Has Pixar Really "Lost It"?

Who’s seen Onward? I have, and I even published my thoughts. Yet while general responses were positive, the film’s underperforming at the box-office. And no, it’s not because of the “go woke, get broke” nonsense regarding its lesbian cop (though that’s a subject for another day.) Plenty of good movies, even “woke” ones, have underperformed, and I’d more-likely attribute it to the SARS-CoV-2 panic. But I guess we’ll never know…

I mention the film’s box-office because the debate about Pixar’s staying power has resurfaced. More specifically, the debate’s centred around whether or not the studio can stay relevant in the 2020’s. This isn’t a new quandary, as people have been arguing this for years. But it’s gotten to the point where I can no longer keep silent. So I’m not.

I first have to explain why this is being debated. For that, we need to go back to the initial teaser trailer for WALL-E:

I’d have loved to have been present at this conversation, by the way. (Courtesy of The Disney Animation Resource Channel.)

Proponents of the anti-modern Pixar side point to this as part of their argument: “Look, Pixar even admits they’ve run out of ideas! There’s no way they’ll ever top their early brilliance!” It’s cute, but allow me to poke some holes in this claim:

Firstly, Stanton never says “these were are only ideas we had”. He mentions, rather, that they’re the ones they had in 1994. That’s 26 years ago. A lot can happen in 26 years, including formulating new ideas. And besides, Dan Scanlon and Brad Bird weren’t part of Pixar yet. If that’s true, then wouldn’t they also have ideas for films?

Secondly, art isn’t static. Artists usually don’t have all their good ideas at once, then give up. Speaking as an artist myself, I come up with new blog and story ideas constantly! Claiming that I’m not allowed to have good ideas beyond the ones I originally imagined is…well, it’s disingenuous. And it’s insulting to my creativity.

And thirdly, saying that these were the only good movies Pixar ever made is dishonest. Stanton mentions that WALL-E was their last idea on that fateful day, but then how do you explain Up? Or Toy Story 3? Even post-Cars 2, there were several original movies and sequels that were well-received, like Inside Out and Toy Story 4. Again, art isn’t static.

Honestly, the “Pixar’s lost it” train of thought doesn’t account for the fact how it’s only ever mentioned when Pixar’s in a rut. And when they’re not? Well, it’s a “fluke”. Inside Out was a “fluke” because of The Good Dinosaur. Coco was a “fluke” because of Cars 3. Even now, Onward, a movie with good reviews, is being shafted because of Soul, which’ll also be labelled a “fluke”. How many “flukes” can Pixar have?

Detractors spring-board this meeting as a way of being overly-critical of newer films: so Inside Out was well-received? Let’s make a video shamelessly dissecting every cliché it uses. So Coco was beloved? Here’s what doesn’t add up. Even Finding Dory and Incredibles 2, movies that were still really good, have to be wrung through the machine because they pale to their predecessors. Look everyone, Pixar’s dying! Isn’t that sad?

It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy when you’re actively looking for reasons to not like something. Because when you have a mallet, everything looks like a peg. In the case of art, which doesn’t exist in a vacuum, this mentality does no one favours. It makes the situation worse, if we’re being honest. And sure, people are entitled to their opinions on art. But they’re not automatically entitled to their own facts, which is what these opinions are being passed off as.

I also can’t help wondering if it isn’t Pixar that’s lost their touch, but everyone else who’s lost their ability to enjoy their movies. Has everything they’ve made been amazing? No. Ignoring Cars 2, the studio has definitely made disappointments since 2010. But not only does that ignore the reception of Cars, which came out in 2006, but it overlooks the fact that even Pixar at their worst has more effort than most of the competition, even on a technical level: Brave pioneered human hair textures on a level not seen prior. The Good Dinosaur has some of the most photorealistic environments put to film. Even Cars 3 doesn’t skimp on the automobile grime and damage!

Saying that “Pixar’s lost their touch” ignores that. It also ignores how their disappointments have conveyed themes and emotions that many other animation studios, let-alone studios in general, wouldn’t tackle: The Good Dinosaur dealt with familial expectations. Brave was about the dangers of arranged marriages. Cars 3 dealt with legacies potentially having an expiration date, and Cars 2 was about using being undervalued as way to subvert expectations. These are all really powerful, even if they were under-baked.

My issue is that this debate ignores how Pixar isn’t one person doomed to not live up their incredibly-high standards. Because they have. And even when they’ve “struck out”? They’re human, it was bound to happen eventually. It also makes their triumphs that much more impressive.

I get it: Pixar set the bar really high. They released Toy Story when no one was making that kind of movie, and they kept pushing the CGI envelope for years. They were the trendsetters, and now that everyone else has “caught up to them”, they can’t compete. They’re being outclassed by the competition.

But while I like that other studios have started leading the way on their own, because it’s good for animation, I still think people are undervaluing the need for Pixar nowadays. Like an old master, they still have tricks up their sleeves. They’re still pushing the envelope in new ways, essentially. They may no longer be “the best at what they do”, but they haven’t “lost it”. And I think we need to appreciate that.