nolan, Edgar Wright, Guillermo del Toro, and Martin Scorsese.
Interestingly, two of these renowned filmmakers went into live-action. Brad Bird took on the fourth installment of an established franchise and hit big, with Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. For context, the first three Mission: Impossible movies were regarded as a mixed bag. The first film, directed by Brian de Palma, was generally well-received. The same goes for the third film, directed by J.J. Abrams. The second M:I – directed by John Woo, of all people – was a critical miss, likely because the studio heads compromised the film, infamously locking Woo out of the editing room during post. Bird’s sophomore live-action effort, Tomorrowland, didn’t fare so well critically and commercially. Now, folks instantly placed the blame on the film’s co-writer Damon Lindelof (it’s always been “cool” to not like him or his work); to me, if you had issues with Tomorrowland, then BOTH of them are the reason why. It isn’t as simple as “Brad the visionary was held back by that hack Damon Lindelof.” Also, Tomorrowland is an original story based on imagery and ideas of THE Tomorrowland, the section of Disneyland and Walt Disney World’s Magic Kingdom. It is not an entry in a movie franchise. It was Lindelof’s project for about a year before Bird took the helm, but it is very much Bird’s film too.
Andrew Stanton’s sole live-action feature, John Carter, also got mixed reviews and bombed horribly at the box office (mostly due to Disney’s absolute mishandling of it). This was also not a franchise entry, instead it was the first-ever theatrical feature film based on Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Barsoom novels. (Interestingly, the first-ever movie based on the property was mockbuster central The Asylum’s A Princess Of Mars, unsurprisingly a direct-to-DVD affair.) The popular consensus was “Bird moved into live-action fine with Ghost Protocol, but Stanton had trouble.” John Carter was indeed a troubled production, maybe moving from two animated features to an overbudget live-action/CG spectacle wasn’t easy for Stanton, whose later live-action work was TV stuff. Maybe he had issues adapting pre-existing source material? After all, all Pixar movies are original stories not based on any pre-existing IP. Maybe it’s because he didn’t have established characters and aesthetics on his side. Maybe he had issues adapting a script that was written by him, Pixar buddy Mark Andrews, and author Michael Chabon? One could argue that the Pixar “Brain Trust” could’ve helped him make it a great movie, but does it really matter? Maybe Stanton, or any director for that matter, just isn’t going to hit a home run each time out. The same applies to Bird and Tomorrowland.
Notice how Bird and Stanton’s least successful works were live-action feature films? They make for an easy scapegoat. Similarly, Finding Dory and Incredibles 2 didn’t quite get the seal of approval all across the board. I guess them being “unnecessary” sequels is an excuse? With this in mind, maybe people like “old Pixar”? But that doesn’t add up, for Docter’s Inside Out and Unkrich’s Coco were praised to the moon and back… As it stands, I think this whole “It doesn’t live up to Pixar standards” saw basically translates to “It’s not a Pixar original directed by Docter, Stanton, Bird, or Unkrich.”
It all goes to show that the long-running model of American feature animation has successfully made folks think that these individual films all belong to one mold, or even a “series” or “franchise”. It’s probably why some of these folks write off the entirety of DreamWorks’ library, as if everything they do is Shrek or whatever. (Interestingly, some have unfavorably compared Onward‘s modern fantasy setting to the Shrek franchise.) Heck, why did someone out there even come up with a unifying “Pixar Theory”? Because Pixar successfully gets you to think it all belongs to one entity, emphasized by a mascot: An anthropomorphic desk lamp. Much like Disney’s own Mickey Mouse. The way things were run at Disney in the beginning set this template, really. Walt Disney was the glue that unified the strengths of his crew’s work, he spearheaded most of his animated features. You ever notice how the ones from that period that aren’t as beloved (i.e. The Sword in the Stone) are the ones he wasn’t overtly involved with?
Walt Disney was one in a million, though. His influence had lead to generations of “visionaries”, the kind of person who thinks they are the unquestioned mastermind behind it all. John Lasseter is very much that, hence him being called “the next Walt Disney” time and time again until he was ousted. Lasseter had such a stronghold on everything for over a decade at both Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios, as most of the films were tailored to meet his singular vision. Visually, they all followed a house style. If you notice, a lot of the “lesser” Pixar movies were made *after* he assumed all of his top positions, and were directed by people who weren’t quite in his esteemed “Brain Trust” circle. Pete Docter – now the CCO of the studio – enjoyed free rein on Up and Inside Out, Brad Bird got through Ratatouille just fine, Andrew Stanton got to do what he wanted with WALL-E, Lee Unkrich was left to his own devices on Coco. They all got rave critical reception. Brenda Chapman, Brad Lewis, even a veteran like Bob Peterson, et al… They weren’t so lucky. Instead of the Brain Trust being there for advice and help, somebody seemed to have too much control. Lasseter ran Disney Animation in very much the same way, with a “Story Trust”. (Sorry Disney Animation, no brains for you.) You start to see re-use of what he liked a lot; buddy comedy plots and twist villains and whatnot. Looking at his era of Disney animated features not too long ago, I pointed out how something like Bolt wasn’t “Pixar-esque” like some claim it is, but that it has elements that Lasseter previously used in Pixar movies. After all, Pixar didn’t exactly invent the things they’re known for.
This is why, in my opinion, we need more animation executives like Leon Schlesinger. Who was Leon Schlesinger, you may ask? Oh, only the long-time producer of the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies cartoons made by the Warner Bros. cartoon studio up until his passing in 1949. Schlesinger didn’t really know much about animation, and preferred to leave the folks at Termite Terrace alone. Basically, the likes of Frank Tashlin and Bob McKimson and Chuck Jones made the pictures the way they wanted, so long as these pictures made money. And what do you know? A lot of the Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies shorts are some of the greatest cartoons in the history of animation. Those guys figured it all out, the guy on top basically said “Do whatever, just stay within budget.” For a modern equivalent, there’s Netflix. This sort of “leave you to it” approach is why Netflix looks to succeed with animation, they’re essentially curating animated films and TV shows, not having them all live up to a certain style or standard. Klaus wasn’t really like a lot of features being made today on the mainstream circuit, and the upcoming likes of The Willoughbys, Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio, Over the Moon, and such all look to do their own thing as well.
So the “worthy” Pixar films are the ones directed by the long-time veteran directors, and the ones not directed by such veterans are the “disappointing” ones? This is why I can’t look at Pixar’s filmography as a “whole”, because to knock the work of these budding directors in such a manner is unfair. Take Dan Scanlon for example. Monsters University was by all means a pretty well-reviewed movie, but it also uses a lot of elements that people loved in Monsters, Inc, so it makes sense that it satisfied quite a few people. Prior to this prequel, Scanlon’s work was mainly in animating and storyboarding. He has one writing credit, for a Cars DVD-exclusive short called Mater and the Ghostlight. All of this excepting his 2009 independent effort Tracy… Think of graduating from your previous work in animation, you get to direct a prequel to a beloved film, and then your own original animated film… Only for some gaggles of folks to say “Oh, well your movie is a letdown because it’s not as good as this movie over here.” Ouch? Might as well tell a first-time director of an indie or major studio picture that he/she fell short because their film wasn’t on the level of all the great Edgar Wright movies, all the great Christopher Nolan films, all the great Wes Anderson films, or any set of films by some acclaimed modern director. Why would you do that?
I feel like people do this with Pixar because of the brand name, but nowadays, more so than ever before, I want to look past that brand. The hopping lamp preceding the movie is just that, an animated logo sequence. A name. An indicator that the feature I’m going to watch will at least feature really eye-popping visuals, and will likely be of solid quality. I extend the same to Disney Animation, to Blue Sky, to DreamWorks, to Illumination, to Sony Pictures Animation even. While Pixar’s movies do meet one particular standard (in that they have to be family-friendly enough), I feel the individual films have to speak for themselves more so than the whole body of work. This is also why I’ve slowly done away with full-on rankings of Disney animated features. I had said a year ago that I had felt kinda bad ranking films made by Walt Disney alongside films NOT made by Walt Disney, even if they’re from the same studio and share the guy’s name. It feels like a disservice, honestly. Why should I measure the work of, say, Byron Howard or Don Hall’s against Walt *effin’* Disney? That’s not a slight at all, their work needs to be viewed for what it is. Many animation studios go through different leaders, just look at DreamWorks! Why lump it all into one? These aren’t bands with the same 3-6 members present on every studio album, these are production houses full of hundreds, and the who’s who often changes! Sometimes, one director does exactly one film for the studio, then heads out.
If Pete Docter’s Soul gets the higher accolades later this year, it will not be surprising… It’ll just show that Pete Docter is an established and very respected director, and that most people really adore his works. After his film bows the next string of Pixar films look to be from first-timers or relative rookies. Cars 3 director Brian Fee returns sometime soon with an all-original project, Domee Shi – director of the short Bao – is supposed to direct a feature, maybe Bob Peterson will take another crack at directing and hopefully not get removed again (probably not as likely since Lasseter and Ed Catmull have been long gone), who knows what other directors are coming up. It had been reported that the next seven Pixar features, Onward included, are originals, so… We shall see.
Whatever I might end up thinking of Onward, I’m not going to criticize it for what it is not, should I have any issues with the movie. It is not a Docter, Stanton, Bird, or Unkrich film, and if I have issues with it, I’m not going to knock it because of that. If I have a problem with the film, it’ll be because of what’s in the film itself, NOT the fact that it isn’t a film made by four generally-revered directors. Or in simple terms… I’m going to take the film on its OWN TERMS…