Skip to main content

There's No Such Thing as "Pixar Good" Part 2: The Sequel Years



--


Last time in this critical history of Pixar films, we discussed how even in Pixar’s golden age critics were stingier with their stars than retrospective praise would have you remember. Critics said movies like Finding Nemo and The Incredibles were "pretty good," but were hesitant to commit to anything more than that. But time has been very kind to the films of the first fifteen years of Pixar's reign, films whose reputations have reached the legendary proportions we recognize today. 

We're only fresh out of this most recent decade of Pixar movies, so it's difficult to ascertain how this next batch will age, but the early signs for this run of Pixar sequels are less promising than they were for their predecessors. While there was still a modicum of courtesy afforded to the most acclaimed animation studio in the West, critics during Pixar's decade of sequels will receive these films with more uncertainty and recall them with less enthusiasm. And who knows, these films might have fared better critically had they not started off on such a commercialized foot . . . 

THE SEQUEL YEARS

“Don’t tell the kids, but Santa Claus isn’t real and Pixar is fallible.” Such was Leah Rozen's pronouncement of Pixar's first critical misfire, Cars 2Other critics agreed with her assessment.

Thomas Caldwell (Cinema Autopsy):

“The storyline is convoluted, the action is unengaging and the jokes in the film never succeed in provoking much more than the occasional smirk and roll of the eyes. The results are resoundingly mild. Cars 2 is not only the weakest Pixar film to date, but it’s the first one that can be sadly dismissed as not particularly worth seeing.”

 

Nathan Rabin (Film A.V Club):

“It’s difficult to insert scatological humor into a film devoid of human bodily functions, but Cars 2 nevertheless manages to smuggle some in via Mater ‘leaking fluids’ and at one point ending up in a lavatory truck.”

 

But even Rozen could not have anticipated how her assessment of Cars 2 would prophesy the critical reception of not just this movie but animation's greatest champion as a whole for the next decade.

Pixar’s next act, Brave, was received favorably by comparison, but it was still chided for being overly juvenile compared to other Pixar films. The next summer launched Monsters University, which saw a similar step forward from its predecessor but also saw similar overall ambivalence. Richard Corliss said in his review for Time that the prequel was a “minor film with major charms,” but conceded that Pixar “now seems to be in its post-masterpiece era.” Dana Stevens (Slate) gave what is probably the kindest assessment of the movie, saying,

Monsters University doesn’t truck in that kind of rich, fairy-tale–like symbolic meaning—in essence, it’s a sports movie, a simple, inspirational story of monster friendship, teamwork, and pluck. I’m not sure I needed to revisit Mike and Sulley’s world 12 years later (or, looked at from their point of view, earlier). But once you find yourself whisked over the threshold, it’s a colorful, funny, charming place to spend an afternoon.”

 

Meanwhile Erik Kohn (Indie Wire) lamented


“The world-building approach puts the franchise ahead of the story — it’s like a Saturday morning cartoon spin-off. That shouldn’t come as a surprise by now. The outliers of Pixar’s legacy have become its new normals: Nearly everything about ‘Monsters University’ reeks of inoffensively average commercial entertainment.”

 

The public could permit a single slip-up. We could forgive Cars 2 because even Pixar must have bad days. But this uninterrupted sequence of mediocrity was just frustrating. 

Critics and audiences got their reprieve with 2015’s Inside Out, not only an original film helmed by Pixar veteran Pete Docter, but one wholly interested in the introspective questions classic Pixar was known for. Note how differently our friend Erik Kohn responded to this film compared to Monsters University:

“Once an ever-reliable source of sneakily mature dramas in kid-friendly cartoon guise, Pixar has stumbled in recent years, with nothing since 2010’s ‘Toy Story 3’ that fully epitomizes the studio’s compelling approach to layered storytelling. Thanks to ‘Up’ director Pete Docter, the company manages an overdue bounceback with ‘Inside Out,’ the most imaginative example of world-building since Docter’s own ‘Monsters Inc.’ . . .”

 

Inside Out premiered to what may have been the most unanimous praise any Pixar movie has ever known right out of the gate. There were still some questions of whether it was "Pixar Good." Peter Bradshaw (The Guardian) wrote for example, “It hasn’t anything as genuinely emotionally devastating as Up, or the subtlety and inspired subversion of Monsters Inc and the Toy Stories,” while still conceding “it is certainly a terrifically likeable, ebullient and seductive piece of entertainment, taken at full throttle.” But that critical ambivalence was significantly dialed down for Inside Out. Critics were just happy that Pixar was back to doing what it was best at.

The film owes some of this adoration to its highly conceptual premise, like candy for film critics.  But even more influential, I’d wager, was the public knowledge that this sort of film would be a rarity for Pixar in years to come. With Finding Dory, Cars 3, The Incredibles 2, and Toy Story 4 still on deck, critics were learning to not take original films for granted. (Original features The Good Dinosaur and Coco would also come out during this time frame, but we will cover their reception in the last section.) Roger Moore makes this connection explicit in his review when he says Inside Out “isn’t designed to sell toys, like much recent Pixar product. It isn’t an out-of-ideas sequel.” You just know this guy was bracing himself for what was coming next.

One of these things is not like the others

Faced with a phalanx of franchises, critics loyal to Pixar developed yet another template for reviewing these sequels, one that helped them reconcile Pixar's legacy of greatness with its newfound commercial gluttony. Let’s look at the introduction of Rob Carnevale’s review for The Incredibles 2 for Indie London as an example:

“It’s hard to believe that Pixar’s Incredibles is now 14 years old. But it remains one of the company’s greatest films.

“This belated sequel, while perhaps not as game-changing or original in this new age of superhero domination, is no less enjoyable. Indeed, it’s a blast. Returning writer-director Brad Bird has maintained the energy, the humour and the intelligence to ensure that this is on a par with Pixar’s Toy Story sequels rather than the more run-of-the-mill Cars or Monsters University follow-ups.”

 

Let’s highlight a few patterns within the reception of Pixar sequels.


First, the throwback to the original film. The original is a classic—the original has always been a classic. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this narrative, but this kind of rhetoric has the public forgetting that the voice of Zeus did not pierce through the heavens to declare that Nemo would join him on Mt. Olympus when his mortal conquests were accomplished. This will have significant impact on how the films we discuss in the next episode will be received.   

Second, the concession that the film isn’t quite as good as the Pixar brand would have you hope with the accompanying insistence that the film is still worthwhile. Maybe the movie isn't amazing, but does every Pixar movie have to be amazing? We'll return to that latter half, again, in the concluding episode of this series.

Third, the bolstering of the second point by comparing this sequel to other, lesser sequels. Sometimes the sequels are from other companies, sometimes they’re less successful sequels from Pixar itself, but there’s an insistence that Pixar even panhandles with more artistic integrity than other, lesser studios.

With this formula, most critics were able to persuade their readers, and themselves, that this train of sequels wasn’t so bad. These can’t just be cash-grabs. Pixar doesn’t do cash-grabs. There has to be something different about these sequels. Maybe we actually did want Toy Story 4 all along.



    
As a result, this barrage of sequels enjoyed mostly critical support upon their release. Even Cars 3 was deemed “better than Cars 2,” with every other post-2015 sequel scoring in the 90’s on Rotten Tomatoes. Alonzo Duralde (The Wrap) called Finding Dory “rousingly entertaining, with side-jokes and supporting characters that will take their place in the pantheon alongside the ‘Mine! Mine!’ seagulls and surfer-dude turtles.” Griffin Schiller (The Playlist) called Toy Story 4 a “much-needed epilogue to a story many thought to be complete, providing an even more fitting conclusion.”


    I have to imagine that some critics sincerely liked these sequels, and maybe still do. Even so, patterns suggest that many critics were willing to give the sequels a pass mostly out of denial. "Maybe Finding Dory isn't as good as Finding Nemo, but hey, it's not their fault that Finding Nemo was so good, right?"

It's especially revealing that the retrospective dialogue for these sequels is flipped from what we saw in the classic era. Out of the gate, Finding Nemo and Monsters Inc. were dubbed honest efforts but became “classics” with little time and distance. We saw the opposite trajectory with Finding Dory and Monsters University. It was almost like critics were developing a sort of coping mechanism, self-soothing themselves with assurances that "well, it could be worse," only to call out these sequels and their laziness next year when assessing today’s leftovers.

For some, the bubble burst right after leaving the theater, and critics couldn’t ignore how these sequels seemed “driven more by commercial exigencies than by vital creative impulses.” Todd McCarthy (Hollywood Reporter) wrote in his review for Finding Dory,

“Its heroine may suffer from short-term memory loss, but viewers with any memory at all will realize that Finding Dory falls rather short of its wondrous progenitor . . . its thematic preoccupation with ‘family’ is so narrow, and its sense of narrative invention is so limited compared to Finding Nemo, that impatience surpasses enjoyment well before the predictable climax.”

 

            Owen Gleiberman (Variety) similarly said of The Incredibles 2:

 

“Each story point hits us with its overly calculated ‘relevance.’ Bob’s awkwardness as a nurturer in the brave new world of dads-as-homemakers; Helen’s proud post-feminist advancement over her husband; the ominous threat of whatever comes through the computer screen — it’s all a bit too thought out, and maybe a tad behind the curve. In 'The Incredibles,' the thriller plot was the vehicle through which the Parrs discovered the meaning of using their powers: of being themselves. In 'Incredibles 2,' they save the day once more, but emotionally they’re just going through the motions.”

 

More frustrating than the mediocrity of any one of these sequels was that they all came on top of each other. The 2010's saw only four original films embedded between a Finding Nemo sequel, an Incredibles sequel, a Monsters Inc. prequel, two Toy Story sequels, and two Cars sequels. And despite the studio's insistence that this sequel barrage was all an artistic accident, and that the studio just happened to have a whole bunch of good ideas for sequels at the same time, the numbers were damning. In 2014 original Brave director, Brenda Chapman, even casually referred to Pixar as a sequel machine. 

The studio naturally deployed damage control during these years. A few weeks following the release of Finding Dory, Pixar started assuring audiences that there were no more sequels in production except those that had been announced (the public would still have to sit through Cars 3, The Incredibles 2, and Toy Story 4 before they made it out of the bog) and the studio spent the intervening time attempting to assuage unease about the company’s sequel addiction. From a 2015 interview with former Chief Creative Officer John Lasseter and President Jim Morris:

John Lasseter: “When any other company has a hit it madly starts developing a sequel to capitalise on it. We don’t. We only start developing a sequel when we have an idea that’s good enough.”

Jim Morris: “If you look at it we’re pretty pitiful at exploiting the possibility of sequels. Finding Dory is coming out 10 years after Finding Nemo! . . . We’re not conforming so well to the Hollywood sequel model.”

    Yup. It took thirteen years for them to come up with something so good as "Dory and Nemo's afternoon at the aquarium" ...     

A week before the release of Cars 3, Christopher Orr offered his own take on Pixar’s sequel obsession with his article for The Atlantic “How Pixar Lost its Way,” an article that lamented how "The painful verdict is all but indisputable: The golden era of Pixar is over." Like many others, Orr cast Disney in the role of Palpatine to Pixar’s Anakin Skywalker, and linked the sequel rise to Disney compelling its young apprentice to keep the properties relevant for theme park rides and other franchising development.

“Disney has played a central role in the marketing and merchandising of Pixar films since 1991. But when you become a division of the largest entertainment conglomerate in the history of the world, commercial opportunities multiply exponentially. . .”

 

“Pixar has promised that after the upcoming glut of sequels, the studio will focus on original features. But we’re grown-ups, and though the once inimitable studio has taught us to believe in renewal, it has also trained us in grief and loss. I’m not sure I dare to expect much more of what used to make Pixar Pixar: the idiosyncratic stories, the deep emotional resonance, the subtle themes that don’t easily translate into amusement-park rides.”


Luca, due Summer 2021 . . . hopefully

  W
e’ve only just poked our nose out from this forest of sequels, so it’s difficult to determine how earnest the studio is in their commitment to new stories. Still, between
Onward and Pixar’s next two films announced, Soul and Luca, original films appear to be the vision, at least for the time being. Maybe they just haven’t formally announced Inside Out: Bing-Bong’s Revenge.


Again, the dominating narrative around the Pixar sequels generally settles on The Walt Disney Company as the supervillains in this story, the corrupting agent that reduced Pixar into sequel territory, and I have mixed feelings about this assessment. The public's obsession with Disney's franchising, while certainly not without root or merit, has become sort of a catch-all for anything and everything wrong with Hollywood. Who needs to delve into the complexities of the cinematic landscape or the inner workings of Pixar specifically when Bob Iger's just within reach, right?

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
    Moreover, it's not just that these sequels existed, but that they were all below-average in ways that could be easily identified and articulated, and that is where Pixar should be expected to answer for its own shortcomings. Follow-ups can work if you are willing to put in the hard labor of finding creative new ways to test your characters, and there are few libraries with a stronger catalog than Pixar animation. Disney may have commissioned The Incredibles 2, but Pixar was the one who didn't bother to give Helen a proper character arc. Pixar just started to believe its own fanbase telling them they could do no wrong, that everything they touched turned to gold, and in the wake, the creativity started to leak.

This era would leave cracks on the window. Critics suddenly had new talking points in the conversation. Turns out that even the illustrious Pixar was susceptible to its own calculated cash harvests. Much in the same way the direct-to-video sequels poisoned the reputation of Walt Disney Animation (a point I argue extensively in my Treasure Planet essay), Pixar’s sequel obsession left stains on the brand. In the future we’ll see Pixar referred to as a “machine” and its films as “products.”

The frustrating thing is that this skepticism among critics will remain constant even as Pixar’s creative aspirations improve. The dismay Orr expresses in his piece will more foreshadow how critics respond to Pixar's original endeavors than the sequels that broke our trust with the studio in the first place. We’ll break into that in this series’ final episode: Modern Pixar.

      To Be Concluded ...


--

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

REVIEW: Wolf Man

     The thing about any figure as iconic as The Wolf Man is ... you already know how his story ends because there's only one way it can end. Much in the same way that any "King Kong" movie has to end with the ape falling off of the Empire State Building. Any other ending just feels incongruent. Grafted from some other story. The equation can only produce a single sum. As Maria Ouspenskaya warned us in the original Wolf Man, "So tears run to a predestined end."       I'll break the film critic's seal here a little and say that, if you love the Wolf Man figure, then you already know what happens to him at the end of Leigh Whannel's film, and you already basically know why.       But I don't for a second count that as a bad thing. Reinvention is easy. Doing your homework, that takes commitment. And Whannel's new film does its homework.     Here, our Wolf Man is Blake, a loving father living in the city with his daughter, Gi...

Bright Young Women: The Legacy of Ariel and The Little Mermaid

  I had an experience one summer at a church youth camp that I reflect on quite a bit. We were participating in a “Family Feud” style game between companies, and the question was on favorite Disney movies as voted on by participants in our camp. (No one asked for my input on this question. Yes, this still burns me.) I think the top spot was either for Tangled or The Lion King , but what struck me was that when someone proposed the answer of “The Little Mermaid,” the score revealed that not a single participant had listed it as their favorite Disney film.               On the one hand, this doesn’t really surprise me. In all my years of Disney fandom, I’ve observed that The Little Mermaid occupies this this very particular space in pop culture: The Little Mermaid is in a lot of people’s top 5s, but very few people identify it as their absolute favorite Disney film. This film’s immediate successors in the Disne...

Finding Nemo: The Thing About Film Criticism ...

       Film is a mysterious thing. It triggers emotional responses in the audience that are as surprising as they are all-encompassing. As a medium, film is capable of painting stunning vistas that feel like they could only come to life behind the silver screen, but many of the most arresting displays on film arise from scenes that are familiar, perhaps even mundanely so. It’s an artform built on rules and guidelines–young film students are probably familiar with principles like the rule of thirds or the Kuleshov effect–but someone tell me the rule that explains why a line like “We’ll always have Paris,” just levels you. There are parts of the film discussion that cannot be anticipated by a formula or a rulebook, and for that we should be grateful.         Arrival (2016)      But the thing about film–and especially film criticism–is that film critics are not soothsayers. Their means of divining the artistic merit of a movie are n...

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: Do Clementine and Joel Stay Together or Not?

                    Maybe. The answer is maybe.             Not wanting to be that guy who teases a definitive answer to a difficult question and forces you to read a ten-page essay only to cop-out with a non-committal excuse of an answer, I’m telling you up and front the answer is maybe. Though nations have long warred over this matter of great importance, the film itself does not answer once and for all whether or not Joel Barrish and Clementine Krychinzki find lasting happiness together at conclusion of the film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Min d. I cannot give a definitive answer as to whether Joel and Clementine’s love will last until the stars turn cold or just through the weekend. This essay cannot do that.             What this essay can do is explore the in-text evidence the film gives for either side t...

Investigating Nostalgia - Featuring "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and "Pokemon: Detective Pikachu"

The 1700’s and the age of exploration saw a massive swell of people leaving their homelands for an extended period or even for life. From this explosion of displacement emerged a new medical phenomenon. Travelers were diagnosed with excessive irritability, loss of productivity, and even hallucinations. The common denominator among those afflicted was an overwhelming homesickness. Swiss physician Johannes Hofer gave a name to this condition. The name combines the Latin words algos , meaning “pain” or “distress,” and nostos , meaning “homecoming,” to create the word nostalgia .  Appleton's Journal, 23 May 1874, describes the affliction: Sunset Boulevard (1950) “The nostalgic loses his gayety, his energy, and seeks isolation in order to give himself up to the one idea that pursues him, that of his country. He embellishes the memories attached to places where he was brought up, and creates an ideal world where his imagination revels with an obstinate persistence.” Contempora...

REVIEW: Turning Red

     It's really easy to overlook a film like Turning Red , a non-franchise entry from Pixar that reads like a cross between Teen Wolf and The Edge of Seventeen . Perhaps that's why Disney chose to ship this film directly to streaming while (as of now) the Buzz Lightyear origin story is still primed for theaters. But I'll save that conversation for another time.      It's really easy to overlook a film like Turning Red , but I really hope we don't. The film follows a thirteen year old girl who experiences the onset of an ancient family curse that transforms them into giant red pandas when they experience any high-volume emotion. This can turn studying for an algebra test or seeing her favorite boy band perform live into a very awkward experience. Thank goodness there's a family ritual that can lock away the beast for good.      But as Meilin learns to live with this quirk, it starts to feel less like a curse and more like a superpower. Is sh...

The Night of the Hunter: Redefining "Childlike Innocence"

The veneration of children as a reservoir of evergreen purity is a thread that informs much of modern storytelling, both in the entertainment arena as well as the political one. How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)      The media likes to cast children as vessels of uncompromised goodness that adults could only ever hope to emulate. This is interesting since most theories on children’s moral development actually posit that humans don’t internalize principles until they are in adulthood, if ever. Lawrence Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development traced out childhood as a time where individuals judge morality largely on reward vs punishment. Still, their purity forms the bedrock of the conversation. Because the future hinges upon their innocence, efforts to preserve their unblemished state can go to any length. You can justify any number of actions as long as you are doing it “for the children.” The incentive to ban the teaching of critical race theory and the histor...

PROFESSOR'S PICKS: 25 Most Essential Movies of the Century

       "Best." "Favorite." "Awesomest." I spent a while trying to land on which adjective best suited the purposes of this list. After all, the methods and criteria with which we measure goodness in film vary wildly. "Favorite" is different than "Best," but I would never put a movie under "Best" that I don't at least like. And any film critic will tell you that their favorite films are inevitably also the best films anyways ...      But here at the quarter-century mark, I wanted to give  some  kind of space to reflect on which films are really deserving of celebration. Which films ought to be discussed as classics in the years ahead. So ... let's just say these are the films of the 21st century that I want future champions of the film world--critics and craftsmen--to be familiar with.  Sian Hader directing the cast of  CODA (2021)     There are a billion or so ways to measure a film's merit--its technical perfectio...

The Other Woman: Empathy Isn't Easy

          Anyone else remember that one time Padme wrecked Phoebe's marriage to Max Medina? Directed by Don Roos, The Other Woman first premiered in Toronto in 2009. At the time, the movie was sporting the title of the book from which it was adapted, Love, and Other Impossible Pursuits . But the film didn’t receive any kind of widespread theatrical release until 2011, when it also sported its new title. We can assume perhaps distributors were more eager to showcase the film after Portman’s Oscar win for Black Swan at the 2011 ceremony . I myself caught the film on Netflix circa 2017, a time I remember as being especially fruitful for discovering underseen and independently financed films on the service (back before most of Netflix's budget went instead to funding such homegrown masterworks as Extraction or Damsel ...). In the tentpole-driven film world that we were already seeing emerge in 2009, an underground Netflix following is typically the highest t...

Avatar vs Pop Culture

In December 2009, I was surfing the IMDb message boards for Avatar , set to release in a week. At the time, the conversation on these boards centered mostly around the film’s mammoth budget which represented a colossal investment for the studio, an investment it was sure to never see returned. Noting how the movie was set to release against the Alvin and the Chipmunks sequel, one commentator even lamented how amusingly sad it was that rodents covering pop songs could draw more tickets than the finest cutting-edge film techniques our master craftsmen could offer.      I’ve often wondered what happened to this guy ... By the time I finally got around to seeing Avatar myself, the film had been out for over a month, and the discussion around the film had been universally celebratory. It was actually the Monday after I saw the film, I remember I was browsing the web in Spanish class, that I saw the headlines that Avatar had in fact eclipsed Titanic as the all-time box offic...