Pixar To Do Live Action - Page 2 - Never Forgotten: a Foster's Home Community

Bloo2daMacs · 05-01-2007, 02:25 PM

Okay, excuse me for a second, but

WHAT?!!

That's insane! Pixar is a studio for ANIMATION!! Why can't they just make this movie a plain old Disney movie! It didn't have to be a Disney Pixar movie!

I really hope this doesn't backfire on Pixar.

Invader Bloo · 05-01-2007, 02:44 PM

Weird.

I can understand them doing traditional animated movie (which they will be doing soemtimes because Lasseter feels it's a dieing movie genre, which he's right), but live-action!!!?????

Partymember · 05-01-2007, 04:44 PM

Y'all never read the John Carter of Mars stuff i'm guessing.

Ergo you cannot appreciate the brilliance of a JCoM movie. Let it be. I don't care who makes it, just get it made.

Ditchy McAbandonpants · 05-01-2007, 10:59 PM

Like I say, I am going to continue taking this idea with a pinch of salt until I see incontrovertible evidence of its veracity, but if it is true, then I see no reason for it to be anything but a positive move. People worry about them "selling out", but it's not like they're in the position of Cartoon Network, to take ORD's example, where they're a company playing catch-up to its rivals; Pixar are the indisputable animation market leaders and a financial powerhouse of a studio, whose name alone can guarantee $60 million+ opening weekend grosses regardless of the content of the film, and whose movies are renowned for their universal appeal. For them to do live-action for demographic-chasing reasons doesn't seem to make any sense; frankly, as has been said, I'd say that the potential financial and artistic risk of such a leap into the unknown far outweighs its potential benefit.

So why take it at all? Because taking risks and not being afraid to try new and challenging things is how great artists mature and develop their craft. It was a risk for Steven Spielberg to branch out from popcorn entertainment to serious dramas like Schindler's List; it was a risk for Jim Carrey to move away from comedy to dramatic roles like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind; then there's those whose whole careers are spent taking risks, such as Ang Lee, who in the last ten years has gone from period drama (Sense and Sensibility) to social dissection (The Ice Storm) to martial arts epic (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) to comic book actioner (Hulk) to gay romance (Brokeback Mountain). Yes, with experimentation comes the potential for failure and ridicule (Oliver Stone's Alexander, Spielberg's 1941, Ang Lee's Hulk), but if you've really got a vision, fear of failure's a pretty poor reason not to pursue it.

I have every confidence that Lasseter, Bird and co. are doing this for the right reasons. As a company, Pixar have already demonstarted more courage and intelligence in their output than people give them credit for, even outside of their pioneering of the CG animated movie; they took the time to craft a worthy sequel to Toy Story instead of the cash-in job Disney wanted from them, and have resisted the potential easy payday of Toy Story 3 until they had an idea they were enthusiastic about, even going as far as to cancel the project Disney started for them; they're willing to make full-length two-hour movies instead of sticking to the 80-100 minute figure generally expected of animation; via Lasseter, they've championed the increasingly unfashionable medium of 2D animation, backing the US releases of Miyazaki movies and spearheading Disney's current 2D revivial; with The Incredibles, they put their creative reins completely in the hands of Brad Bird, a newcomer to the company whose only previous credit had been a financial failure, and allowed him to totally deviate from Pixar's tried-and-true "buddy road movie" formula; even with Cars, they committed themselves to the movie the director wanted to make, even though that meant running with a far-from-bankable premise and a sedate, low-key plot and pace, for which they took a financial hit and media criticism. Bird himself is a filmmaker with brains and a backbone, too; he was a key member of The Simpsons production team in its pioneering formative years, and both of the "kids' movies" he's made have included mature, intelligent social commentary, from Cold War paranoia to litigation culture and the promotion of mediocrity in modern society. Moreover, Lasseter and Bird are not just great animators; they'e great storytellers, great scriptwriters, excellent action choreographers and visual directors, people with an understanding of pacing and timing, filmmakers who know how to imbue their stories with emotional heft, and craftsmen committed to the highest possible production values. These are qualities that will transfer over into any filmmaking medium, animated or no. As I say, I have every confidence that any potential move to live-action will be done for the right reasons, and they should be applauded for taking that creative risk; and though past record is no guarantee of future success, I also have every confidence that they'll be able to pull it off. Good luck, Pixar.

PS - Partymember - I reckon people aren't talking about the John Carter of Mars thing as much because that's the part of this story that seems the most uncertain; I haven't seen anything from any of the people who really matter to corroborate that yet, so I'm just wondering if Daily Bulletin haven't put 2 and 2 together and got 5.

Still, if it does prove true, I'm sure there'll be a mass push from the uninitiated (myself included) to find out more about JCoM, so it soon might be getting all the exposure it needs.

HappyFoppy · 05-02-2007, 12:07 AM

What? Life Action? That's not Pixar at all. It's... Something run off the mill. Pixar should just do animation, not life action... Kageri's right - It's like Coca-Cola selling milk.

(Sorry if I missed some of this - I didn't read all the posts, sorry.)

Partymember · 05-02-2007, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ditchy McAbandonpants

PS - Partymember - I reckon people aren't talking about the John Carter of Mars thing as much because that's the part of this story that seems the most uncertain; I haven't seen anything from any of the people who really matter to corroborate that yet, so I'm just wondering if Daily Bulletin haven't put 2 and 2 together and got 5.

Still, if it does prove true, I'm sure there'll be a mass push from the uninitiated (myself included) to find out more about JCoM, so it soon might be getting all the exposure it needs.

I know, but i'm hoping.

Volksdragon · 05-09-2007, 05:56 PM

What? Most of my favorite movies are from Pixar. (Cars, Finding Nemo, etc.) If they change to live action.. well... I'll lose all faith in them whatsoever and move on to.. Dreamworks? Eeh. Shark Tale is good, and both Shreks were great. If Pixar loses my interest, I guess I'll start loving Dreamworks. Ah well.

If it was done with mostly CGI with a few Live Action parts like Happy Feet was, I'd be okay with it. But.. eh. I'll see how it turns out.

05-01-2007, 02:25 PM	#11
Bloo2daMacs Banned THE REFORMER... Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Spam Board Posts: 910	Doh- doo- doowah! Okay, excuse me for a second, but WHAT?!! That's insane! Pixar is a studio for ANIMATION!! Why can't they just make this movie a plain old Disney movie! It didn't have to be a Disney Pixar movie! I really hope this doesn't backfire on Pixar. Last edited by Bloo2daMacs; 05-01-2007 at 02:25 PM.

05-01-2007, 02:44 PM	#12
Invader Bloo Elder Spam Teh Merc with teh Mouth Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Weapon X Posts: 1,268	Weird. I can understand them doing traditional animated movie (which they will be doing soemtimes because Lasseter feels it's a dieing movie genre, which he's right), but live-action!!!????? __________________ JOIN THE CAUSE! Become a Spam Role-Player!

05-01-2007, 04:44 PM	#13
Partymember super-scientist GO TEAM VENTURE! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Lake George Posts: 1,500	Y'all never read the John Carter of Mars stuff i'm guessing. Ergo you cannot appreciate the brilliance of a JCoM movie. Let it be. I don't care who makes it, just get it made. __________________ Think you used enough dynamite there, Butch?

05-01-2007, 10:59 PM	#14
Ditchy McAbandonpants At Home Sorry, you must have me confused with some other Harrier jet. Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Here, there and everywhere Posts: 191	More Pixar cheerleading from Ditchy...better pull on my short skirt! Like I say, I am going to continue taking this idea with a pinch of salt until I see incontrovertible evidence of its veracity, but if it is true, then I see no reason for it to be anything but a positive move. People worry about them "selling out", but it's not like they're in the position of Cartoon Network, to take ORD's example, where they're a company playing catch-up to its rivals; Pixar are the indisputable animation market leaders and a financial powerhouse of a studio, whose name alone can guarantee $60 million+ opening weekend grosses regardless of the content of the film, and whose movies are renowned for their universal appeal. For them to do live-action for demographic-chasing reasons doesn't seem to make any sense; frankly, as has been said, I'd say that the potential financial and artistic risk of such a leap into the unknown far outweighs its potential benefit. So why take it at all? Because taking risks and not being afraid to try new and challenging things is how great artists mature and develop their craft. It was a risk for Steven Spielberg to branch out from popcorn entertainment to serious dramas like Schindler's List; it was a risk for Jim Carrey to move away from comedy to dramatic roles like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind; then there's those whose whole careers are spent taking risks, such as Ang Lee, who in the last ten years has gone from period drama (Sense and Sensibility) to social dissection (The Ice Storm) to martial arts epic (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) to comic book actioner (Hulk) to gay romance (Brokeback Mountain). Yes, with experimentation comes the potential for failure and ridicule (Oliver Stone's Alexander, Spielberg's 1941, Ang Lee's Hulk), but if you've really got a vision, fear of failure's a pretty poor reason not to pursue it. I have every confidence that Lasseter, Bird and co. are doing this for the right reasons. As a company, Pixar have already demonstarted more courage and intelligence in their output than people give them credit for, even outside of their pioneering of the CG animated movie; they took the time to craft a worthy sequel to Toy Story instead of the cash-in job Disney wanted from them, and have resisted the potential easy payday of Toy Story 3 until they had an idea they were enthusiastic about, even going as far as to cancel the project Disney started for them; they're willing to make full-length two-hour movies instead of sticking to the 80-100 minute figure generally expected of animation; via Lasseter, they've championed the increasingly unfashionable medium of 2D animation, backing the US releases of Miyazaki movies and spearheading Disney's current 2D revivial; with The Incredibles, they put their creative reins completely in the hands of Brad Bird, a newcomer to the company whose only previous credit had been a financial failure, and allowed him to totally deviate from Pixar's tried-and-true "buddy road movie" formula; even with Cars, they committed themselves to the movie the director wanted to make, even though that meant running with a far-from-bankable premise and a sedate, low-key plot and pace, for which they took a financial hit and media criticism. Bird himself is a filmmaker with brains and a backbone, too; he was a key member of The Simpsons production team in its pioneering formative years, and both of the "kids' movies" he's made have included mature, intelligent social commentary, from Cold War paranoia to litigation culture and the promotion of mediocrity in modern society. Moreover, Lasseter and Bird are not just great animators; they'e great storytellers, great scriptwriters, excellent action choreographers and visual directors, people with an understanding of pacing and timing, filmmakers who know how to imbue their stories with emotional heft, and craftsmen committed to the highest possible production values. These are qualities that will transfer over into any filmmaking medium, animated or no. As I say, I have every confidence that any potential move to live-action will be done for the right reasons, and they should be applauded for taking that creative risk; and though past record is no guarantee of future success, I also have every confidence that they'll be able to pull it off. Good luck, Pixar. PS - Partymember - I reckon people aren't talking about the John Carter of Mars thing as much because that's the part of this story that seems the most uncertain; I haven't seen anything from any of the people who really matter to corroborate that yet, so I'm just wondering if Daily Bulletin haven't put 2 and 2 together and got 5. Still, if it does prove true, I'm sure there'll be a mass push from the uninitiated (myself included) to find out more about JCoM, so it soon might be getting all the exposure it needs. __________________ Well, well, well; if it isn't... Ditchy McAbandonpants "Is not dead, despite all external indications suggesting otherwise."

05-09-2007, 05:56 PM	#17
Volksdragon Newly Abandoned Alright! Now it's really sucking! Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 4	What? Most of my favorite movies are from Pixar. (Cars, Finding Nemo, etc.) If they change to live action.. well... I'll lose all faith in them whatsoever and move on to.. Dreamworks? Eeh. Shark Tale is good, and both Shreks were great. If Pixar loses my interest, I guess I'll start loving Dreamworks. Ah well. If it was done with mostly CGI with a few Live Action parts like Happy Feet was, I'd be okay with it. But.. eh. I'll see how it turns out. __________________ Oh, thank you, helpful trail of clothes. I love you. Last edited by Volksdragon; 05-09-2007 at 05:58 PM.

05-02-2007, 12:07 AM	#15
HappyFoppy This rank is six words long STFU AND DANCE Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Hotel Hotel Posts: 597	What? Life Action? That's not Pixar at all. It's... Something run off the mill. Pixar should just do animation, not life action... Kageri's right - It's like Coca-Cola selling milk. (Sorry if I missed some of this - I didn't read all the posts, sorry.)