Ah-HA! I FOUND It!

[pitbulllady]

Remember when we have discussed "Pixar's Rules" for their films, the same ones that John Lasseter keeps framed on his desk, that he showed proudly to all the world on "60 Minutes" right before the release of Finding Nemo? Well, I finally found them, on Jim Hill's site, right here: jimhillmedia.com/blogs/sean_kennelly/print/6725.aspx

Make sure you read down to the bottom, where it is clearly stated that Pixar's films will have no VILLAINS, among other things. Now, how many of those-its own rules-has Pixar already broken? Those rules were basically promises made not their own employees, but to FANS.

pitbulllady

[sgtyayap]

Interesting. DOES prove them hypocrites. Not that they didn't break the villains rule as early as Monsters, Inc. 1 (Waternoose).

[RandallBoggs]

I find it interesting how Kennelly puts in that it seemed that all the stuff Disney wanted to added, the exact OPPOSITE of what they were aiming for, was what made them consider they were "breaking the mold"

[RandallBoggs]

Well lets see what they broke....
No Songs? Well seems they didn't really break that one. I mean essentially we're talking that spontaneous burst into song moment. Seems they haven't broken this one.
Happy Village Song?? Don't think they broke this one either. Thankful for that 0_0
Love story? Well that's an interesting one. Wasn't Wall-e said to have been discussed at the Hidden Cafe that before Jobs and his friends were deciding on the initial films? Well it is a love story at heart. Broken, but it seemed impossible they wouldn't do a love story someday.
No Villain? Broken.
"I want moment"? Huh...unsure on this one.

[pitbulllady]

Well, they broke it with A Bug's Life, too. Hopper was just as much a villain as Waternoose was, and of course, they've been breaking that one rule ever since. Finding Nemo, WALL-E and Cars were the only three Pixar movies since MI that I can think of that didn't have real villains. I don't consider Auto to be a villain because he was a machine simply doing what he'd been programmed to do, by any means possible. He(or rather, IT) couldn't make choices or decisions based on free-thinking or morals or ethics, because he wasn't programmed to have those, either. He was an ANTAGONIST, as was Chick Hicks(who didn't even have a major role at all in the movie), but not a villain. Ditto for little hyperactive Darla and her dentist uncle, neither of whom thought they were doing anything wrong or bad; indeed, Darla was too young to really comprehend "bad" vs. "good".

Pixar has also violated the "no romance" rule with Cars, WALL-E and, I guess you could say, Up, if you consider the courtship of Carl and Ellie, but without that, the movie would not have been anything(HSUS endorsements or not). Cars also featured what I guess you can call a "village song", even though the characters weren't singing, just having a good time to "Sha-Boom", and that, to ME, was one of the highlights of the movie, seeing everyone happy for once, with the old neon signs brightly lit up once again in so many decades. Still, the "no villains" rule is torn assunder right and left, and yet it is one of the things that is supposed to make Pixar's movies stand out from Disney's movies.

pitbulllady

[mistica0christina]

"I want" moment song probably refers to times in where a character is talking/singing in relation to something that they want or a goal to achieve. For example, the song "Jack's Lament" is simply Jack Skeleton singing to both himself and Zero about how Halloween doesn't do it for him anymore and that being the pumpkin king just gets so lonely that he sometimes wish he wasn't...at least, that's what I think, I could be wrong.

Sounds like to me that Pixar basically counted their chickens before they hatched. While I understand that they made up these rules for a reason, the fact that they did unfortunately is kind of stupid, not only do they set up boundaries for themselves but also it builds up a bit of false expectations especially when the reality sets in that you can't always do an idea for a script just by following these rules alone! Basically, they screwed themselves over. Another thing to keep in mind is that Disney did purchase them back in 06' and while it is stated that their contract still allows them to be a seperate entity from Disney, it doesn't change the fact that Disney basically owns their butts and can make them do whatever they want and considering how powerful and rich of a company that Disney is, makes one question whether or not if you want to bite the hand that feeds.

[pitbulllady]

Here's an ADDITIONAL set of Pixar's Rules of Filmmaking I found, though I'm unclear if Pixar actually stated them, like they did with the ones found on Jim Hill's site, or if those are just this blogger's interpretations of how they achieved their success. Let's pay special attention to Rule #4 and Rule #7, shall we?

bighollywood.breitbart.com/lgrin/2010/06/23/we-love-pixar-the-pixar-rules/

4. Likable characters. Pixar’s heroes have their faults and foibles, but at the end of the day they remain heroes, imbued with a latent Judeo-Christian sense of morality, ethics, sacrifice, and justice
Now, as someone who comes from a strong Judeo-Christian family background myself, I can emphatically state that what the "heroes" of MI, Mike and Sulley, did to Randall IN NO WAY,SHAPE, OR FORM was "imbued with a latent Judeo-Christian sense of morality, ethics, sacrifice(unless you can count sacrificing RANDALL)and justice"!

7. The Golden Rule, Pixar’s homegrown Hippocratic Oath: Do No Harm. As in harm to the audience. It’s one thing to address the many difficult subjects that make up Real Life, things like loss, death, and failure. It’s quite another to let audience members leave the theater, as so many nihilistic and mean-spirited modern movies do, with those issues still hanging unresolved in their psyches like an open wound. Pixar, in following their own personal Hays Code like the classics of yore, brings audiences safely through the darkness.
Again, I think I can speak for most of us here, in that the way MI ended, with regards to Randall's "punishment" vs. Waternoose's punishment vs. the REWARDS that all the others who also did wrong received, left me feeling completely bummed, and I still find that particular scene so disturbing that I cannot watch it to this day. If that wasn't "mean-spirited", I don't know what is!

pitbulllady

[mentalguru]

I'm back! Confused by time differences now (woke up at 3:30am here... damn it). First link is gone BTW guys.

...

Is it wrong of me that I find the promotion of one specific religious set rather distasteful in of itself? Disturbs me a little. So far we haven't actually HAD a character promote anything directly religious in relation to it, thank goodness.

Also come from that Judeo-Christian background. Though as you all know for various reasons I no longer subscribve to it. And forgiveness is much easier now, though that just might come from time too. Hell knows. Oddly, the more uh "religious" someone became, the less forgiving, more judgemental and more hateful they seemed to become. At least in my experience. But then they're usually just scared. (Been there, done that, I was just a quieter version with moments of extreme ignorance and verbal diarrohoea). Most of the time they're secretly scared anyway. But it seems the more ZEALOUS you become the less likely you seem to hold the tenants which... are actually any good at all. (And the rule almost seems like they're hinting that Judeo-Christian morality is the best morality to promote... um ego much? How about actually just being a decent person and trying your best?) Is slightly on the weird side. Plus... what if they hired someone who was openly of another religion or none at all? A writer or someone in charge of the stories? Or do they ONLY hire christians or people who know to 'shut up'? They are not a religious organisation or shouldn't be. They produce movies.

I am well aware WALL-E a favourite of mine though had christian motives because I've heard quotes to that effect. But I like the movie anyway and just cringed a little when I saw the quote. I can like something ike that because I believe in the death of the writer for the most part. Once the movie is out there, while it can be interesting to hear and I can enjoy interviews, as they can produce good ideas and insights, what they say is not canon.

Fortunatly or unfortunatly, same can be said for the RULES. Maybe. But they seem more official then someone in a silly interview calling characters 'evil'. Granted it does show they lack an ability to stick to promises, or as Mistica points out quite aptly IMO, setting the rules in of themselves may have been a mistake. Here's the only rule you need:

Produce good movies to the best of their abilities where possible, and not be blinded by the moolah or praise no matter HOW high either of them come.

Good movie definition: Characters which are believeable, relateable and with an engaging storyline, movies which make you think in some way are also a good thing.

Also rule 7: Oddly while I was really disappointed in the road M.I. took in the end, given the fact that (at first) it was my favourite it did the wrong deed and (later) I came to give the one the action was committed against more interest than I had previously to the point he became a favourite too, it has done a lot for me. While in the short term it had a negative effect, and it still bugs me and feels incomplete to this day, overall the effect on me PERSONALLY has probably been positive.

Some of us may never have had these discussions were it not for the said incident.

Personally, I question whether I would have seen Randall as more interesting then the 'petty lizard guy with the cool voice' if Sulley hadn't done it.

I've kind of sometimes learned from the mistakes of things I've loved. It kind of makes me want to create too and someday write published stories the way I want them to go.

It would be no less amusing if someone also learned from mine if that actually happened (and by some miracle actually got popular). You know, the mistakes -I- made. Which are inevitable. There is no perfect story.

I don't suspect I'm the only one whose thought of this. Percy Jackson series omes to mind. (Percy Jackson- I read the first four books in the US because I got them dirt cheap at a Hot Topic clearance sale, to me it's kind of seems like it's trying to be Harry Potter but 'fixed' in terms of morality and idea of greyness on some level. I would have loved it if I found it as a kid more but ah well, plan to get the 5th some day anyway).

[pitbulllady]

My OWN personal views of what is a "Judeo-Christian" moral background is very different from that of most people, and forgiveness and the concept that all of us are capable of evil deeds and have DONE evil deeds, whether we want to admit or not, is at the very base of my beliefs. The way that Randall was treated in the movie was hardly in keeping with teachings of the New Testament, which is the "Christian" aspect, at all, and I'm sure that it would not have been in keeping with Buddism or many other beliefs, either. Basically, how Randall was dealt with is "eye for an eye", or "do unto others as they have DONE unto you". Because Randall always WAS the main focal point in the movie for me, the ending totally left me feeling like I'd gone to a NASCAR race or something, expecting to have a great time, only to see my favorite driver killed in a fiery crash while everyone cheered his death. I saw that movie on DVD for the first time in the fall following the summer that I'd seen Lilo and Stitch in theaters, a movie which helped me get through an awful time in my own life, the summer that my grandfather passed away following a long hospital stay and horrible pain, and a movie which left me feeling wonderful each time I left the theater. What I felt at the end of Monsters, Inc. the first time I watched it was the polar opposite of the feeling I had after watching Lilo and Stitch, a feeling of having had a piece of cake waved in front of my face, only when I took a bite, it was just flour; all the sweetness that I was expecting was taken out of it by that one act of revenge. That feeling of having been deprived of something important by the movie's end has grown and grown to this day.

pitbulllady

[mentalguru]

Everyone has different experiences I feel.

N.Ireland is probably one of the more backward parts of the UK after all as well as the more religious despite whatever claims they make for education, the fact is we have 'brain drain' here. Everyone educated usually LEAVES eventually. Because even before the recession, there were no jobs or real opportunities. It's also obviously much better for me then it would have been for someone like me back in the 70s or what have you, but still you got the taste of bad experiences at school. It's obviously STILL better than other parts of the world. But it can get annoying.


And then you heard people going 'off the deep end' (ie going into fundementalism) sometimes afterwards at uni. A flirtation with bigotry if you will. Or more than they displayed before. Which is ironic since it helped get me away for good. Then again I wasn't at uni at home.

And then turning out to have been gay all along themselves. Or eventually getting a partner who is of a different creed and remarkably things becoming better.

Ah old school mates, you are like soap operas I swear when I hear your stories second hand. Granted, given the fact the same think seems to happen to religious leaders as well it shouldn't be surprising.

Becoming to entrenched by the dogma and the details can be a bad thing seems to me. I'm for the forgiveness tenant. But the more entrenched by dogma by hell, the more blind they become and that idea just completely falls to the side. And it's not hard to see why. They're scared in the end.

For some people perhaps they need religion generally, for some (like me) it's not a good idea really at all to believe in that sort of thing at all and it's good I no longer do so since of course belief in that sort of thing isn't a choice and usually changes with time. Most people are neutral probably, the transistion in either direction can be emotionally filled but at the bare bones the experience or effect of losing or gaining religion on their morals is neutral. (Except they'd be more liberal about sex perhaps). They'd be the same person regardless though in the end.

"He was a prick/great guy, now he's a prick/great guy with/without the pamphlets"

Forgiveness I feel is easier now because I have a choice in the matter. Never felt like that when I believed. That might be just because I'm getting a little older too that it's easier but I think it was definitly a good thing. I learned what love really was about by doing so, in the famil sense of the word. It's kind of ironic but some of the vaguer songs of christian rock bands can apply to me and breaking away from it rather than going back as well as other people. The bad things they sometimes did in their beliefs name and the people they have hurt unintentionally. Because while what we believed to be right was a major factor we still did wrong things. Some people, terrible.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MEnuAelysI

Of course for some they did bad things after they broke away at first and had to find their footing as well as the other way around. I think this song can apply to many things regardless of its original intent.

For me it's the love of people I know and the world in general not what they intend really. -shrugs-

--

How the story ended was an extremely bad move to be certain though, but there is still something to be learned from it I feel.