|
Post by tailmister on Mar 31, 2005 21:19:32 GMT -5
I remember that watching some of The Incredibles special features, someone mentioned that Pixar is the only studio with nothing but success.
I just wonder, in a business sense, or a movie sense, or whatever, in movies, what is considered a 'success'?
Is it high-rated movies, profit, or something else?
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Mar 31, 2005 21:46:11 GMT -5
For people like Disney....it's profit...
For people like Pixar.....it's how many people enjoy their films....
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Mar 31, 2005 23:13:06 GMT -5
All of Pixar's films have turned a HUGE profit, have gotten mostly positive reviews, and have been very popular with movie-goers. Financially and critically they have all been successful, and most of all, they have established characters that are practically household names.
pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Apr 1, 2005 4:26:04 GMT -5
Which is one of the reasons I love Pixar. ;D
|
|
I ♥ umbrellas
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
the Umbrella of DOOM...its coming
Posts: 114
|
Post by I ♥ umbrellas on Apr 1, 2005 9:18:01 GMT -5
I suppose you could also say that success is winning awarad for a movie or getting high viewing figures at the box office!
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Apr 1, 2005 9:56:45 GMT -5
Which Pixar do all the time- the Incredibles won two Oscars. ;D
|
|
I ♥ umbrellas
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
the Umbrella of DOOM...its coming
Posts: 114
|
Post by I ♥ umbrellas on Apr 1, 2005 9:59:01 GMT -5
precisely
|
|
|
Post by lizardgirl on Apr 1, 2005 10:20:57 GMT -5
;D
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Apr 1, 2005 12:05:05 GMT -5
I wouldn't use awards as a measure of success, not by itself, anyway. Even though "The Incredibles" won, keep in mind that "Monsters, Inc." lost out to "Shrek", even though "Monsters, Inc." made more money AND got better reviews. A many awards ceremonies, there has been this "beat Disney' attitude, or so it seems. It's like the ones actually voting for winners have this mentality that they should avoid giving awards to anything associated with Disney. There was just no way to avoid giving the Oscar to "the Incredibles", though, but if you ask me, it SHOULD have been eligible for "Best Picture", rather than Best Animated Picture".
pitbulllady
|
|
I ♥ umbrellas
Randall's Skivvy (0-299)
the Umbrella of DOOM...its coming
Posts: 114
|
Post by I ♥ umbrellas on Apr 1, 2005 12:40:59 GMT -5
hmmmm...I dunno, because if you put it in the best picture category because it will come up against lots of other films and then it chances are would not win!
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Parsec on Apr 1, 2005 14:07:55 GMT -5
There was just no way to avoid giving the Oscar to "the Incredibles", though, but if you ask me, it SHOULD have been eligible for "Best Picture", rather than "Best Animated Picture". Yeah, though I love the fact that they've won in their category and got some much-deserved recognition, they really should start making animated flicks eligible for "Best Picture" status. The Incredibles was that good. Seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Mirage on Apr 1, 2005 14:10:48 GMT -5
they really should start making animated flicks eligible for "Best Picture" status. TOTALLY!! I see no reason why they shouldn't be.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Parsec on Apr 1, 2005 16:41:36 GMT -5
TOTALLY!! I see no reason why they shouldn't be. *nodnods* It really is biased to have that "Best Picture" section for live action films only. I think I heard somewhere that they only made the "Best Animated Films" section, because they wanted to have it seperate from the live action ones. I think they said they didn't consider animated films actual "movies", so they wouldn't qualify for "Best picture" or something like that. I remember reading something about it awhile back and getting pissed off about it. It's really no fair. I mean, animated films not actual "movies"? That's absurd. Maybe they're just afraid that it'll out-win their other so-called "Best Picture" nominees. Lol.
|
|
|
Post by Light Rises on Apr 1, 2005 17:10:42 GMT -5
*nodnods* It really is biased to have that "Best Picture" section for live action films only. I think I heard somewhere that they only made the "Best Animated Films" section, because they wanted to have it seperate from the live action ones. I think they said they didn't consider animated films actual "movies", so they wouldn't qualify for "Best picture" or something like that. I remember reading something about it awhile back and getting pissed off about it. It's really no fair. I mean, animated films not actual "movies"? That's absurd. Maybe they're just afraid that it'll out-win their other so-called "Best Picture" nominees. Lol. Well, technically...animated films ARE qualified to be nominated for the "Best Picture" Oscar ( Beauty and the Beast was nominated for "Best Picture" in 1992, and lost out to Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven). You guys, however, are absolutely right about the Academy (and the movie industry in general, I'm convinced) having a bias against animated films. I talked about this with my dad not too long ago (and he reads a LOT about just this type of thing), and his theory is that Hollywood just doesn't see movies with characters that are animated (as opposed to being "real" people acting everything out) as being of equal caliber to live-action films (no matter how badly the latter often SUCK). The fact that the Academy eventually added a "Best Animated Film" category was ultimately a sad recognition of that bias; it was almost as if they felt SORRY for animated movies, since those only tend to win in the "Best Original Song" and "Best Musical Score" categories.
~Light Rises
|
|
|
Post by RandallBoggs on Apr 1, 2005 22:29:31 GMT -5
|
|