So can we agree they were overrated all along.

>>93424066
Whatever you want, anon.

>>93424066
You pretty much just watched them for the graphics at the time anyway. Most of the time they weren't bad.

>>93424066
>So can we agree
no. /co/ is not a hivemind.
>they were overrated all along
no. Like every commercial company they had a golden era where they made great products and now they're in a bit of a slump. Disney went through it, Coca-Cola went through it, Ford, Chevy, The Cowboys, Frontline all went through it.

>>93424066
Nah, I think people just now realized they need money like literally every company ever.

Fantasy football stats time.

does DreamWorks have a better ratio of good movies to bad yet?

Who has more overall good films?

Pixar hasn't made one good movie.

>>93424495
Pixar made Ratatouille and The Incredibles, though

>>93424438
>does DreamWorks have a better ratio of good movies to bad yet?
Depends on your definition of "good" and "bad", but on the whole I'd say no. That said, when a Dreamworks movie is good, it's REALLY good, like Road to El Dorado or Prince of Egypt. Those movies are untouchable by Pixar.

>>93424198
>Frontline
The flea/tick collar company?

>>93424517
>Ratatouille
>good

>>93424517
They aren't good.

Nah, they just ran out of juice in about 2010.
And, like everything absorbed by disborg became a nothing but a puppet to the mother company.

I think things got stale and there needs to be a new player in the field. Laika doesn't have good writers and WB relies too much on Lego franchise, so we need to wait for someone else.

What happened to CGI movies anyway?
It seems like everyone just gave up and can't come up with somethig interesting anymore

>>93424066
they were good to have the run they did, carz being their first mistep. it should've been a warning.

Nah, they just went through what happens to all innovators.

The industry was stagnating, they were a breath of fresh air, people flocked to them and called them a savior.

Other people started copying their runaway success, suddenly their freshness isn't that fresh any more.

Now they're the stagnation in the industry and we're waiting for a new team.

>>93424906
I still can't understand the reason to Cars have not only one, but two sequels.
Were they trying to fix its reputation? Back then I thought Pixar would just start pretending that Cars never happened.

>>93424873

I remember /co/ saying that CGI reached plateu, plus, that affair with zootopia completely spoiled how their succesful movies are made.

>>93425011
they were trying to sell toys

File: Planes-Poster-2u.jpg (89KB, 672x960px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 672x960px

>>93425011
And a spin-off.

>>93424066
>all along
Not true. They were the most consistently good movie studio for a long time until Cars came along. They were still good, but it was an indicator that they were mere mortals, like you and me.

It's hard to agree on an exact film that marked their dethroning but Pixar definitely rode the winds of their previous success for too long than they should have been allowed to.

However, to deny this golden period is just you master baiting.

>>93425011

Check "10 movies that sold the most merchandise".

Inside Out is the best animated film of the decade

Everything else after Toy Story 3 has been pretty below averege, yes

File: Planes_fire_and_rescue_ver2_xlg.jpg (279KB, 743x1100px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 743x1100px

>>93425246
And a spinoff of the spinoff

>>93424066
Cars 1 wasn't even that bad, Ratatouille just shat all over it the year after it

>>93424517
You mean Brad Bird made them.

>>93424495
>>93424560
Now this is /co/ntrarian.

>People saying Incredibles, Ratatiouille, and Toy Story were never good in this thread

Fucking die, the lot of you.

>>93424495
See, anon, when you say shit like that, you lose all credibility.

>>93425265
That's actually about the same time that Disney was acquiring Pixar. Cars was being produced during that time, and was actually the first one labeled "Disney-Pixar" as opposed to just "Pixar".

>>93425336
this desu

>>93425246
>>93425359
See, the Planes franchise was just Disney, but they didn't really tell anyone that. Not even John Ratzenberger.

>>93425336

I don't like movies that literally tell me to FEEL.
The Lego Movie was better.

File: desolateearth[1].jpg (39KB, 550x303px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 550x303px

>>93424066
NO

The first half of Wall-E was a silent cinematic masterfuckingpiece

So beautiful and well made

Monsters Inc was incredibly creative and full of heart

The beginning of UP was legendary

Just because they are obviously in decline doesn't mean they weren't good during their creative prime.

>>93425336
Rango was better, the animation, humor and story were superb.

>>93425615
Also I'd like to argue that as a Superhero movie, The Incredibles was as good as or better than anything Marvel and DC have came out with

>>93425265
>Not true. They were the most consistently good movie studio for a long time until Cars came along. They were still good, but it was an indicator that they were mere mortals, like you and me.
Pixar had a series of ideas early on that they made films for, and Wall.E was the final idea. After that film Pixar basically had to start from scratch.

>>93425786
Didn't Pixar lose some staff to Disney Animation (which is the reason Disney stepped up their game recently)

>>93425651
I'd argue that The Incredibles is without a doubt the best superhero movie ever made. Live action. 2D, 3D, whatever, The Incredibles is just a god tier film.

>>93424066
When Pixar movies have to be helped along by Disney Shorts something has gone terrible wrong.

>>93424438
Dreamworks still manages to 50/50 it. pretty evenly

They will release a good movie, then an awful one
Then a decent one, then one that makes you wonder why the hell they did that

>>93424438
I'd say that Dreamworks has more watchable films but Pixar has more genuinely great films.

I can't think of a 3D Dreamworks movie I'd consider really really great. Shrek was influential, sure, but it wasn't amazing.

>>93424517
Ratatouille is okay, but it just does not sounds like something most people would want to watch at a first glance or going by the description. And definitely does not sound like anything kids would care to see.

It's not a bad movie but it is a hard sell because it just looks incredibly boring and forgettable.

File: Frankie Joker.jpg (18KB, 236x466px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 236x466px

>>93424438
>>93426507
Yea I see this, Dreamworks has a good amount of good movies. But Pixar has what most people can claim to be 1-2 just completely amazing ones, that 1-2 changes with each viewer.

So most people are going to have a Pixar movie that they fell in love with and a handfull of Dreamworks ones that they like a lot.

File: 1462221310432s.jpg (12KB, 237x250px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 237x250px

>>93424906
Problem is that Lassiter is a huge fan of American southwest "Car Culture" so the franchise is just porn for him.

Meanwhile it is very cheap and easy to shelve a lot of merchandise for the movies since every character including background characters can be sold as toys so Disney corporate love it too.

Everyone wins but the viewers.

>>93424066
>Toy Story 1-3
>Monsters, Inc.
>Finding Nemo
>The Incredibles
>Ratatouille
>1st half of Wall-E
>Up opening and ending
>Inside Out

>overrated

Fuck you, OP

>>93424066
Regardless of what /co/ thinks, Pixar's filmography is exceedingly mediocre.

>>93425265
Honestly I would say when Brave came out that they just lost what they once had.

Even the first Cars movie is not terrible. It's a weird premise but they still manage to tell a decent story and somehow manage to get a lot out of the characters who happen to be vehicles for reasons one should never ever look further into.

Brave was just...boring, directionless, and kind of mean when you look at it again.

>>93425615
>The beginning of UP was legendary

It still amazes me how a silent 20 minute animated intro managed to get ten times more drama out of a movie than just about everything else that came out that year.

javascript:quote('93425854');


Honestly, I don't know, someone should compare the credits of the newest Disney movies with Pixar ones to prove or bust this myth.
>>93426435

I think that Olaf "short" (21 minutes FFS!) was made only to boost sales of the Frozen merchandise prepared for Christmas, not to help Coco.

>>93426456

Captain Underpants looks amazing meanwhile it's the Boss Baby that is getting a sequel. What a bizarro world.

>>93426706
And Home managed to land an animated series

How does one make sense that?

>>93425615
>First half
>beginning of

well how fucking sad is it that the rest of the movies is complete shit?

>>93426905
I agree that Up and Wall-E fall apart in their second half. But the intros would also not work for entire films.

>>93425615
>Monsters Inc was incredibly creative and full of heart

Monsters Inc fucking sucked. I didn't like it as a kid nor rewatching it as an adult. It's not funny and it's stupid. The sequel was far superior. I agree with the other things you said though.

>>93426739
I feel like every Dreamworks movie since (but not including) Shrek has received an animated series.

>>93425615
>Monsters Inc was incredibly creative and full of heart

To this day, the scene with the doors is still one of my favorite scenes in any Pixar movie.

Overall, I prefer Dreamworks because they like to experiment with their movies. Pixar movies kind of feel the same thematically.

>>93424066
Hey now, I liked the early commericals they made to get money for Toy Story

>>93427174
They do seem to be giving them series at random, and not really because the movies did well.

The King Julian and Penguins one made sense, Madagascar was huge. Kung Fu Panda as well, it made a lot in theaters. Same with How to Train your Dragon.

Monsters Vs Aliens, Croods, Home, Turbo, Peabody and Sherman, these seems like they were assumed to be huge from the start and had a series greenlit before the movie was finished.

>>93425336
I want to FUCK Sadness.
Then Joy.

>>93427224
I can still watch Incredibles, Finding Nemo, and Ratatouille just about any time.

Bug's Life is the only one that looks like it aged poorly and has noticeably dated visuals. Even moreso than Toy Story somehow.

>>93427289
>Turbo
>huge
now no one can be that stupid

>>93427382
It had a pretty big advertising campaign when it came out, apparently Dreamworks did think it would be the next huge hit.

>>93424438

Pixar still has more 'great' films, but when Dreamworks does great they BTFO people in a way Pixar never was able to (except for possibly UP and Wall-e). Like...Prince of Egypt is possibly the greatest animated film of all time, it's definitely better than anything that Disney has put out.

I think that the hierarchy is this:

Dreamworks animation > Disney animation > Pixar CGI > Dreamworks CGI > everybody else

File: disney-pixar-coco-movie-still.jpg (113KB, 1200x650px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1200x650px

It's not over yet! Pixar will prove once again, they're masters of storytelling!

>>93428349
But we saw this movie already 3 years ago

File: http _hypebeast.com_image_2017_06_coco-2017-trailer-0.jpg (145KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 960x640px

>>93428428

that was version beta.

>>93428349
that shota is gross!
GROSS! :(

I'm watching a 'yourmoviesucks' review of inside out.

he points out stuff we've mentioned here.

The fact that Wall-E was the last great one (he even points out that a teaser where pixar themselves seem to have had the ideas for the golden age when they first started). The carz series being popular for the sake of merchandise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXC_205E3Og

Nah, most of their movies are good, it's just that lately they've been releasing unnecessary sequels and mediocre movies like Brave and The Good Dinosaur. The most recent good Pixar movie was Inside Out, and that was 2 years ago

>>93424066
No
The span of time from Toy Story to Wall-E is solid. After that the effects of being owned by Disney started to show.

Nope, they've made some pretty good movies
>Toy Story trilogy
>Finding Nemo
>Monsters Inc.
>Ratatouille
>Wall-e
>UP
>Monsters University (not great, but alright)
>Inside Out

>>93428683
Shit, forgot The Incredibles

>>93428580
p.s.

not to mention he has pointed out a formula I didn't notice before

2 characters who don't get along get lost and have to make their way back/somewhere
Dory & marlin - finding nemo
carl and russell - Up
buzz and woody - toy story
joy and sadness - inside out

>>93428706

>tangled
>wreckit ralph
>zootopia
>moana

>>93428782
you could count PatF too

hell I'm sure the giant loli movie will turn out the same

File: D23ExpoTMSM.png (42KB, 430x187px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 430x187px

>>93428981
if it's going to have a giant loli, who knows how they'll hve to rewrite it to "make movie work"

>>93429069
they will become friends like Vanellope and Ralph?

>>93424066
Can't be overrated when literally every other animated studio takes inspiration from them.

>>93427296
this man know how it do

>>93425441
Ratatouille was objectively bad. Patton Oswalt was a poor choice for the main character, the jokes were flatter than a year old Coke, and let's face it, cooking is not interesting enough to drive a movie plot, let alone an animated one.

>>93424309
>they need money

Have stockholders

FIXED.

>>93428706
I always thought their main method was
>A closer look into the secret life of....
Any random magical or mundane subject. Typically something ordinary people are not supposed to know about or ignore on a daily basis.

Like
the toys when you are not looking
superheroes at home
bugs under your feet
fish in the ocean
the monster in your closet
the voices in your head
the rats under your house
robots after people are gone
the old guy that never talks to anyone or leaves his house

When they leave this formula things tend to not work out as well for them.

>>93424840
>WB relies too much on Lego franchise

That's not their problem. They've released a set of direct to DVD Lego movies and have released 2 Lego cinematic films (with two more planned/in pre-production). They've released far more other WB Animation products in the past 12 months than those six released over 3+ years that are Lego related.

For discussions on this board, the problem with WB are two-fold:

1. Their legacy Looney Tune characters aren't as creative and inventive at they were and this is problem with writing down to their audience and laziness. There's been no Bugs, Daffy, etc. short, feature, etc., since essentially 1960 that excited anyone or create any market presence/sales/interest.

2. For the DC IP, they aren't making or releasing anything that's creating any great interest.

A. The Superhero girls line has made a ripple but it creates a false idea of the main universe (where a kid who grew up to buy a 2020 Wonder Woman or Supergirl would be surprised to find out that Harley and Ivy aren't besties with Diana and Kara, that Diana is far older than the rest of them and not interested in nail polish and boys, much less that they aren't actually 'heroes.' and

B. Much of what is being put out that's DC related either is unable to actually reach an audience, or is based on shitty cannon (all those New 52, Johns based adaptations - this is similarly true for some of the live action TV but we're talking toons today).

WB has some great novels that can easily be adapted. They just aren't doing it.

>>93425651
>>93425909

>The Incredibles is without a doubt the best superhero movie ever made. Live action. 2D, 3D, whatever

Agreed, the design and some of the technical appearance just doesn't hold up. I own the DVD and don't really watch even though I have incredible memories of it. I just find it a bit too much of a let down visually to rewatch. Now, as a story, the writing, the dialogue, the voice acting - all still excellent. The set pieces, the ideas, all still excellent and far superior than just about anything put out before and so far, since.

It's the one thing I'd love to see a sequel for but it's probably for the best that it will never happen.

>>93429576
this shit isn't original though

talking fish and animals have been around for decades
Raggedy Ann had adventures long before Woody

>>93428322
>Dreamworks animation > Disney animation > Pixar CGI > Dreamworks CGI > everybody else

What is:

I have few clues

>>93424198
>4chan
>not a hivemind
The only boards with pure, argument-free opinions are porn boards.

Why cant we all get along like /e/ and /s/ can?

>>93429662
>It's the one thing I'd love to see a sequel for but it's probably for the best that it will never happen.

anon I...

>>93424517
Hey, anon, I completely agree with you.

They also have the best waifus: Violet, Mrs. incredible, and Collette

File: Captain Carrot and His Amazing Zoo Crew (1982) 001-000.jpg (2MB, 1988x3056px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1988x3056px

>>93429597

they coul really drop th grimderp and try something else.

iirc there was another animated movie ordered by WB., omething about Big Foot, called Smallfoot. and SCOOB which was going to start Hanna Barbera Cinematic Universe.

File: p12004128_p_v8_aa.jpg (291KB, 960x1440px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 960x1440px

>>93429721

yes, TS4 is happening

>>93429662
>but it's probably for the best that it will never happen.
Anon...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incredibles_2

>>93425336
>Inside Out is the best animated film of the decade
Why? I found it very bland and poorly executed

>>93429970
Is it possible that you suffer from autism?

>>93425018

> that affair with Zootopia

Which one?

>>93429682
I think you missed the point anon was making

>>93429771
And it si going to keep on happening until it dies a very Shrek-ish death and ruins everything for the longtime fans

>>93430141
Shrek 5 is happening

>>93430088
Maybe
But I don't suffer from poor taste, like Inside Out fans

>>93430209
But what if they like stuff that you like as well?

>>93424066
I'm actually kind of optimistic about Coco. At least they're trying to make something culturally inspired and not "dude what if this had sentience."

File: 98234098.jpg (35KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 620x349px

>>93424066
Nah they were good back in their prime
Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Finding Nemo, and The Incredibles were all instant family classics the moment they hit theaters
Bug's Life, Ratatouille, Inside Out, and Monster's Inc were all very good despite not achieving the success the other four managed
Beyond that it's hit or miss depending on who you ask, but that is a very good list of kid's movies.
Oh, and let's not forget that they actually put the effort in and make neat short films for all of their movies. Which is something no other animation studio does to my knowledge

They've slipped a lot since a lot of their talent has been siphoned into Disney's animation studio in past years, but there is still some life in Pixar. The success of Disney's movies since their slump era is exactly when they got some talent from Pixar to fix up their movies. That is a testament to Pixar being a talented studio, you must understand a lot of the guys who made early Pixar good moved to Disney's animation studio so all these wildly well received animated Disney movies that have been coming recently out have some Pixar blood in them

>>93430106
>>93425018
"affair"

just some minor problems with rewrites.

>>93430281

from Pixar only John Lasseter is working at Disney, as supervisor, why do you spread lies?

>>93430374
A good chunk of their animation crew took off to go their too

>>93430390
NAMES

>>93424066
There is no one close to them, Dreamworks is really good but is clearly not on their lvl.

They're to movies what Steam is to FPS or Coke is to soft drinks

>>93430181
So is Puss in Boots 2

>>93430269

But someone already made The Book of Life

File: 1497936876245.jpg (99KB, 546x498px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 546x498px

>>93430269

There is only one Coco I'm looking forward to this year.

>>93430435
I get the impression Dreamworks was never really trying to be on any same level.

They did not set out to make artistic dramatic stuff with lengthy voiceless sequences. They just wanted to make a fun comedy majority of the time.

>>93424066
no. next question

Since we're already talking about different studios, do we all agree that Illumination is the worst out of the major US animation companies?

>>93430435
>They're to movies what Valve is to FPS
Valve has at least one more CS game to pump out before that's the case.

>>93430548
followed by Sony, but they at least gave us Cloudy, Hotel Transylvania and Surfs Up.

...and Blue Sky is milking Ice Age to death.

>>93430638
>Blue Sky

What're they going to do with Ice Age? The last one was a domestic flop.

File: PyrQzLaw.jpg (42KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 512x512px

>>93424840

>>93424198
>/co/ is not a hivemind
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>93429708
>Porn boards
>Argument free

Faggot s have been fighting in /aco in the last 5 Golden Girl threads

>>93431033
Domestic flop, but huge box office numbers.

File: 1497887100997.jpg (4KB, 196x196px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 196x196px

>>93429447
You don't know how companies work, do you?

>>93430548
>do we all agree that Illumination is the worst out of the major US animation companies
Duh? Illumination was openly created to do "the most profit possible with animations" nothing more,they are proud that their animations are cheap, the founder even said it once afair.

>>93424066
Anything Larry the Cable Guy is associated with crumbles to dust eventually.

>>93430548
They are getting better when they are not making anything with a minion in it. Sing was pretty good and Secret Life of Pets was a decent movie.

Blue Sky is definitely the worst of the big name ones before we get to all the other shit like Norm of the North and Fly me to the Moon.

Sony is just all over the place, and it looks like making something that is not shit is more of a luck based thing for them. Technically they can put a decent movie together and have the talent. It's just the things that they decide to make into movies are insane to "what the fuck?"

>>93431747
Secret Life of Pets was ok but Sing was motherfucking terrible

File: 323262.png (146KB, 459x302px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 459x302px

>>93431801

>>93431506
So DTVs in US, theatrical releases abroad?

did anyone read the book about how Pixar started? apparently the studio was a massive failure at first and needed insane amounts of money to keep afloat before they made Toy story. there's a book about it.

>>93432934
You forgot to mention the book

File: how-napkin-sketches-during-a-pixar-lunch-meeting-led-to-four-of-the-studios-greatest-movies.jpg (23KB, 506x253px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 506x253px

>>93432934

I think it was Steve Jobs that helped them out?

They need another lunch meeting where they plan out the next few movies with simple everyday concepts.

>>93433085
Ever notice how all these "self-made men" became "self-made" by sucking the dick of some dude who's already rich? Fuck John Lasseter and his libertarian bullshit, I hope he fucking dies.

>>93433069
it's called To Pixar and Beyond. Apparently the film called "The Pixar Story" covers the same things

>One day in November 1994, Lawrence Levy got a phone call out of the blue from Steve Jobs, who he had never met, offering him a job running a little-known company called Pixar. Jobs' career was in the doldrums: he had a reputation for being impossible to work with and Pixar had already lost him $50 million. But when Levy went for a tour of Pixar's run-down offices, he was led into a showing room filled with battered couches and shown the first scene of a new computer-animated feature, codenamed Toy Story. He took the job.

>On his arrival, he was dismayed to find that the situation was far worse than he had realised. Their advertising division just about broke even, their graphics software had few customers and their films offered little hope of making them money. Not only that, but Jobs was pushing to take the company public. Everything was riding on their first film release, and even then, it would have to be one of the most successful animated features of all time…

File: hextuple facepalm.png (92KB, 772x716px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 772x716px

>>93433256

>>93432934
>>93433085
Yea Steve Jobs bought it after Apple kicked him out, then he had to reinvest millions into it two more times before they finally got to make a first film and become something.

But it did take Jobs throwing his own money into it long LONG after any other investor would have told them to fuck themselves and quit.

>>93427296
What about Disgust?