Let me start this off by saying I'm sorry I haven't been posting much lately. I had a feeling this would be something I wouldn't update a lot and I'm afraid that's what it turned out to be. But it's not all for no reason, it's partially because I haven't had many ideas of what to write about and I've been swamped with homework. So, hopefully you'll see this updated every now and then. I got this idea a little while ago; it's kinda similar to the blog on Happy Feet 2 and I thought I'd give it a shot. Here we go!
It's become common box office knowledge that Toy Story 3 is the best grossing animated film of all time (domestically) and is the only animated film to surpass a gross of $1 billion worldwide. (In the U.S., it's the second highest grossing to Shrek 2 domestically, but I digress). This, obviously, makes it the best grossing film for Pixar to ever release, succeeding their past holder of the #1 spot, as well as another one of their most critically acclaimed films, Finding Nemo. Why did this make so much money? While there are several reasons, a big reason is because these are characters that the entire world has fallen in love with, and when I say entire world, I mean children, teens, and adults. This applies to almost every well known Disney character, doesn't it? We all love Winnie The Pooh, The Jungle Book, and Peter Pan, don't we? Sure we do, or at least most of us do. So tell me, if those are such famous franchises, though perhaps not quite as famous as Toy Story, why didn't their theatrical sequels make as much money as this blockbuster? Okay, so maybe Peter Pan has a smaller fan base than Toy Story, but we'd still expect a sequel of it to make a lot of money, right? Well, it made about a 10th of what Toy Story 3 did. To me, that just sounds unrealistic. While in general I can't understand why this happened, I can think of a few possible reasons.
The Animation: The first Toy Story films were made in a time where hand-drawn animation was more common than that of computers. The new Winnie The Pooh installments, Return To Never Land, and The Jungle Book 2, were amidst the opposite situation. Unfortunately, this inverse does not provide the same positive effect, it happens to take, well, the opposite turn. The first Toy Story was the first fully computer animated film ever made, meaning, obviously, there was only so much they could do and frankly so much they knew how to do. Toy Story 3 not only came out at a time when 90% of animated films were made with computers, but Pixar in itself had already become possibly the best animation company on the market. It's safe to say the third Toy Story's animation was better than that of the last two. In fact, it was just exceptional overall. Granted, the first two were successes for their time, I'm not degrading them, I'm just pointing out an improvement. The others, unfortunately, did not have this advantage. As stated, they were created in a time where the box office was beginning to lean more towards computer animation (and Winnie The Pooh came out when computer animation completely dominated; it was the second hand drawn Disney film to come out in years). Somethings can be improved by technology, but the masterful artistry of some of the first, and frankly, still some of the best, animated films of all time, cannot be recreated with the same beauty on a computer. Plus, of course, even if they decided to animated these completely hand drawn (I'm sure some hand drawing was involved, but I have a feeling a lot of the animation was done on computers), it's been decades since the original films came out, so, obviously, the original animators are either deceased or too old to be able to do such things anymore.
The Plotline: Now by this, I don't only mean that the plot of Toy Story 3 is seen to have more depth than that of the other theatrical Disney sequels, though I will get to that. The main point about it was that it was intended to be a conclusion to the series, not only to end it, but wrap everything up that had occurred in the first two movies. The other sequels were not like that at all, but rather simple continuations of the past film(s). While, like Toy Story 3, some of them progress in time and see what's happened since and what's happening now, with, in The Jungle Book 2, Mowgli having a family and them meeting Baloo and his other friends, and, in Return To Neverland, Wendy having been grown up (like Andy) and her daughter having the Neverland experience she had, it is still, as stated, not intended as a finalization of the previous film(s). While Return To Never Land still has the child from the first film grown up and a character deciding how to let go or perhaps hold on to their childhood, it is done much differently than in Toy Story 3. Toy Story 3's plot line reflects something that probably everyone has to go through when going away to college, and, while deciding what magic we believe in is a part of growing up, that's not necessarily going to end with us going with Peter Pan to fight Captain Hook. Return To Never Land's message was don't grow up too fast, while Toy Story 3's was always hold your childhood somewhere special in your heart and pass it on to others. In no way am I refuting the message of Return To Never Land (heck, that's probably my biggest virtue), but it is more of a tween crisis rather than when we're going off to college and have to make a definite decision. How the college aspect specifically connected to the audience will be discussed later, though you probably already know what I'm getting at. Now as for the depth of the plot line, critics can agree that there is much more in Toy Story 3 than any of the other sequels. While most do have a conflict that must be resolved, it's decidedly simple and not overly original. And, there's of course Winnie The Pooh, which, though having a minor conflict, was very much fluff and just a bunch of fun, color, and songs. Again, this is from an impartial standpoint. I adored the new Winnie The Pooh movie, but when concerning something that effects you emotionally, depending on your preference, Toy Story 3 will probably do a better job. The plot line has several aspects to it, delves more deeply into the world of a toy, and was original and creative enough to snag a nod for a Best Picture Oscar. It's also significantly longer than the other films, and, while I'm not saying quantity outweighs quality when it comes to films, it definitely gave it more time to delve deeply into the plot and make it more complex.
The Timing: Going back to the whole college connection thing; this is something I'm sure we all noticed. The spacing between the Toy Story films allowed young kids to grow up with the first two and teens who are now off to college to reminisce with a further installment of their childhood. Do you realize that Andy followed them every step of the way? A kid in the first two, a teen in the third. It was relatable from the start. As for the other Disney sequels, the spacing between films can appropriately be called random. It was a good 50 years for God's sake! If anything, you grew up on the first and are now retired seeing this one but still remembering it from your childhood. That may have happened, but it's probably less likely than the teenage attendance to Toy Story 3. Most people who saw Return To Neverland, The Jungle Book 2, and the Winnie The Pooh sequels are probably children who were growing up on the old movies at the time, if that makes sense. And again, no matter who you are when you see those movies, unless the original is near and dear to your heart and you couldn't care less about Toy Story, an emotional impact is probably unlikely to occur, at least not to a large extent.
Also, I'd like to point out that none of these demographics really effected me when seeing Toy Story 3. While I was only born a year after the first came out, the movies really didn't have a huge place in my childhood. I can't even recall watching them as a kid until around 5th grade when I had become obsessed with Disney. All that I can remember was a C-D rom of it I loved, a book that I may have never read, and a vague blur of a Hamm plush in my mind. I was only 13 and a half when the third came out, so the college aspect was far from relatable. I didn't see it to relive my childhood, I saw it because I'm a Disney fan, and for that, it did have some impact on me. Honestly, it took me like two years to figure out that when people said they cried at it, they didn't mean just the fire scene. I do react to it emotionally more now, not because of fear of having to let my childhood go (because, if you know me, that's the last thing I'll ever do) but because of my deep, personal, emotional connection to both Disney, with these movies being modern Disney classics, and with toys. Anyways, enough about me. Back to the review.
The Company: I could just stop there and we'd all understand. Whether a sequel to a Pixar classic or not, let's face it, everyone's gonna see it. However, being a sequel does still give it a better chance. Not only do you have the background of the Pixar films overall, but that of the previous films of that series more specifically, giving you all the more reason to see it. Now, the other Disney sequels were...well, Disney! So how would that have caused them to not make as much money? As world-renowned as Disney is, as said before, these sequels were from entirely different people than those that were involved in the originals. (the closest we got was the Sherman Brothers writing songs for the Tigger Movie, but I must admit, that's a heck of a connection). So, really, they haven't much to base their thoughts on; it's a whole new group of people that aren't very well known. Really, can you name someone involved at Disney Toon Studios? Disney's pretty much my life but not even I can do that. Plus, if even by Disney's computer animation studios, their films' grosses still pale in comparison to Pixar's (with the only exception being Tangled). Even if a film is quite popular and well regarded, such as my favorite Bolt, it'll still perform well, but never as well as a Pixar film. (going back to Tangled, it did haul in the most for a Disney computer animated movie without Pixar, but all the same, most of Pixar's movies' grosses surpass it, even though it brought in $200 million). Also, the reception for Disney at the time of these sequels (minus the new Winnie The Pooh) was not phenomenal. All they were releasing at the time were films that the public saw as mediocre, were not big financial hits, and hardly had a legacy (this does not apply to Lilo and Stitch, however). What's worse is that Disney Toon Studios' reputation was even worse. There was plenty of negativity facing the direct-to-video sequels, and, yes, Return To Never Land and The Jungle Book 2 were theatrical, but they were still made by the same company, and, frankly, in the same style. As for Winnie The Pooh, it's harder to say. Disney's last independent animation project was Tangled, which, as already said above, was a major hit, so its reception at the time was fine. Even the films preceding Tangled, such as Bolt and Meet The Robinsons, garnered positive reviews and award nods as well. Still, no matter what, Pixar will be at the helm, and that seems to be independent Disney's major disadvantage.
Now to make one last comment, but just on Winnie The Pooh alone, it released after a slew of Winnie The Pooh films. While the Peter Pan and Jungle Book franchises only have two films to each name (not counting the Tinker Bell films, which seem to be generally considered as an independent franchise), Winnie The Pooh has countless films, theatrical and not. Toy Story 3 was special because it was the first we saw of these characters in eleven years (not counting the Buzz Lightyear Of Star Command series, which only showed Buzz's world and was still airing long before Toy Story 3). It was a surprise, and an exciting one at that. While a Winnie The Pooh film hadn't released for a few years before the 2011, there had still been plenty and not too far behind. Most people most likely saw it as just another Pooh film, especially considering the simplistic and vague title. Not that I necessarily do, but there's a chance people thought it was somewhat forced to get a new Pooh film out with new voices and new animation and a title that almost gives it a new start just to collect money.
It seems as though I've covered all the points I've had in mind. Yes, it is logically explainable, but I still can't entirely understand it.
The Plotline: Now by this, I don't only mean that the plot of Toy Story 3 is seen to have more depth than that of the other theatrical Disney sequels, though I will get to that. The main point about it was that it was intended to be a conclusion to the series, not only to end it, but wrap everything up that had occurred in the first two movies. The other sequels were not like that at all, but rather simple continuations of the past film(s). While, like Toy Story 3, some of them progress in time and see what's happened since and what's happening now, with, in The Jungle Book 2, Mowgli having a family and them meeting Baloo and his other friends, and, in Return To Neverland, Wendy having been grown up (like Andy) and her daughter having the Neverland experience she had, it is still, as stated, not intended as a finalization of the previous film(s). While Return To Never Land still has the child from the first film grown up and a character deciding how to let go or perhaps hold on to their childhood, it is done much differently than in Toy Story 3. Toy Story 3's plot line reflects something that probably everyone has to go through when going away to college, and, while deciding what magic we believe in is a part of growing up, that's not necessarily going to end with us going with Peter Pan to fight Captain Hook. Return To Never Land's message was don't grow up too fast, while Toy Story 3's was always hold your childhood somewhere special in your heart and pass it on to others. In no way am I refuting the message of Return To Never Land (heck, that's probably my biggest virtue), but it is more of a tween crisis rather than when we're going off to college and have to make a definite decision. How the college aspect specifically connected to the audience will be discussed later, though you probably already know what I'm getting at. Now as for the depth of the plot line, critics can agree that there is much more in Toy Story 3 than any of the other sequels. While most do have a conflict that must be resolved, it's decidedly simple and not overly original. And, there's of course Winnie The Pooh, which, though having a minor conflict, was very much fluff and just a bunch of fun, color, and songs. Again, this is from an impartial standpoint. I adored the new Winnie The Pooh movie, but when concerning something that effects you emotionally, depending on your preference, Toy Story 3 will probably do a better job. The plot line has several aspects to it, delves more deeply into the world of a toy, and was original and creative enough to snag a nod for a Best Picture Oscar. It's also significantly longer than the other films, and, while I'm not saying quantity outweighs quality when it comes to films, it definitely gave it more time to delve deeply into the plot and make it more complex.
The Timing: Going back to the whole college connection thing; this is something I'm sure we all noticed. The spacing between the Toy Story films allowed young kids to grow up with the first two and teens who are now off to college to reminisce with a further installment of their childhood. Do you realize that Andy followed them every step of the way? A kid in the first two, a teen in the third. It was relatable from the start. As for the other Disney sequels, the spacing between films can appropriately be called random. It was a good 50 years for God's sake! If anything, you grew up on the first and are now retired seeing this one but still remembering it from your childhood. That may have happened, but it's probably less likely than the teenage attendance to Toy Story 3. Most people who saw Return To Neverland, The Jungle Book 2, and the Winnie The Pooh sequels are probably children who were growing up on the old movies at the time, if that makes sense. And again, no matter who you are when you see those movies, unless the original is near and dear to your heart and you couldn't care less about Toy Story, an emotional impact is probably unlikely to occur, at least not to a large extent.
Also, I'd like to point out that none of these demographics really effected me when seeing Toy Story 3. While I was only born a year after the first came out, the movies really didn't have a huge place in my childhood. I can't even recall watching them as a kid until around 5th grade when I had become obsessed with Disney. All that I can remember was a C-D rom of it I loved, a book that I may have never read, and a vague blur of a Hamm plush in my mind. I was only 13 and a half when the third came out, so the college aspect was far from relatable. I didn't see it to relive my childhood, I saw it because I'm a Disney fan, and for that, it did have some impact on me. Honestly, it took me like two years to figure out that when people said they cried at it, they didn't mean just the fire scene. I do react to it emotionally more now, not because of fear of having to let my childhood go (because, if you know me, that's the last thing I'll ever do) but because of my deep, personal, emotional connection to both Disney, with these movies being modern Disney classics, and with toys. Anyways, enough about me. Back to the review.
The Company: I could just stop there and we'd all understand. Whether a sequel to a Pixar classic or not, let's face it, everyone's gonna see it. However, being a sequel does still give it a better chance. Not only do you have the background of the Pixar films overall, but that of the previous films of that series more specifically, giving you all the more reason to see it. Now, the other Disney sequels were...well, Disney! So how would that have caused them to not make as much money? As world-renowned as Disney is, as said before, these sequels were from entirely different people than those that were involved in the originals. (the closest we got was the Sherman Brothers writing songs for the Tigger Movie, but I must admit, that's a heck of a connection). So, really, they haven't much to base their thoughts on; it's a whole new group of people that aren't very well known. Really, can you name someone involved at Disney Toon Studios? Disney's pretty much my life but not even I can do that. Plus, if even by Disney's computer animation studios, their films' grosses still pale in comparison to Pixar's (with the only exception being Tangled). Even if a film is quite popular and well regarded, such as my favorite Bolt, it'll still perform well, but never as well as a Pixar film. (going back to Tangled, it did haul in the most for a Disney computer animated movie without Pixar, but all the same, most of Pixar's movies' grosses surpass it, even though it brought in $200 million). Also, the reception for Disney at the time of these sequels (minus the new Winnie The Pooh) was not phenomenal. All they were releasing at the time were films that the public saw as mediocre, were not big financial hits, and hardly had a legacy (this does not apply to Lilo and Stitch, however). What's worse is that Disney Toon Studios' reputation was even worse. There was plenty of negativity facing the direct-to-video sequels, and, yes, Return To Never Land and The Jungle Book 2 were theatrical, but they were still made by the same company, and, frankly, in the same style. As for Winnie The Pooh, it's harder to say. Disney's last independent animation project was Tangled, which, as already said above, was a major hit, so its reception at the time was fine. Even the films preceding Tangled, such as Bolt and Meet The Robinsons, garnered positive reviews and award nods as well. Still, no matter what, Pixar will be at the helm, and that seems to be independent Disney's major disadvantage.
Now to make one last comment, but just on Winnie The Pooh alone, it released after a slew of Winnie The Pooh films. While the Peter Pan and Jungle Book franchises only have two films to each name (not counting the Tinker Bell films, which seem to be generally considered as an independent franchise), Winnie The Pooh has countless films, theatrical and not. Toy Story 3 was special because it was the first we saw of these characters in eleven years (not counting the Buzz Lightyear Of Star Command series, which only showed Buzz's world and was still airing long before Toy Story 3). It was a surprise, and an exciting one at that. While a Winnie The Pooh film hadn't released for a few years before the 2011, there had still been plenty and not too far behind. Most people most likely saw it as just another Pooh film, especially considering the simplistic and vague title. Not that I necessarily do, but there's a chance people thought it was somewhat forced to get a new Pooh film out with new voices and new animation and a title that almost gives it a new start just to collect money.
It seems as though I've covered all the points I've had in mind. Yes, it is logically explainable, but I still can't entirely understand it.
Animation designing is a process of combining different data into a compact package and presenting them simplistically as a moving image.
ReplyDeleteBest animation company in Bangalore