Cars

I loved it. So did my then-five-year-old grandson, Nathan. Of course, we had two reasons to think he would. First, he's enjoyed everything he ever saw by Pixar (just like his grandpa). And second, he likes anything about cars. They're his favorite toys, and he's always talking about the great cars he's going to drive when he grows up.

Anyway, I'm a big fan of Cars. It's a classic hero story, full of adversity, romance, etc., with heart-warming moments all over the place. Pixar's animation is terrific, of course, but more than that -- unlike a lot of others, they haven't forgotten that the purpose of all those great production values is to tell a story. Like the classic Disney, they're big on story values, and that's what makes them great.

Welcome to the group!

Quack, Don

Thanks for the welcome!
WOW! My son's name is Nathan too!! He's a big CARS fan too. We collect the diecasts and keep them carded, except for a few duplicates he plays with. I spend alot of time online posting about the movie, but to prevent hijacking or something, I won't post the site. Pixar's movies are the best.......so detailed and the way they leave little Easter eggs in each of them is just great.....never know what you'll see!! I'd be more than happy to share all the fun little tidbits and info about Cars here if anyone is interested and/or the webmaster is game for it. :)

I think Don will disagree, but I think that Pixar saved Disney animation.

Until Toy Story, the "house of mouse" really hadn't been doing much innovative work, then after Toy Story the "house of mouse" animators came  through with movies like Lion King. (Having said this, I bet my time line is absolutely wrong.)

And, when Eisner's successor, and, Jobs, had their falling out every other studio was standing in line to become the new distributor for Pixar. Until Pixar and Disney made peace, and, Pixar became an independent company under the Disney umbrella. and, the head of Pixar's animators became the head of Disney animation.

Chuck, you're right. I disagree. Not entirely -- Pixar would be an asset anywhere, and Disney sure did a lot of tired old stuff (The Fox & the Hound, e.g.) before it came along. But The Little Mermaid came before Toy Story, and that, if you ask me, is what started Disney on the road to recovery. Besides, by the '90s the wave of the future in Disney animation was TV half-hours. Nightmare Ned, for example, was as innovative as anything anybody else was doing.

CBL, you're welcome for the welcome. By "hijacking", are you referring to what Archive.org euphemistically calls "rehosting" and decent people (as opposed to those at Archive, which is a den of thieves) refer to by its proper name, "plagiarism"?

If so, it's certainly a vexing problem -- I could keep my blog going for weeks just on plagiarism stories! I hate the no-talent creeps who can't make content of their own, so they steal it. Why, there's a guy right now, running a fairly prominent toon site, who steals "Today in Toons" every day, stores it for a year, then regurgitates it, word-for-word, when the date comes around again, and claims credit. (It's taken me more than 20 years to assemble my date file.)

But you don't have to let it chase you off the Internet. Don't bother complaining to the thief. It'll be an uphill battle to convince him he's even doing wrong. (His Mommy and Daddy apparently didn't teach him he's not supposed to take other people's toys without permission.) But complain to the company hosting his site. They're usually fairly sensitive to accusations of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (Which, by the way, protects your writing from the moment the words appear on your screen.)

Be polite -- while they're legally liable, they're not the ones who did anything to you. Include your full name, the location of both the original and the copy, an assertion that you're the owner of the material and therefore have standing to sue if necessary (you don't have to threaten directly -- that's implied), and a statement to the effect that you didn't authorize it. Also, tell them you stand behind what you say, to the extent of making yourself liable for perjury if it isn't true.

They'll take a a couple of days to look into the matter, then usually make the thief take it down.

It's a lot like swatting flies. Good luck!

Quack, Don

I had a feeling that my time line was wrong. And, movies like Little Mermaid-adapted from the Hans Christen Andersen retelling of a Danish folk legend, certainly were innovative both for the animation-I think these were the first, best use of computer-aided animation (not CGI,) and for their stories.

And, then came the "Broadway" shows, adapted from these movies, which I read are innovative in their own way.

I haven't been to Broadway since 1968, when I saw Cabaret with its original cast. So the fact that Disney movies have been adapted into stage plays is only of academic interest to me.

But the '90s were a time of renewed vigor for animation, not just at tired ol' Disney but also in TV, where it finally shook itself loose from the stifling influence of Parent Action Groups. I just disagree that it was Pixar, specifically, that sparked the renaissance.

But Cars sure was a good movie, wasn't it? I have such fond memories of taking Nathan to see it, I'm going to take him to Speed Racer this weekend.

Quack, Don

uh,Don-

In admitting that my time line was wrong, I'm taking back my statement that Pixar was the primary reason for the revival of animated features, Disney, and, elsewhere.

But I am saying that Disney's use of computer aided animation is the key. Especially for some scenes in features like Lion King, such as the stampede. While it probably could have been done using other methods. The detail, the lifelike definition, that Disney achieved using
computers, may not have been done any other way.

As for "Broadway" like productions, I have not seen any of them myself either, I was saying that from what I've read they are innovative in the way they have adapted Little Mermaid, and, Lion King. (And, successfully financially as well.)

Hoping that the Speed Racer live action movie is better written than the new animated series.
 
BTW; what did you think of Iron Man?  Since Marvel stopped just licensing rights, and, started taking an active role in the movies based on their characters, their "batting average" has been very good, the only failures among features using their "mainstream" characters, was Elektra, which like Catwoman, took the character so far off field, I never watched it, and, Ang Lee's Hulk (though a lot better than Elektra.)  I see that  Marvel has announced an Iron Man sequel, plus features based on Thor, Captain America, and, surprisingly, Ant Man. Now if DC can get some the features based on their other characters out of development, I think a certain free lance Disney comic writer com Toonpediast might be busy revising/updating at lot of his postings.

"CBL, you're welcome for the welcome. By "hijacking", are you referring to what Archive.org euphemistically calls "rehosting" and decent people (as opposed to those at Archive, which is a den of thieves) refer to by its proper name, "plagiarism"?"

Kinda. I don't want to "hijack" this site with an invitation to another site. Very annoying and tacky when others do that so I refrain from posting them. :)

Chuck, you probably have a good point about computer-aided animation techniques playing a large role in the renaissance of Disney. But ultimately, it's human creativity, not the tools they use, that makes the difference. I now use a word processor instead of a typewriter, just like practically every other writer in the 21st century; and while it's made the flow of words a lot easier, it hasn't made my writing noticeably better.

Still, when the mechanical parts of the process take less attention (no more carriage returns or pausing to stick fresh sheets of paper in), the creativity flows better, and fewer interruptions for donkey work does have an effect. But the human factor has a bigger one. The detail, lifelike definition, etc. are nice, but they're surface gloss. At the core, the stories and how the movies are constructed have improved, making all the difference.

And CBL, good point, and thanks. But links are the lifeblood of the Internet, so as long as the "Back" buttons work, I'm not going to worry about  people taking a moment to check out other stuff.

Quack, Don

Oh, and about Iron Man -- I haven't seen it, and, like the other superhero movies of recent years, don't plan to until I can do so without putting on my shoes. I'm afraid I'm not such a big fan anymore that I'll make a big trip (i.e., one that takes me outside the house, where I spend most of my time sitting in front of the computer) to see them right away, when if I bide my time, they'll come to me.

But you sure are right about the need to update articles. I ought to get on that. Real Soon Now.

Quack, Don