So how much influence has Disney had on Pixar’s films? Certainly Pixar resisted Disney’s carved-in-stone belief that animated features had to be musicals but once Pixar formulated success on its own terms, did Disney hold them to this format? And how much of this can be laid at the feet of the American public? Twenty years ago there was a firmly held belief at the studio level that an animated TV series aimed at adults would never fly. Then along came the Simpsons and we’ve never looked back. The American feature industry is a more conservative beast, it seems, in spite of successes that have challenged its POV: Roger Rabbit and Spirited Away, for example. Pixar went a certain distance in changing expectations. What do we predict it will do post-Disney? And now there is a new contender in The Triplets of Belleville. I’m still contemplating this one and will comment on it in the next article.

I strongly agree that most new animated films are just showcases for new technology. Although it is nice to see some really nice CG, the story behind the effects is just as important. Most studios now a days continue to pump out open and shut films that only serve as a means to gain revenue via merchandising. There is a vast market just waiting to be supplied with animation that contains a deep, involved plot. Although pushing technology to its' limits is encouragable, it raises a question: are these studios making these films to reach their audiences and capture their minds as well as their eyes; or are they just scheming up ways to make kids desire a new expensive toy for christmas? Another film that classicly supports my argument is Final Fantasy:the Spirits Within. The people at SquareSoft can come up with phenomenal storylines for their console games (ever hear of Final Fantasy VII?), yet instead of taking the same approach to their film attempt, they botched it by producing a convoluted mess. Yes, it is a well known fact that the american public does not seem to favor animation that is directed towards adults. But look at the american attepts at it. Do we have masterpieces to show off like Vampirehunter D, Akira, or the Gundam Wing Series? No, we have shoddy attempts like Cool World that are interpreted as cheeky at best. the problem, my friends lies within the studios that currently exist. "If it's animated, it has at least 2 songs, a semi sinister antagonist, and a happy ending that can be reached within 90 minutes. Oh, and make sure that the toys are on the shelves before the movies out". That's the mentality that is currently pushing the current animation powerhouses right now(Disney, Pixar, and to a lesser extent DreamWorks). Unless a studio appears with the goal of elevating the current state of animation beyond the "look at the pretty colors" plateau, I fear that this remarkable artform will continue to be regarded as "kid stuff".

I strongly agree with the argument made in this article. Technological advances are not ruling the majority of next gen video games, why haven't film studios followed suit? Although it is nice to see new technology being applied to simulate amazing things, todays public quickly tires of flashy visuals. If they tried to implement some of the story telling used by major video game producers(i.e. Eidos-hitman, Fear Effect, Konami-Metal Gear Solid, the guys behind The Rainbow Six games), people in general would begin to have much more respect for this frequently misrepresented artform. If anyone is who reads this feels the same way I do and would like to do something about it, please respond via email. I'm starting a studio that with one aim: to offer a higher level of 3d entertainment(where the audience will be impressed by both the involved storyline and the visuals). If you're a struggling artist with this kind of determination, respond to me at: animator_j2k@yahoo.com

I find it slightly unfair to critise Pixar. Albeit I know little of what went on behind the scenes of the film, Pixar has alot to carry. Movies such as Amelie are easier to produce. Why? The filmmaker is known for his bizarre and entertaining other films such as Delicatessen and City of Lost Children. You know what to expect. When you look at Pixar, you see Disney(not anymore though!), and how can you take risks and chances with that and our American audience? Any idea that isn't accepted by the group mentality means you just lost a market bracket. Money moves our market and it's a bit of a shame. Cheers

Thanks to everyone for such an interesting and varied response. To Christian re: “What’s the analogy in “Belleville?” I hope to see that film over the weekend and will comment after that. To Melissa re:” Why pick on Nemo?” I’m a long time supporter of Pixar. My concern about Nemo is that, though I agree that their heart is in the right place and that they are doing better work than many other studios, when it comes to story they are underachieving in their recent films. And like it or not, what Pixar does and particularly what Pixar gets rewarded for doing has an impact on everyone else.

In a daring feat of courage, I am going to attempt to answer both Jean and Steve at the same time……here I go…..wish me luck………….okay………… first let me say that for all my frustrations with this field, one thing I truly love about it is that the experimental filmmakers and the commercial filmmakers still stand side by side and talk to each other- not always understanding each other but at least talking and attending the same festivals and dropping in at the same web sites- this should become one of our great strengths, if we let it. Let me also say that in my own tastes and interests, I’m a straddler: I can enjoy and see value in a wide range of work from the kind of approach that Jean is describing right through to the great junky Saturday night movie enjoyed with a pizza and a beer. I love the unexpected- for example, when a primarily live action experimental filmmaker with a reputation as a blowhard comes up with an animated short that pokes fun at his own pretentiousness (in a highly experimental way, of course) or when a commercially released film, one that was ordered strictly to put bums in the seats, embodies a truth in a truly original way. That said, I certainly don’t believe that structure, by its nature, precludes true expression but I do believe it is useful to understand the role that structure has played and can continue to play before one attempts to discard it. Many of the great modernists had that grounding in structure and could use that as a contrast point for their own explorations – what their work wasn’t was as much of value as what their work was. I think that the great instinctive artists in all fields often generate some kind of coherence and structure even when they are working without a net. But the risk of this approach is when you don’t know what you don’t know. In the personal filmmaking realm, this can result in work that is so completely self referential that it disappears up its own rear end. In the commercial world, the risk is flabby, sloppy storytelling. I agree that the remake of 101 Dalmatians is what it is- a run of the mill commercial product calculated to turn a profit. But it suffers in particular because of it is the product of the same studio that made the original. Remember that Walt was by all accounts a consummate storyteller. He must be turning over in his grave at the quality of alot of the films that are now put out in his name. As for Nemo, I didn’t say that it was a bad film- in fact, it has some wonderful elements. I said it was weak, because it is. If this were the product of any old studio, I wouldn’t bother to even think about it but Pixar puts itself in a higher category. I get the feeling that there is the same split in thinking here that is revealed in the joke where the brain surgeon says to the author that he is thinking about writing a book and the author responds, “What a coincidence, I was considering doing a little surgery on the side…………” In other words, the Pixar folks know that animation is difficult and have spent the necessary time to master the craft. They’re keen to make superior films and would never tolerate for a minute allowing substandard movement onto the screen. But when it comes to writing, they just think they know how to do it and believe themselves that the story is up to same level as the animation when it really, truly isn’t. It’s funny because in other parts of life, I think we expect consistency: a nice restaurant is supposed to have pleasant décor and reliable service but also good food; a good school is supposed to have a well run campus and well designed buildings but also a good faculty who teach a challenging curriculum. This all seems so obvious that I am curious about our collective blind spot in this area.

Excellent, keep on trying to put things in a proper perspective. Hairless princesses, or princesses awaiting for the time CG can ... To my mind, Nemo's success is in the mother -father -child relationship, just like Bambi...that has always appealed to the great masses. The fish swallowed the bear... since Disney launched Nemo's DVD at the same time Brother Bear came out. It was no coincidence, but a shift. I am bereaving the Studio close down. Can't 2D and 3D be just like Coke and Pepsi?

With all the other terrible animated films being made out there (especially American CGs), why pick on Nemo? True, I didn't think it worthy of ousting The Lion King for box office champion, but I did think the storyline less predictable than Monsters, Inc. The characters didn't seem overly cartoony, unlike the flat affect of Titan A.E. 2D characters in a CG world. I thought they bridged the gap between the realistic and the exaggerated very smoothly. Part of our problem, as American animation lovers, critics, and artists, is our history. The norm is that movies--in general, not just in animation--follow a storyline with a beginning, middle, and end, with characters and emotions, etc. Now, I'm all for this line of thinking--as long as it works well. But this is not how animation has historically been done on the global level. Abstract stuff has been done to a much higher, more accepted degree all over the world, especially in Eastern Europe. Because animation (and film in general) relies on an audience more than any other art form, and is also often more expensvie to make, there isn't so much of that here in America, simply because it doesn't sell. Americans don't, in general, like stuff they aren't used to, stuff they can't put their fingers on. It's a society that revolves around characters and a storyline; if we don't know what's going on, we become disinterested and call it "stupid". I could go on to say that this is due to the low opinion of art and artists in this country, but then I would be getting away from where I want to be. Thanks to your article, I think that perhaps films should be divided into three basic media categories instead of two: live action, animation, and hybrid. Live action would still be allowed visual FX such as digital fire and whatnot, but any normally live-action film with one or more characters that are made via animation or that has one or more sets that is either entirely or almost entirely made up of animated parts should be considered in the hybrid section. The same rules would apply to normally-labelled animated films, only the percentages are backwards. This would do several things. First, it would probably tick off such hybrid-filmmaking greats like George Lucas and Disney (but with all the latter's done, they deserve to get ticked off), and I seriously doubt the Academy will shuffle things around so readily. Second, it would push a great number of films into the hybrid category, leaving the live-action open for more inventive, creative, artistic live-aciton films that don't require expensive digital enhancement. I can't be so bold as to say that animation would stop getting picked on if this occurred, but it would most likely make the huge corporate houses reconsider their adjendas. Lastly, I must defend PIXAR's artistic integrity. I agree that the last two of their films weren't nearly as good as their first three, but they're still doing way better than some of the other studios. They're still sticking with as original material as they can think of, and are still stressing the importance of the story and characters as being superior to the technology. It is my observation that PIXAR is doing exactly what you are accusing them of not doing: they fit the technology to the story, and not the other way around. This is what they have done in the past, and I hope to God they will continue to do so in the future.

Hi Ellen, Here are a few reflections on your splendid article (I especially like this “part 3, v.2”). When you say: “. . .the point of the whole exercise is to communicate something. . .” I agree and disagree simultaneously. Keep in mind that we constantly switch between two modes of experience, the one of the “doer,” and the one of the “viewer.” The doer often works in order to discover/uncover, much more than in order to communicate. If one could clearly define what it is one is about to do, one would not need to do it, one would turn one’s attention to the “next problem.”. I believe that what keeps us going is precisely that part that remains undefined/elusive/mysterious and that drives all that we do (this of course presupposes honesty, authenticity, I am not here talking about creation motivated by careerism). Most viewers may expect/seek pre-digested food, especially in our times when the (quoting Chomsky) “Moral Monsters” have managed to turn most of us into mindless consumers, and those in control of the access to distribution and creation are only too happy to cash in on the dishing out of mindless material, all along claiming that they are “democratic” in their catering to what the majority “wants.” But that’s is another story all together. . . But as doers, what is it we really are looking for? In the act of creation, the “viewer” is often not to be trusted, it too often is the voice of (self) censorship (the “monkey on the shoulder whispering in one’s ear”), one needs to find ways to carry on in spite of most of the feedback one gets about one’s work when one is in “viewer mode.” John Cage once told Philip Guston the following story: “When you enter your studio, you are there with your friends, your enemies, and all your ideas about this and that. As you start working, and if you are lucky, they start leaving, one by one. Now, it you persist, and if you are very lucky, even you leave.” This points to a depth of experience that is very much lacking in much of animation, the doing remains too often within the realm of the already-known, the doer never leaves. And when the doer leaves, what is brought back upon his/her return is a gift, most often foreign to what one was looking for, but just as often, much better, larger, than what was sought in the first place. This experience is central to much of what has been done in Art for centuries, but much of the world of animation acts as if this did not exist, did not matter, at all. So “communicating,” maybe, but not necessarily, “uncovering,” surely. I was glad to see you talk about “101 Dalmatians” again. I had the privilege of sitting on your lecture comparing both versions (animated and live cinema) way back at the Ottawa festival in, I believe, 1998. You made it clear that the more credible version of the two was indeed the animated one, it was in this sense far more “real” than the paltry live cinema version. From your presentation, I saw that, in animation, a simple wall can become an element that participates in the impact of the whole thing (we can shape it, colour it, make it “do” something), while by comparison, a wall in the live cinema version was dead dumb. I was starting to look at animation as a potential bona fide art medium, and your lecture contributed to my entering in earnest that exciting -and yet to be defined- language. However, most animation is still story driven, and I feel that that is what penalizes it greatly, especially if the story and its telling are of the “clothes line” variety you denounce so rightly. For hundreds and hundreds of years, much in Art has opened us to the fragmented nature of our own experience, the fragmented nature of our “ordinary” consciousness. It seems to me that animation is too often living in denial when it comes to dealing with that fundamental aspect of what it means to be human. It is as if we were once again living under the control of 19th Century French Salon pundits, animation has a very hard time taking off and making its own that which it alone can do. To quote you again: “Isn’t it more than a bit ridiculous to use evermore sophisticated technology to tell increasingly unsophisticated stories? “ I’ll drink to that! Here we have a medium that can go places no live cinema -alone- would ever come close to, and yet, we treat it as if it had the same built-in limitations live cinema does! “Bingo” indeed showed promises, and “Amélie” with its great intelligence and superb integration of animation opened new doors as well. However, what much of animation is stuck in is some kind of habit, and habits are not broken out of by doing “more of the same.” Just like painting got out of its 19th Century rut through the experimental work of many (and not “just” the Impressionists), animation needs similar new vision(s), and I am almost certain that will not come from the major studios. Experimentation and the finding of new ways do not jive with the imposition of a finished result as goal. You also say: “The good news is that much of what we need to know is just waiting for us to rediscover it and once uncovered, it will help us figure out the rest.” How could we get to see that “what we need to know is just waiting for us to rediscover it and once uncovered” if we keep looking at animation with the same goggles, if we keep on wanting to put the cart before the horses? I submit to you that, in some cases, “analogy” (or “metaphor”) is the by-product, the ‘reward” of the work, not its pre-established defining structure. “Modern Art” (in all Art forms) has done away with the limitations of “beginning, middle and end” and has, once again, opened us up, both as doers and viewers, to the fertile ground of fragmentation and elusiveness, I am fairly convinced of the fact that animation needs to go that route as well. In that sense, the work could (should?) be driven not by “analogy/metaphor,” but rather be driven by the search for analogy/metaphor. It seems to me our work is at its very best when we discover in and through it something we could never have foreseen, at least not clearly. This implies, demands, a form of loss of control -while working- which animation is capable of, but which it won’t be exposed to much as long as its practitioners are “control driven,” bent on the “how to” illusions most schools are dishing out these days. Thanks for the great paper Ellen.

Is "Finding Nemo" really a bad movie? Was the live action version of "101 Dalmations" really inferior to the animated original? I liked Finding Nemo. I enjoyed 101 Dalmations and willingly took my kids to see the sequel. These movies were meant for children. Of course the fact that they're palatible to the adult audience makes them all that much better. However, their reason for being is A) to put bums into seats, and B) to sell toys. Is it fair to subject a movie that was designed for this purpose (and succeeds brilliantly) to the same high-brow criticism that you'd apply to a serious 'grown up' movie? It's "OK" not to like Nemo. Just as it is equally "OK" to like it. If I don't like a movie, that doesn't necessarily make it "BAD". It's just not suited to my taste.