I for one think it was bad marketing. Advertisements for Elio were everywhere, but in spite of it none of them explained to me what the movie was or what it was about. I know that it was about a...
I for one think it was bad marketing. Advertisements for Elio were everywhere, but in spite of it none of them explained to me what the movie was or what it was about. I know that it was about a boy with an eyepatch and aliens, but that was about it; the commercials and billboards I have seen are just whirls of colors and shapes that have made no impression on me. I barely remembered that it was a Pixar film. I didn’t know what the movie was about until I actively searched out the full theatrical trailer. The ads were everywhere but weren’t enticing in the least.
Not sure where the advertisements were because I didn't see any, unfortunately. The whole "targeted ad" thing means the marketing isn't always actually getting saturated to everyone. That can't be...
Not sure where the advertisements were because I didn't see any, unfortunately. The whole "targeted ad" thing means the marketing isn't always actually getting saturated to everyone. That can't be helping.
I haven't even seen trailers. (And I know I'm particularly out of the loop but still, I always used to see them)
The first I heard about it was when I saw its poster at the theater yesterday. I don't watch much TV these days but I was still surprised I had no clue this existed. I figured it's because I've...
The first I heard about it was when I saw its poster at the theater yesterday. I don't watch much TV these days but I was still surprised I had no clue this existed. I figured it's because I've managed to create a "bubble" for myself, but these comments have me wondering.
I asked my mom if she'd heard of it since she watches more TV and she said no, but she also mentioned how Inside Out 2 had a big promotional push. I also remember seeing trailers and teasers for that one. So it really does feel like they just didn't market this one well.
Yeah, I have two kids and lately I have been going to a theatre with them about twice a month. I am startled that there is a new Pixar movie that I haven’t heard of — it should be almost...
Yeah, I have two kids and lately I have been going to a theatre with them about twice a month. I am startled that there is a new Pixar movie that I haven’t heard of — it should be almost impossible for me to avoid the advertising.
I follow Disney and Pixar probably more than most (though not obsessively) and I knew nothing of this. I've heard about them doing a Toy Story 5 probably 1000x, but I literally only heard about...
I follow Disney and Pixar probably more than most (though not obsessively) and I knew nothing of this. I've heard about them doing a Toy Story 5 probably 1000x, but I literally only heard about Elio when a Cinema Therapy video popped up in my YouTube subscriptions last week.
I'd say that's a terrible failure of marketing seeing as I'm probably the one weird mutant who is still going to the theater to see most of the Disney, Pixar, Marvel, & Star Wars content that they bother to bring there and this was a complete black hole for me.
Not sure good marketing would help. The trailer was so bland, my husband and I looked at each other and said, that's it? In the words of Bender, commenting on the lone, token human character on...
Not sure good marketing would help. The trailer was so bland, my husband and I looked at each other and said, that's it?
this idea of a boy that’s just running away from loneliness on earth.” She noted that Elio is obsessed with being abducted by aliens because of “his desperation to belong somewhere in this universe.” link
In the words of Bender, commenting on the lone, token human character on the set of All My Circuits: "he laughs, he loves, he learns; typical human stuff."
I watch anime every season, every year, and I can't believe in a world of yet another isekai and yet another idol, step-sibling, giant robot sameness, Pixar went with "boy travels and discovers himself." What insane hubris.
Toys talk when you dont look. Fish trying to navigate human world on land. Old guy, a boy and a dog fly to South America in helium balloons. Superhero family in a world where powers are illegal. Old robot in an abandoned world and the humans who moved on. A literal non talking rat wants to make French cuisine. And then this: boy travels.
Given the directorial direction this decade form Pixar and Disney, it seems to match the idea of a more personal story. A man in the Bronx trying to make his next break, a Canadian woman...
Given the directorial direction this decade form Pixar and Disney, it seems to match the idea of a more personal story. A man in the Bronx trying to make his next break, a Canadian woman discovering womanhood, two unlike elementals fall in love and overcome hardship.
They all have more to it than a quick premise pitch x but it clearly seems like (outside of Lightyear), the post - Lassenter era of animation wants to tell smaller, more relatable stories. Or at least pitch them as so.
I respect that films can, and should, be more than a premise pitch. But smaller, intimate stories with no weird premise are usually told as indie short films and student projects and festival only...
I respect that films can, and should, be more than a premise pitch. But smaller, intimate stories with no weird premise are usually told as indie short films and student projects and festival only budget films. Text format still exists too.
The landscape of cinema going has also undergone a sea change: families have far less disposable income these days, and prices of going out for movies with family has gone up, and streaming exist.
Small intimate tales should exist and be celebrated. But realistically, they're not going to be celebrated by most people because we are all so busy with our own small intimate tales, and we're poor. Pixar needs to ask themselves if hundred plus million dollar budget to tell small tales is the right platform.
La La Land is about two young people who, due to their dreams, passed each other by. EEOAA is about the most ordinary immigrant woman possible, trying to understand and connect with her gay daughter. Poor Things is a young girl discovering who she is. -- My point is, stakes are high for movie goers right now, and Pixar needs to stop blaming the audience for not taking a risk on their bland premise presented in a bland trailer.
There's a difference between creating a new, rich world, and fanfic. In a fanfic, it can just be two established charterers sitting watching tv or sharing a quick glance and be good fanfic. That's sort of what spin offs, sequels, and Minecraft et al are. But an independent work cannot be just shown as small time fluff like that.
Pixar still makes widely-accessible movies. Inside Out 2 was the highest grossing movie of 2024 - that was just last year. Elemental, a movie about the immigrant experience (in a sense, not unlike...
Pixar still makes widely-accessible movies. Inside Out 2 was the highest grossing movie of 2024 - that was just last year. Elemental, a movie about the immigrant experience (in a sense, not unlike EEAAO, which you praised), was considered a flop after a poor opening weekend ... only to rebound over the following weeks and months to gross over $450 million at the box office, becoming decidedly not a flop.
Maybe Elio had a bad trailer; that shouldn't be enough to condemn an entire company, particularly when they've proven that they still make movies that wide audiences want to see. Any movie can be made to sound boring when you boil down the story into basic elements. I could say that EEAAO was about a woman filing her taxes. It's not wrong but it misses the finer details of the plot.
Or I could describe a movie as "an office worker hates his job." Am I describing The Matrix, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, or Office Space?
I'm confused as to why a company like Pixar necessarily must only make movies that appeal to wide audiences.
If your studio wants to spend $100m on a movie, you need to make movies that make money to continue to making movies. A studio that spends $100 on a movie can make things that don't appeal to wide...
Im confused as to why a company like Pixar necessarily must only make movies that appeal to wide audiences
If your studio wants to spend $100m on a movie, you need to make movies that make money to continue to making movies.
A studio that spends $100 on a movie can make things that don't appeal to wide audiences.
Let's talk about box office earnings then! To start, let's ignore the pandemic block of movies which either never saw a theatrical release, saw one later (e.g., 2024) after debuting on streaming,...
Let's talk about box office earnings then! To start, let's ignore the pandemic block of movies which either never saw a theatrical release, saw one later (e.g., 2024) after debuting on streaming, or were otherwise hampered severely by the pandemic ... meaning Onward, Soul, Luca, Turning Red, and Lightyear. They never got a fair shake in the box office, and by the time some of them did see a theatrical release they'd already been seen by most viewers on streaming.
Ignoring those, the most recent theatrical releases by Pixar have been:
Inside Out 2 (2024) - $200 million budget, $1.7 billion box office
Elemental (2023) - $200 million budget, $500 million box office
Toy Story 4 (2019) - $200 million budget, $1 billion box office
Coco (2017) - $175-225 million budget, $810 million box office
Cars 3 (2017) - $175 million budget, $380 million box office
It is, again, worth noting that Elemental was, in similar fashion to Elio, deemed to be a "box office failure" before demonstrating that it had incredible legs and ended up being a critical and financial success. Coco, another one of those "too narrow" type movies - focusing specifically on Dia de los Muertos and Mexican culture - made four times its budget back at the box office. All of the movies above made money at the box office.
It seems to me that, pandemic notwithstanding, Pixar has been on a roll, between both wide appeal movies (Incredibles 2, Cars 3, Toy Story 4) and more focused, narrower-appeal movies (Coco, Elemental).
I like this analysis a lot. The premise of the posted article is that "Pixar hasn’t successfully launched a new theatrical property since 2017’s “Coco.”" -- your numbers illustrate two things: (1)...
I like this analysis a lot.
The premise of the posted article is that "Pixar hasn’t successfully launched a new theatrical property since 2017’s “Coco.”" -- your numbers illustrate two things: (1) the article might be too focused on the word "launch", ignoring (2) word of mouth and the long legs effect which favour good story telling and what perhaps might be required for new IPs.
I think this is one of those lies, darn lies and statistics type situation where the article pick and choose numbers to fit a narrative, and another set of numbers can tell a very different story.
My original point is that I'm totally not surprised they failed the launch from how generic the trailer looks, and that it was hubris on their part to think that kind of trailer could convince increasingly squeezed families to put butts in seats. The reviews seem favourable that there's much more than meets the (trailer watching) eye ; they could make their money back and then some. But they would still have failed the launch.
Given the headline: And the first sentence of the article: I think they're having too much fun punning on the content of the movie, having to do with space travel.
Given the headline:
‘Elio’ Box Office Flop: Why Can’t Pixar Launch Original Films?
And the first sentence of the article:
Disney’s animated adventure “Elio” failed to lift off at the box office, underscoring Pixar‘s continued struggle to launch original films.
I think they're having too much fun punning on the content of the movie, having to do with space travel.
Yeah, I remembered being interested in it after seeing the trailer, but after that nothing. I saw no hype and no marketing other than just marketing that announced its existence. I actually didn't...
Yeah, I remembered being interested in it after seeing the trailer, but after that nothing. I saw no hype and no marketing other than just marketing that announced its existence.
I actually didn't even know it came out already.
Also, I just realized that the first teaser came out in 2023, the second teaser came out in November of 2024, and the full trailer came out in March of this year. That's like a LONG time to be releasing teasers I think. People see it and forget about it, then when they see it again they kind of gloss over it. I wonder if it'd have done better with more focused marketing.
The first teaser came out in 2023 because it was originally supposed to release in March 2024. When the strikes happened they rearranged the schedule and moved Elio to 2025 so that Pixar could...
The first teaser came out in 2023 because it was originally supposed to release in March 2024. When the strikes happened they rearranged the schedule and moved Elio to 2025 so that Pixar could release something in the meantime (this also allowed them to rework the film which included changing the plot, tone, and switching out America Ferrera for Zoe Saldana). The move also allowed Inside Out 2 to be Pixar's great return to theaters.
TV ads. "Lol" is almost meaningless now, so I just want to ad that I'm actually laughing out loud. The only people I know that have actual TV are people that watch sports.
TV ads.
"Lol" is almost meaningless now, so I just want to ad that I'm actually laughing out loud. The only people I know that have actual TV are people that watch sports.
Why are companies still investing tens of millions into TV ads? I don't think I need to explain how the paradigms have shifted over a decade ago now. Why does Disney, a network made up of at least...
Why are companies still investing tens of millions into TV ads? I don't think I need to explain how the paradigms have shifted over a decade ago now.
Why does Disney, a network made up of at least a dozen channels, need to spend 10s of millions to show ads, which assumedly also means on their own networks?
I believe tv marketing (14m) is less than ten percent of the total marketing budget (150-200m). There are still people advertising on tv, but the spend is way less.
I believe tv marketing (14m) is less than ten percent of the total marketing budget (150-200m). There are still people advertising on tv, but the spend is way less.
Well there's spending less, and then still realizing you're spending 15m dollars. I know it's chump change for Disney, but if what's apparently 10% of the production budget it spent on marketing...
Well there's spending less, and then still realizing you're spending 15m dollars. I know it's chump change for Disney, but if what's apparently 10% of the production budget it spent on marketing to a waning platform instead of at least going back into production, it just makes inevitable headlines of layoffs even stupider
Yes, let me be more specific. In general I don't really like that market has more than even production. I looked up the production budget and it's apparently 150m as well. I thunk it's a bit weird...
Yes, let me be more specific. In general I don't really like that market has more than even production. I looked up the production budget and it's apparently 150m as well.
I thunk it's a bit weird that instead of putting 10% more budget into making the actual movie that Disney chooses to put it into putting commercials on TV.
People are mentioning the lack of advertising and I definitely agree with that, but I also don't find the art style / character design of Elio very appealing. I'm completely tapped out on the...
People are mentioning the lack of advertising and I definitely agree with that, but I also don't find the art style / character design of Elio very appealing. I'm completely tapped out on the "bean mouth/CalArts" style, for lack of a better term. I didn't even realize it was a Pixar movie at first - I thought it was just another Disney animated movie, which are not usually very impressive. Pixar used to be very distinct from what the rest of Disney is doing, but it seems they've lost a lot of their identity, at least on the surface.
You may want to dig below the surface, then; for one, the "CalArts style" criticism originates from noted pedophile John K, and is considered by some to be a bit of a modern dogwhistle -...
You may want to dig below the surface, then; for one, the "CalArts style" criticism originates from noted pedophile John K, and is considered by some to be a bit of a modern dogwhistle - intentionally or not, and here I whole-heartedly believe your use of the term is fully unintentional.
There's a lot of criticism towards the use of "CalArts style" as a critical lever to pull, which I would encourage you, and others, to investigate further.
That out of the way, I've watched all of Pixar's offerings excluding Lightyear and Toy Story 4. I know that the general reception of Pixar's movies has been almost overwhelmingly positive right up until the early pandemic in 2020. Starting with Onward, they've been on a much, much rockier road; one could argue that the cause is due to the stories becoming much more focused in their narrative, rather than generalized. What I mean by that is, each movie made by Pixar before Onward was largely universal themes - using anthropomorphized toys, monsters, fish, etc. to weigh observations about the human condition.
Onward, though, was really about two brothers, the death of their father, and how the older brother stepped in to fill the gap. One could argue that this isn't universally applicable to everyone's life the same way that, say, Finding Nemo is/was. Everyone will lose a parent; not everyone will have an older brother to step in as a father figure.
Soul was fantastic, and certainly dealt with universal themes and more mature ones at that. It wasn't anthropomorphized though, and like Onward it didn't get an immediate theatrical release.
I won't go into detail about every other movie since then, but each of them aren't really hitting upon universal themes except for Inside Out 2, which was the highest grossing film of 2024.
Now, I'll say that I absolutely love all of Pixar's movies - including the "flops" that are Onward, Luca (my daughter's favorite movie), Turning Red, and the slow-burn (pun intended) of Elemental - which ended up not being a flop in the long run. Each of those movies have very hyper-focused narratives, and I absolutely adore that fact. Not every movie needs to be made for every audience; movies like Turning Red, which focus heavily both on puberty as well as the Asian-Canadian experience need to exist alongside movies that focus on more general, universal topics.
Thanks for mentioning that term’s problematic nature, I wasn’t aware of it and will avoid using it going forward. For anybody interested, here’s a link to a non-account-walled copy of linked...
Regardless, I think there’s some truth that in the larger sphere, North American animation stylization has narrowed considerably. If we rewind to around 2000 or so for example, there was a wide variety of different art styles on display… Samurai Jack, The Powerpuff Girls, Batman Beyond, Monsters, Inc, Tarzan, The Emperor’s New Groove, Shrek, and The Road to El Dorado just to name a few all looked quite different from each other, with differences on average being more common than similarities. There’s no way any one of those could be mistaken for any of the others, even with photoshopping.
That’s not to downplay the hard work that’s going into modern animated works, and maybe it’s just a bias on my part but it feels like the industry used to be a good deal more adventurous visually. It’s genuinely great that there’s a greater variety of protagonists and settings and I hope that continues, but I’d also like to see more zany, visually striking styles that take advantage of the possibilities of animation to the fullest degree start to appear again.
I think there's a lot more diversity in animation today than you're giving credit. You mentioned Samurai Jack (Genndy Tartakovsky), The Powerpuff Girls (Craig McCracken), Batman Beyond (Paul Dini,...
I think there's a lot more diversity in animation today than you're giving credit.
You mentioned Samurai Jack (Genndy Tartakovsky), The Powerpuff Girls (Craig McCracken), Batman Beyond (Paul Dini, Bruce Timm, Alan Burnett), Monsters Inc (Pete Doctor), Tarzan (Kevin Lima, Chris Buck) The Emperor's New Groove (Mark Dindal), Shrek (Andrew Adamson, Vicky Jenson) and The Road to El Dorado (Eric Bergeron, Don Paul). You'll note that all of those are made by different people with no crossover, in many cases for different studios entirely.
All of the Pixar output I noted above are made under one studio, and in several cases with the same people at the top (in various different positions, admittedly). You've not considered the fact that Across the Spider-Verse was made by a separate studio entirely; of course it would look different.
You should look up the animation styles of other media, such as Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur, Octonauts, Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts, Pokémon Concierge, Bluey ... The list goes on and on, and it's wide and varied. It's very reductive and honestly misleading to state that "modern animated works" aren't striking styles using the medium to the fullest.
It’s fair that works from the same studio would look similar. I’m talking less about Pixar specifically and more about popular North American animation as a whole. Out of the titles listed,...
It’s fair that works from the same studio would look similar.
I’m talking less about Pixar specifically and more about popular North American animation as a whole. Out of the titles listed, Octonauts came from the UK and Ireland, Kipo was a joint American/South Korean production, and Pokémon Concierge is mostly or entirely made in Japan.
Maybe the thing I’m actually seeing is just the diminished presence that the US and Canada have in animation compared to decades past. A smaller industry by definition means reduced variety and greater aversion to risk.
I think you may have a point to some degree, but I do think you're overlooking a lot of the existing variety in North American animation. A lot of the shows you cited before are cartoon network...
I think you may have a point to some degree, but I do think you're overlooking a lot of the existing variety in North American animation. A lot of the shows you cited before are cartoon network shows, and if you look at the shows currently on Cartoon Network, they're still pretty damn visually distinct. Teen Titans Go looks nothing like The Amazing World of Gumball which looks nothing like We Bare Bears which looks nothing like Steven Universe (or at least none of these shows look any more similar to each other than the older Cartoon Network show you mentioned, and I could tell them apart arguably as or more easily than I could those older shows). Sure, some of these are joint productions, but this isn't new either -- all the original episodes of The Powerpuff Girls were animated in Korea, for instance.
Fair, I haven’t had much reason to watch Cartoon Network or seek out any of the shows they’ve aired (an exception being Adventure Time, which is very visually distinct). Actually that’s kind of...
Fair, I haven’t had much reason to watch Cartoon Network or seek out any of the shows they’ve aired (an exception being Adventure Time, which is very visually distinct). Actually that’s kind of interesting, has Cartoon Network maybe pivoted down with the average age of their target audience? A lot of adults used to tune in for older-skewed shows like Justice League and Batman Beyond but it’s difficult to imagine them airing shows like that now.
And yeah, we’ve been outsourcing animation for a long time. The big question there is what was the relationship with the overseas studio play? Did they play a big role in the conceptual phase of the show or are they just executing a plan that’s been handed to them? The two are very different.
At the very least, 2D animated movies from North American studios have been on the decline, having gone almost extinct. In recent memory it’s just that one Looney Tunes movie that comes to mind and that’s it. There’s plenty of 3D animated movies, but CannabalisticApple’s post covers well their inclination towards realism making them feel samey.
I think this has much more to do with your perspective and place in life at these different points in time than it does whatever changes have been made to Cartoon Network's programming. And at the...
Actually that’s kind of interesting, has Cartoon Network maybe pivoted down with the average age of their target audience? A lot of adults used to tune in for older-skewed shows like Justice League and Batman Beyond but it’s difficult to imagine them airing shows like that now.
I think this has much more to do with your perspective and place in life at these different points in time than it does whatever changes have been made to Cartoon Network's programming. And at the bare minimum Steven Universe had a thriving adult fanbase.
As for 2D animated feature films, those have been on the decline for well over 20 years, so I'm not inclined to think there's much evidence that there's any particularly recent change on that front.
I don’t doubt that at all. Maybe it’s that their newer shows don’t necessarily signal that older audiences might enjoy them at first glance? For someone who doesn’t have cable (and increasing...
I don’t doubt that at all. Maybe it’s that their newer shows don’t necessarily signal that older audiences might enjoy them at first glance? For someone who doesn’t have cable (and increasing number) and isn’t going to come across bits and pieces of the shows organically, are these shows going to grab the attention of older audiences without power of word of mouth?
I dunno. Maybe I’m just getting old and out of touch.
Honestly I think the not having cable and thus never encountering these shows organically is probably a bigger factor than you give it credit for! I don't think it's really possible for a show to...
Honestly I think the not having cable and thus never encountering these shows organically is probably a bigger factor than you give it credit for! I don't think it's really possible for a show to grab people who aren't encountering them organically like that without word of mouth.
Huh, interesting article! I personally think of the "Cal Arts Style" as almost exclusively the 2D bean-head depicted. Today's the first time I've seen it used to refer to 3D animation, which just...
Huh, interesting article! I personally think of the "Cal Arts Style" as almost exclusively the 2D bean-head depicted. Today's the first time I've seen it used to refer to 3D animation, which just confused me because... Well, bean head.
In terms of visuals, I do think there's been a large degree of over-similarity in recent years though. The original meme on Tumblr exaggerated it, but that general aesthetic was fairly common when the term was first thrown around. Still is to an extent, I just looked up Disney's current lineup and they all feels very same-y (particularly because the current trend seems to be big, circular eyes with tiny pupils).
I just like seeing more variety and stylized art. Animation is a medium with infinite potential, and using the same general aesthetic/shapes limits what you can do. I think even the animators get stuck in a sort of mental rut and don't go crazy with the animation, just keep everything within a certain degree of "realistic" and never go off-model. Part of that may also be the stories being told are often more "grounded" these days, so not as many scenes with potential for zany moments like, say, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy, or classic Looney Tunes.
To that end, a lot of 3D animated films do feel kind of same-y since they tend to go for more "realistic" motion/movement. The character models tend to be basically "realistic proportions, but cartoony" style, never really distort, focus on realistic lighting and shading rather than cool color composition, etc. I think part of that was due to refining the technical details of how 3D animation works and functions while trying to avoid the uncanny valley, and then getting stuck in another mental rut since everyone was in the habit.
That trend thankfully seems to be shifting now thanks to Spider-verse showcasing how stylization can be spectacular and work in 3D, but... Yeah, a lot of western animated films feel like they used the same general overall visual aesthetics in recent years. Since Disney made the jump to 3D, their films haven't felt that visually distinct to me from Pixar. I wouldn't call it "Cal Arts style", but there's a definite repetitive quality to the designs.
I think the "trend", particularly when it comes to Pixar, is being overblown. Let's look at Pixar movies released over the last five years, along with a character image from Pixar's website:...
I think the "trend", particularly when it comes to Pixar, is being overblown. Let's look at Pixar movies released over the last five years, along with a character image from Pixar's website:
Of the movies above, I think it would be reasonable to say that Turning Red and Elio look pretty similar on the surface. This makes sense, given that they have the same director! But stylistically, none of the rest except for elements of Luca really seem to have that "bean-mouth" criticism applicable. At least, from how I see them.
You can go further back into Pixar's filmography and find plenty of other films in their history that have elements of the movies listed above. You can go back through nearly a century of Disney's work and find loads of movies that look the same, and in many cases have straight copy-pasted animation sequences between them. You can do the same with other animation studios too - remember the "Dreamworks face" criticism? Sure, there was a face that some characters sometimes made that occasionally looked like a similar face made by a different character, and it's easy to lift single cells from animation to force your point. But stylistically I don't think anyone would say that Antz and Shrek have the same DNA, despite having "Dreamworks face" criticisms weighed against them.
All this "CalArts Style" stuff feels like it's being far too reductive, and I'm seeing it in this very thread. Again, it's a criticism that was invented almost whole-cloth by a pedophile who was fired from Nickelodeon and no longer gets any work.
I think I wasn't very clear, so sorry about the confusion! When I was talking about art in 3D films, I wasn't referring to the "CalArts Style" accusations or any specific trend I know of, but my...
Exemplary
I think I wasn't very clear, so sorry about the confusion! When I was talking about art in 3D films, I wasn't referring to the "CalArts Style" accusations or any specific trend I know of, but my own personal observations. Like I said, seeing someone describe it with "Cal Arts style" felt weird since the "bean mouth" and "bean head" are pretty solidly a 2D fixture in my head. I had no clue people were using that phrase to talk about 3D art. (Actually, this is the first I've ever heard of "Dreamworks face" (which just seems to be a smug smirk and eyebrow raise, so...? People really do complain about everything), though I did learn what nasolabial folds are from people attempting to defend against criticisms of Disney girls in the early 2010's looking near-identical.)
I'm not trying to claim all Pixar characters look identical, and acknowledge there's variety to the designs. (Actually, it's pretty neat to notice the similar upturned noses from Elio and Turning Red after you pointed out they had the same director!) Even if they weren't, I wouldn't fault Pixar for having similar character designs because it's normal for studios to develop their own, internal styles. I also know Disney historically has many characters with the same faces, and would reuse animation in the olden days. I actually find that pretty neat!
However, Pixar is but one studio. The problem I have is the lack of overall stylization across all animation, particularly when it comes to humans. Animals and aliens are fine and tend to have a LOT more variety, but humans... not as much. That, and just the animation itself.
As I said, for a long time there seemed to be an emphasis on trying to attain a degree of "realism" with 3D animation. This translates to keeping movements and motion realistic, and character models fitting certain physical physiques. Some characters do get more stylized designs—for example, Gru in Despicable Me—but they tend to just do that for certain characters. They'll alter general proportions of "baseline" characters so that the highlighted character won't look like an out-of-place freak, but generally, they tend to stick to the same overall... skeleton, maybe?
That's the sort of stylization I'm talking about. A super distinct design style and aesthetic you can identify at a glance. I know TV shows have more freedom for this sort of stylization than movies, but... Well, even within Disney, just compare Atlantis: The Lost Empire to Lilo and Stitch. Feature films, and very visually distinct from each other. On that note, I know a lot of people often mistake Don Bluth's films like Anastasia for Disney films because the style was very similar to the overall Disney style. For whatever reason, 3D animation rarely has that "know at a glance" distinct quality though.
Besides all that, I think the trend for "realism" in 3D animation shows through the most with the technical aspects. I mentioned the lighting and colors, so I'll expand on that. One of the beautiful things about animation is that it's not truly beholden to the physical restraints of reality. Everything is under the animators' control. You don't need to worry about the sun's position and timing when shooting a scene, you can have the light source at any angle you want. If you want a scene to be predominantly blue, you don't need to stress over choosing a physical setting that's primarily blue and costume design, you can just add blue lighting! If you want blood or a single butterfly to pop out, you can make everything else monochrome or muted and brighten that one element.
In the 2D sphere, Samurai Jack was a master of this. One of my absolute favorite sequences was in the final season, when he was injured. It's nighttime in a forest so everything is blue and black, except for the bright, vivid red streaks of blood. It makes his blood, something we never really saw in earlier seasons, that much more prominent. Another episode from that season takes place in the stomach of a monster, and their skin gets tinted neon pink and their hair bluish-purple. Then there's a much earlier episode centered around light and darkness, where he fights a ninja and tears his white robe to become a white ninja and blend into the light. That's not something you could do with live action, and it's also particularly unique to the lineless art style of the show.
Meanwhile in the 3D sphere, you can find so much analysis of the colors in the Spider-verse films. Color is a constant and active presence, from the characters designs (one of them is literally black-and-white) to the special effects and backgrounds. I mean, just look at this scene where Gwen reveals her identity to her dad in the second film. The colors and lighting are constantly shifting, the background fills with dripping paint that bleeds over the rest of the world so that the focus is solely on them. In another scene in the movie, it abandons their true color schemes altogether to slap them with teal skin and red hair in one shot, and gives her purple skin and hair in another—seriously, the use of colors in this movie is incredible. And that's before getting into how they use colors to foreshadow reveals.
All of this is to say: a lot of 3D animated films just focus on realistic lighting and colors. They rarely do anything special with the colors or shading or backgrounds, or anything special with the character models. I said earlier, part of the beauty of animation is that anything is possible. You're not constrained by the same rules as live action, yet for some reason, 3D animated films have a tendency to follow those rules, much more strictly than 2D animation. They tend to go for scenes with fully rendered backgrounds at all times, have a focus on replicating "natural" lighting and shadows, try to keep all motion realistic outside of the occasional gag, which in turn means they need to have human models match a general shape...
And as a result, the movies just feel very visually similar even though I know the styles can vary a lot. To me, a lot of 3D animation basically feels like the animated equivalent of live action. It's a bit too rooted in reality, and makes a lot of it blend together at a glance.
I don't think there's any specific "trend" that animators are trying to emulate behind this. I think that with this brand new technology, the early focus was on learning and developing it on a technical level to make sure the movies looked good, and also didn't fall into the uncanny valley like The Polar Express. That was all well and good for the early days, but once they had the technical details and skills figured out, there was room to experiment. Instead, they just refined those realistic technical aspects further, which I think just contributed to the overall sense of "same-ness" that a lot of 3D animated movies seem to have. As I said, I think animators fell into a sort of mental rut by focusing on improving those technical aspects.
Again, this is 100% my own personal thoughts and observations. A bunch of this admittedly likely boils down to personal preference (I love super stylized 3D models over realistic ones in video games), but I do think there is some "same-y" quality to a lot of 3D animated films. I used to think it was just a limitation of the medium, but then I saw Spider-verse and a lot of stuff clicked in my head. The industry has the technical stuff mostly figured out now, so I'm hoping for more films to start experimenting with the aesthetics!
Honestly, I would have a very, very hard time telling the difference between Kim Possible, Danny Phantom, and The Fairly Oddparents - because I didn't grow up watching them. I did watch Samurai...
Honestly, I would have a very, very hard time telling the difference between Kim Possible, Danny Phantom, and The Fairly Oddparents - because I didn't grow up watching them. I did watch Samurai Jack, though, and you're right - it strikes a very unique style, much the same way that Batman: The Animated Series did/does. In Batman's case, it came down to the actual way it was drawn - with backgrounds drawn on black paper rather than white. The style was a literal mechanical decision.
Regarding 3D modeling and what not ... I think the issue becomes one of expectations. I don't think it's necessarily that people "expect" realism in their 3D rendered movies/shows/etc, but rather I think people have an in-built ability to tell when something is "off". You bring up lighting colors and directions; I think people would be taken aback if they were watching something animated in the style of a typical Pixar offering that had lighting that didn't match the direction of a local, visible source of light.
You also bring up experimental and artistic movies like the Spider-Verse movies, which seems to be the go-to example of a 3D animated movie that has wild, artistic vibes. And it does! I love the Spider-Verse movies, watched them a ton. We can heap praise on them and it's well-deserved, but let's not forget that movies like The Mitchells vs. The Machines throw some excellent, stylish, and wild artistic decisions out there too. Same with The LEGO Movie, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem, Nimona, and others.
To be honest, I think a lot of people are reminiscing about their favorite cartoons and movies from their adolescence, things that they watched ad nauseum and can recite from memory, and comparing them against what they see in adulthood only a handful of times.
Fair enough, though the art styles are still distinct. Worth noting Danny Phantom and Fairly Oddparents are by the same creator so they're still pretty visually similar. Yeah, I agree that it's...
Fair enough, though the art styles are still distinct. Worth noting Danny Phantom and Fairly Oddparents are by the same creator so they're still pretty visually similar.
Yeah, I agree that it's not that people expect realism from 3D animation, and just trying to avoid making it off. In terms of lighting, it does need to fit a certain logic or people get thrown off. I was referring more to how directors can control the location of that light source more easily than in live-action.
Come to think of it, part of it might just be the approach to textures and shading. A lot of 3D animated movies go for very similar approaches to semi-realistic textures and shaders. Just changing that to be more stylized (for example, adding subtle paper-like textures to everything for a more storybook feel, or making the shadows less "natural" and closer to cell shading) can really change the overall aesthetic. Heck, Pokémon is a decent example of that since they use the same models for the Pokémon, but they do different stuff with the textures and shaders in each game.
All that said, there is most likely a nostalgia filter being applied here when people talk about this stuff. I still do want more variety and stylization in animation though. Like I keep saying, anything is possible in animation, so I want to see animators take advantage of that more.
Also, thanks for listing other movies! Spider-verse was the main example to come to mind for obvious reasons, but I loved The Mitchells vs. The Machines for the reasons you mentioned. Everything just felt incredibly fluid in that movie. And while I haven't seen Nimona or the TMNT movie, they found their own stylistic niche to set them apart from other movies. Arcane and Puss in Boots: The Last Wish are also pretty good examples of adding more stylistic elements.
The style used by Arcane and more recently, the Chinese (maybe Chinese-Japanese? Not sure) show To Be Hero X which gives 3D models a “painted” look and mixes in 2D elements is really cool and...
The style used by Arcane and more recently, the Chinese (maybe Chinese-Japanese? Not sure) show To Be Hero X which gives 3D models a “painted” look and mixes in 2D elements is really cool and creative, I thought. A great example of pushing the limits without getting as wild and experimental as the Spider-verse movies.
Honestly, all of those feel very similar. I don't know anything about the CalArts stuff or what a bean mouth is, but they all feel the same sort of bubbly, round shapes that feel like a modern,...
Honestly, all of those feel very similar. I don't know anything about the CalArts stuff or what a bean mouth is, but they all feel the same sort of bubbly, round shapes that feel like a modern, post-Inside Out Pixar movie. There's some variation between looking more realistic (alive Soul, Lightyear) and more bubbly and cartoonish (Elio, Luca), and there's some characters that have more specific traits (the fire creature from Elemental, or a number of the characters from Inside Out), but by-and-large, they all feel very very similar.
And they can do different things — Incredibles had the Rob Liefeld-esque hyper-stylised human figures, WALL-E had its angular, boxy aesthetic (at least on Earth), Brave had its super-detailed texture rendering that made the characters feel almost like dolls — so it feels like a very deliberate choice to focus so much on this "3D Chibi" style in recent releases.
I just thought I'd interject with a tangent here; it's not that Pixar was trying to make things boxy and angular, it was that they were trying for realism. They made a lot of effort to simulate...
WALL-E had its angular, boxy aesthetic (at least on Earth),
I just thought I'd interject with a tangent here; it's not that Pixar was trying to make things boxy and angular, it was that they were trying for realism. They made a lot of effort to simulate camera defects to make things look real, (most of their films are showcases for new technologies, and that was one of the primary things for that film) and they even went so far as to use actual photography for some recorded video segments. They chose a boxy look for Wall-E because it was realistic for a robot with the purpose that Wall-E had, and his design was very much influenced by a 'real' robot, Johnny 5 from Short Circuit.
Let's not forget that WALL-E also had these humans, full of bubbly, round shapes. The angular, boxy aesthetic of Earth was used as juxtaposition against the rounded, bubbly aesthetic of ......
Let's not forget that WALL-E also had these humans, full of bubbly, round shapes. The angular, boxy aesthetic of Earth was used as juxtaposition against the rounded, bubbly aesthetic of ... everything else. Elemental used similar contrasting shapes and styles for comparing Fire and Water, for example.
If one doesn't like the "3D Chibi" aesthetic of Pixar's offerings, it makes me wonder about their memory of Pixar's offerings - because that's been part of their style since the beginning. From Woody and Flik with their big, round eyes ... to Frozone and Linguini having some hyper-deformed and exaggerated features, not unlike those of more modern characters from Soul and Onward.
I did think about the humans in WALL-E when I wrote my comment, but decided against mentioning them. They absolutely have the same aesthetic as the modern Pixar films, but where in WALL-E, that's...
I did think about the humans in WALL-E when I wrote my comment, but decided against mentioning them. They absolutely have the same aesthetic as the modern Pixar films, but where in WALL-E, that's a deliberate choice to make the humans feel almost like chubby, incompetent babies, in the modern films it's just the default — sure, not quite so rotund, but similarly round with very few hard edges.
I don't quite understand what you mean by bringing up the older examples. Lots of cartoons use stylised, caricaturish features — that's pretty normal, and exactly what I'd expect from any medium that doesn't need to be constrained by photorealism. It's not those features that I'm talking about with modern films. It's really specifically this very bubbly appearance that seems almost ubiquitous in modern Pixar movies.
To be clear, I don't dislike this aesthetic, I just think it's disappointing that a studio like Pixar — once known for really original design and concepts — seems to have settled into such a fixed aesthetic. I'd love to see them push the boat out more here, and incorporate more complexity into their designs.
I'm arguing that the aesthetic is not fixed (see Elemental), and I've explained several times throughout as to why I feel that way. We can agree to disagree.
I'm arguing that the aesthetic is not fixed (see Elemental), and I've explained several times throughout as to why I feel that way. We can agree to disagree.
Could you explain why you mean by the term being a dog whistle? I tried to read the medium post but it is walled off for me. I can’t find much else about it other than John K being the one who...
Could you explain why you mean by the term being a dog whistle? I tried to read the medium post but it is walled off for me. I can’t find much else about it other than John K being the one who came up with the term.
ButteredToast shared a non paywalled version here: https://archive.is/0Doyk Dog whistle here means what it always does - racism, sexism, all of the popular negative -isms.
ButteredToast shared a non paywalled version here:
The CalArts style problem has gotten pretty bad. People say that East Asian animation has a samey-ness thing going on, but it’s got nothing on North American animation (with a handful of notable...
The CalArts style problem has gotten pretty bad. People say that East Asian animation has a samey-ness thing going on, but it’s got nothing on North American animation (with a handful of notable exceptions like Castlevania).
Interestingly other western countries don’t have this issue. It’s just the US and Canada.
I think this is the heart of the problem. If you showed me the preview without Pixar or Disney animation studios intros I would not be able to guess who made this. Maybe Pixar moved to be more...
Pixar used to be very distinct from what the rest of Disney is doing
I think this is the heart of the problem. If you showed me the preview without Pixar or Disney animation studios intros I would not be able to guess who made this. Maybe Pixar moved to be more like disney after the success of Frozen. But so much of everything, the plot and art styles etc. are so generic looking to me.
Did anyone see it? is it worth going to? I want to go see a movie but I'm not interested in anything and I was thinking I'd just wait for Wicked part 2, but I wouldn't mind seeing a pixar movie if...
Did anyone see it? is it worth going to? I want to go see a movie but I'm not interested in anything and I was thinking I'd just wait for Wicked part 2, but I wouldn't mind seeing a pixar movie if it's good
I saw it with my kids last weekend, and was pleasantly surprised. It's a really heartwarming story, and a lot less formulaic than I was anticipating. I would say it's definitely worth a watch....
I saw it with my kids last weekend, and was pleasantly surprised. It's a really heartwarming story, and a lot less formulaic than I was anticipating. I would say it's definitely worth a watch.
Edit: Also several easter egg references to R-rated sci-fi, if that's interesting to you. I found it strange, but fun. All of the references of course were completely lost on my kids. :)
Including Lightyear under "trying something new" is odd and seems like unnecessary padding of the article's point, it's a prequel and the sixth movie in the Toy Story franchise.
Including Lightyear under "trying something new" is odd and seems like unnecessary padding of the article's point, it's a prequel and the sixth movie in the Toy Story franchise.
I for one think it was bad marketing. Advertisements for Elio were everywhere, but in spite of it none of them explained to me what the movie was or what it was about. I know that it was about a boy with an eyepatch and aliens, but that was about it; the commercials and billboards I have seen are just whirls of colors and shapes that have made no impression on me. I barely remembered that it was a Pixar film. I didn’t know what the movie was about until I actively searched out the full theatrical trailer. The ads were everywhere but weren’t enticing in the least.
Not sure where the advertisements were because I didn't see any, unfortunately. The whole "targeted ad" thing means the marketing isn't always actually getting saturated to everyone. That can't be helping.
I haven't even seen trailers. (And I know I'm particularly out of the loop but still, I always used to see them)
Similar for me. This post is the first mention of the movie I’ve seen anywhere. Can’t be interested in seeing a movie I never knew existed.
The first I heard about it was when I saw its poster at the theater yesterday. I don't watch much TV these days but I was still surprised I had no clue this existed. I figured it's because I've managed to create a "bubble" for myself, but these comments have me wondering.
I asked my mom if she'd heard of it since she watches more TV and she said no, but she also mentioned how Inside Out 2 had a big promotional push. I also remember seeing trailers and teasers for that one. So it really does feel like they just didn't market this one well.
Yeah, I have two kids and lately I have been going to a theatre with them about twice a month. I am startled that there is a new Pixar movie that I haven’t heard of — it should be almost impossible for me to avoid the advertising.
I follow Disney and Pixar probably more than most (though not obsessively) and I knew nothing of this. I've heard about them doing a Toy Story 5 probably 1000x, but I literally only heard about Elio when a Cinema Therapy video popped up in my YouTube subscriptions last week.
I'd say that's a terrible failure of marketing seeing as I'm probably the one weird mutant who is still going to the theater to see most of the Disney, Pixar, Marvel, & Star Wars content that they bother to bring there and this was a complete black hole for me.
I usually get at least trailer reactions to new movies, but yeah I didn't see anything until I started hearing the flop narrative
Not sure good marketing would help. The trailer was so bland, my husband and I looked at each other and said, that's it?
In the words of Bender, commenting on the lone, token human character on the set of All My Circuits: "he laughs, he loves, he learns; typical human stuff."
I watch anime every season, every year, and I can't believe in a world of yet another isekai and yet another idol, step-sibling, giant robot sameness, Pixar went with "boy travels and discovers himself." What insane hubris.
Toys talk when you dont look. Fish trying to navigate human world on land. Old guy, a boy and a dog fly to South America in helium balloons. Superhero family in a world where powers are illegal. Old robot in an abandoned world and the humans who moved on. A literal non talking rat wants to make French cuisine. And then this: boy travels.
Given the directorial direction this decade form Pixar and Disney, it seems to match the idea of a more personal story. A man in the Bronx trying to make his next break, a Canadian woman discovering womanhood, two unlike elementals fall in love and overcome hardship.
They all have more to it than a quick premise pitch x but it clearly seems like (outside of Lightyear), the post - Lassenter era of animation wants to tell smaller, more relatable stories. Or at least pitch them as so.
I respect that films can, and should, be more than a premise pitch. But smaller, intimate stories with no weird premise are usually told as indie short films and student projects and festival only budget films. Text format still exists too.
The landscape of cinema going has also undergone a sea change: families have far less disposable income these days, and prices of going out for movies with family has gone up, and streaming exist.
Small intimate tales should exist and be celebrated. But realistically, they're not going to be celebrated by most people because we are all so busy with our own small intimate tales, and we're poor. Pixar needs to ask themselves if hundred plus million dollar budget to tell small tales is the right platform.
La La Land is about two young people who, due to their dreams, passed each other by. EEOAA is about the most ordinary immigrant woman possible, trying to understand and connect with her gay daughter. Poor Things is a young girl discovering who she is. -- My point is, stakes are high for movie goers right now, and Pixar needs to stop blaming the audience for not taking a risk on their bland premise presented in a bland trailer.
There's a difference between creating a new, rich world, and fanfic. In a fanfic, it can just be two established charterers sitting watching tv or sharing a quick glance and be good fanfic. That's sort of what spin offs, sequels, and Minecraft et al are. But an independent work cannot be just shown as small time fluff like that.
Pixar still makes widely-accessible movies. Inside Out 2 was the highest grossing movie of 2024 - that was just last year. Elemental, a movie about the immigrant experience (in a sense, not unlike EEAAO, which you praised), was considered a flop after a poor opening weekend ... only to rebound over the following weeks and months to gross over $450 million at the box office, becoming decidedly not a flop.
Maybe Elio had a bad trailer; that shouldn't be enough to condemn an entire company, particularly when they've proven that they still make movies that wide audiences want to see. Any movie can be made to sound boring when you boil down the story into basic elements. I could say that EEAAO was about a woman filing her taxes. It's not wrong but it misses the finer details of the plot.
Or I could describe a movie as "an office worker hates his job." Am I describing The Matrix, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, or Office Space?
I'm confused as to why a company like Pixar necessarily must only make movies that appeal to wide audiences.
If your studio wants to spend $100m on a movie, you need to make movies that make money to continue to making movies.
A studio that spends $100 on a movie can make things that don't appeal to wide audiences.
Let's talk about box office earnings then! To start, let's ignore the pandemic block of movies which either never saw a theatrical release, saw one later (e.g., 2024) after debuting on streaming, or were otherwise hampered severely by the pandemic ... meaning Onward, Soul, Luca, Turning Red, and Lightyear. They never got a fair shake in the box office, and by the time some of them did see a theatrical release they'd already been seen by most viewers on streaming.
Ignoring those, the most recent theatrical releases by Pixar have been:
It is, again, worth noting that Elemental was, in similar fashion to Elio, deemed to be a "box office failure" before demonstrating that it had incredible legs and ended up being a critical and financial success. Coco, another one of those "too narrow" type movies - focusing specifically on Dia de los Muertos and Mexican culture - made four times its budget back at the box office. All of the movies above made money at the box office.
It seems to me that, pandemic notwithstanding, Pixar has been on a roll, between both wide appeal movies (Incredibles 2, Cars 3, Toy Story 4) and more focused, narrower-appeal movies (Coco, Elemental).
I like this analysis a lot.
The premise of the posted article is that "Pixar hasn’t successfully launched a new theatrical property since 2017’s “Coco.”" -- your numbers illustrate two things: (1) the article might be too focused on the word "launch", ignoring (2) word of mouth and the long legs effect which favour good story telling and what perhaps might be required for new IPs.
I think this is one of those lies, darn lies and statistics type situation where the article pick and choose numbers to fit a narrative, and another set of numbers can tell a very different story.
My original point is that I'm totally not surprised they failed the launch from how generic the trailer looks, and that it was hubris on their part to think that kind of trailer could convince increasingly squeezed families to put butts in seats. The reviews seem favourable that there's much more than meets the (trailer watching) eye ; they could make their money back and then some. But they would still have failed the launch.
Given the headline:
And the first sentence of the article:
I think they're having too much fun punning on the content of the movie, having to do with space travel.
I listened to the Mark Kermode review earlier, and he reckons it's actually a pretty weird, out-there story, even if the premise is a bit basic.
Oh wow then they made a very bad trailer.
Yeah, I remembered being interested in it after seeing the trailer, but after that nothing. I saw no hype and no marketing other than just marketing that announced its existence.
I actually didn't even know it came out already.
Also, I just realized that the first teaser came out in 2023, the second teaser came out in November of 2024, and the full trailer came out in March of this year. That's like a LONG time to be releasing teasers I think. People see it and forget about it, then when they see it again they kind of gloss over it. I wonder if it'd have done better with more focused marketing.
The first teaser came out in 2023 because it was originally supposed to release in March 2024. When the strikes happened they rearranged the schedule and moved Elio to 2025 so that Pixar could release something in the meantime (this also allowed them to rework the film which included changing the plot, tone, and switching out America Ferrera for Zoe Saldana). The move also allowed Inside Out 2 to be Pixar's great return to theaters.
And now I have a reason to not watch this movie. 😜
FWIW Disney spent more on TV ads for this than Lilo and Stitch
TV ads.
"Lol" is almost meaningless now, so I just want to ad that I'm actually laughing out loud. The only people I know that have actual TV are people that watch sports.
Why are companies still investing tens of millions into TV ads? I don't think I need to explain how the paradigms have shifted over a decade ago now.
Why does Disney, a network made up of at least a dozen channels, need to spend 10s of millions to show ads, which assumedly also means on their own networks?
I believe tv marketing (14m) is less than ten percent of the total marketing budget (150-200m). There are still people advertising on tv, but the spend is way less.
Well there's spending less, and then still realizing you're spending 15m dollars. I know it's chump change for Disney, but if what's apparently 10% of the production budget it spent on marketing to a waning platform instead of at least going back into production, it just makes inevitable headlines of layoffs even stupider
Mayonuki said 10% of the marketing budget, not the production budget.
Yes, let me be more specific. In general I don't really like that market has more than even production. I looked up the production budget and it's apparently 150m as well.
I thunk it's a bit weird that instead of putting 10% more budget into making the actual movie that Disney chooses to put it into putting commercials on TV.
People are mentioning the lack of advertising and I definitely agree with that, but I also don't find the art style / character design of Elio very appealing. I'm completely tapped out on the "bean mouth/CalArts" style, for lack of a better term. I didn't even realize it was a Pixar movie at first - I thought it was just another Disney animated movie, which are not usually very impressive. Pixar used to be very distinct from what the rest of Disney is doing, but it seems they've lost a lot of their identity, at least on the surface.
Me too. I remember the bean mouth being a meme, what, 10 years ago? And it seems that studios just can't get past it.
You may want to dig below the surface, then; for one, the "CalArts style" criticism originates from noted pedophile John K, and is considered by some to be a bit of a modern dogwhistle - intentionally or not, and here I whole-heartedly believe your use of the term is fully unintentional.
https://clawrenc.medium.com/hating-on-cal-arts-style-is-the-new-dogwhistle-9cbeb0f97937
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Institute_of_the_Arts#CalArts_Style
There's a lot of criticism towards the use of "CalArts style" as a critical lever to pull, which I would encourage you, and others, to investigate further.
That out of the way, I've watched all of Pixar's offerings excluding Lightyear and Toy Story 4. I know that the general reception of Pixar's movies has been almost overwhelmingly positive right up until the early pandemic in 2020. Starting with Onward, they've been on a much, much rockier road; one could argue that the cause is due to the stories becoming much more focused in their narrative, rather than generalized. What I mean by that is, each movie made by Pixar before Onward was largely universal themes - using anthropomorphized toys, monsters, fish, etc. to weigh observations about the human condition.
Onward, though, was really about two brothers, the death of their father, and how the older brother stepped in to fill the gap. One could argue that this isn't universally applicable to everyone's life the same way that, say, Finding Nemo is/was. Everyone will lose a parent; not everyone will have an older brother to step in as a father figure.
Soul was fantastic, and certainly dealt with universal themes and more mature ones at that. It wasn't anthropomorphized though, and like Onward it didn't get an immediate theatrical release.
I won't go into detail about every other movie since then, but each of them aren't really hitting upon universal themes except for Inside Out 2, which was the highest grossing film of 2024.
Now, I'll say that I absolutely love all of Pixar's movies - including the "flops" that are Onward, Luca (my daughter's favorite movie), Turning Red, and the slow-burn (pun intended) of Elemental - which ended up not being a flop in the long run. Each of those movies have very hyper-focused narratives, and I absolutely adore that fact. Not every movie needs to be made for every audience; movies like Turning Red, which focus heavily both on puberty as well as the Asian-Canadian experience need to exist alongside movies that focus on more general, universal topics.
Thanks for mentioning that term’s problematic nature, I wasn’t aware of it and will avoid using it going forward. For anybody interested, here’s a link to a non-account-walled copy of linked Medium article.
Regardless, I think there’s some truth that in the larger sphere, North American animation stylization has narrowed considerably. If we rewind to around 2000 or so for example, there was a wide variety of different art styles on display… Samurai Jack, The Powerpuff Girls, Batman Beyond, Monsters, Inc, Tarzan, The Emperor’s New Groove, Shrek, and The Road to El Dorado just to name a few all looked quite different from each other, with differences on average being more common than similarities. There’s no way any one of those could be mistaken for any of the others, even with photoshopping.
That’s not to downplay the hard work that’s going into modern animated works, and maybe it’s just a bias on my part but it feels like the industry used to be a good deal more adventurous visually. It’s genuinely great that there’s a greater variety of protagonists and settings and I hope that continues, but I’d also like to see more zany, visually striking styles that take advantage of the possibilities of animation to the fullest degree start to appear again.
I think there's a lot more diversity in animation today than you're giving credit.
You mentioned Samurai Jack (Genndy Tartakovsky), The Powerpuff Girls (Craig McCracken), Batman Beyond (Paul Dini, Bruce Timm, Alan Burnett), Monsters Inc (Pete Doctor), Tarzan (Kevin Lima, Chris Buck) The Emperor's New Groove (Mark Dindal), Shrek (Andrew Adamson, Vicky Jenson) and The Road to El Dorado (Eric Bergeron, Don Paul). You'll note that all of those are made by different people with no crossover, in many cases for different studios entirely.
All of the Pixar output I noted above are made under one studio, and in several cases with the same people at the top (in various different positions, admittedly). You've not considered the fact that Across the Spider-Verse was made by a separate studio entirely; of course it would look different.
You should look up the animation styles of other media, such as Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur, Octonauts, Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts, Pokémon Concierge, Bluey ... The list goes on and on, and it's wide and varied. It's very reductive and honestly misleading to state that "modern animated works" aren't striking styles using the medium to the fullest.
It’s fair that works from the same studio would look similar.
I’m talking less about Pixar specifically and more about popular North American animation as a whole. Out of the titles listed, Octonauts came from the UK and Ireland, Kipo was a joint American/South Korean production, and Pokémon Concierge is mostly or entirely made in Japan.
Maybe the thing I’m actually seeing is just the diminished presence that the US and Canada have in animation compared to decades past. A smaller industry by definition means reduced variety and greater aversion to risk.
I think you may have a point to some degree, but I do think you're overlooking a lot of the existing variety in North American animation. A lot of the shows you cited before are cartoon network shows, and if you look at the shows currently on Cartoon Network, they're still pretty damn visually distinct. Teen Titans Go looks nothing like The Amazing World of Gumball which looks nothing like We Bare Bears which looks nothing like Steven Universe (or at least none of these shows look any more similar to each other than the older Cartoon Network show you mentioned, and I could tell them apart arguably as or more easily than I could those older shows). Sure, some of these are joint productions, but this isn't new either -- all the original episodes of The Powerpuff Girls were animated in Korea, for instance.
Fair, I haven’t had much reason to watch Cartoon Network or seek out any of the shows they’ve aired (an exception being Adventure Time, which is very visually distinct). Actually that’s kind of interesting, has Cartoon Network maybe pivoted down with the average age of their target audience? A lot of adults used to tune in for older-skewed shows like Justice League and Batman Beyond but it’s difficult to imagine them airing shows like that now.
And yeah, we’ve been outsourcing animation for a long time. The big question there is what was the relationship with the overseas studio play? Did they play a big role in the conceptual phase of the show or are they just executing a plan that’s been handed to them? The two are very different.
At the very least, 2D animated movies from North American studios have been on the decline, having gone almost extinct. In recent memory it’s just that one Looney Tunes movie that comes to mind and that’s it. There’s plenty of 3D animated movies, but CannabalisticApple’s post covers well their inclination towards realism making them feel samey.
I think this has much more to do with your perspective and place in life at these different points in time than it does whatever changes have been made to Cartoon Network's programming. And at the bare minimum Steven Universe had a thriving adult fanbase.
As for 2D animated feature films, those have been on the decline for well over 20 years, so I'm not inclined to think there's much evidence that there's any particularly recent change on that front.
I don’t doubt that at all. Maybe it’s that their newer shows don’t necessarily signal that older audiences might enjoy them at first glance? For someone who doesn’t have cable (and increasing number) and isn’t going to come across bits and pieces of the shows organically, are these shows going to grab the attention of older audiences without power of word of mouth?
I dunno. Maybe I’m just getting old and out of touch.
Honestly I think the not having cable and thus never encountering these shows organically is probably a bigger factor than you give it credit for! I don't think it's really possible for a show to grab people who aren't encountering them organically like that without word of mouth.
Huh, interesting article! I personally think of the "Cal Arts Style" as almost exclusively the 2D bean-head depicted. Today's the first time I've seen it used to refer to 3D animation, which just confused me because... Well, bean head.
In terms of visuals, I do think there's been a large degree of over-similarity in recent years though. The original meme on Tumblr exaggerated it, but that general aesthetic was fairly common when the term was first thrown around. Still is to an extent, I just looked up Disney's current lineup and they all feels very same-y (particularly because the current trend seems to be big, circular eyes with tiny pupils).
I just like seeing more variety and stylized art. Animation is a medium with infinite potential, and using the same general aesthetic/shapes limits what you can do. I think even the animators get stuck in a sort of mental rut and don't go crazy with the animation, just keep everything within a certain degree of "realistic" and never go off-model. Part of that may also be the stories being told are often more "grounded" these days, so not as many scenes with potential for zany moments like, say, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy, or classic Looney Tunes.
To that end, a lot of 3D animated films do feel kind of same-y since they tend to go for more "realistic" motion/movement. The character models tend to be basically "realistic proportions, but cartoony" style, never really distort, focus on realistic lighting and shading rather than cool color composition, etc. I think part of that was due to refining the technical details of how 3D animation works and functions while trying to avoid the uncanny valley, and then getting stuck in another mental rut since everyone was in the habit.
That trend thankfully seems to be shifting now thanks to Spider-verse showcasing how stylization can be spectacular and work in 3D, but... Yeah, a lot of western animated films feel like they used the same general overall visual aesthetics in recent years. Since Disney made the jump to 3D, their films haven't felt that visually distinct to me from Pixar. I wouldn't call it "Cal Arts style", but there's a definite repetitive quality to the designs.
I think the "trend", particularly when it comes to Pixar, is being overblown. Let's look at Pixar movies released over the last five years, along with a character image from Pixar's website:
Onward, 2020: Ian Lightfoot
Soul, 2020: Joe Gardner as a human
Soul, 2020: Joe Gardner as a soul
Luca, 2021: Luca Paguro as a human
Luca, 2021: Luca Paguro as a monster
Turning Red, 2022: Meilin Lee as a human
Turning Red, 2022: Meilin Lee as a red panda
Lightyear, 2022: Buzz Lightyear
Elemental, 2023: Ember Lumen
Elemental, 2023: Wade Ripple
Inside Out 2, 2024: Joy
Inside Out 2, 2024: Anxiety
Elio, 2025: Elio Solis
Elio, 2025: Glordon
Of the movies above, I think it would be reasonable to say that Turning Red and Elio look pretty similar on the surface. This makes sense, given that they have the same director! But stylistically, none of the rest except for elements of Luca really seem to have that "bean-mouth" criticism applicable. At least, from how I see them.
You can go further back into Pixar's filmography and find plenty of other films in their history that have elements of the movies listed above. You can go back through nearly a century of Disney's work and find loads of movies that look the same, and in many cases have straight copy-pasted animation sequences between them. You can do the same with other animation studios too - remember the "Dreamworks face" criticism? Sure, there was a face that some characters sometimes made that occasionally looked like a similar face made by a different character, and it's easy to lift single cells from animation to force your point. But stylistically I don't think anyone would say that Antz and Shrek have the same DNA, despite having "Dreamworks face" criticisms weighed against them.
All this "CalArts Style" stuff feels like it's being far too reductive, and I'm seeing it in this very thread. Again, it's a criticism that was invented almost whole-cloth by a pedophile who was fired from Nickelodeon and no longer gets any work.
I think I wasn't very clear, so sorry about the confusion! When I was talking about art in 3D films, I wasn't referring to the "CalArts Style" accusations or any specific trend I know of, but my own personal observations. Like I said, seeing someone describe it with "Cal Arts style" felt weird since the "bean mouth" and "bean head" are pretty solidly a 2D fixture in my head. I had no clue people were using that phrase to talk about 3D art. (Actually, this is the first I've ever heard of "Dreamworks face" (which just seems to be a smug smirk and eyebrow raise, so...? People really do complain about everything), though I did learn what nasolabial folds are from people attempting to defend against criticisms of Disney girls in the early 2010's looking near-identical.)
I'm not trying to claim all Pixar characters look identical, and acknowledge there's variety to the designs. (Actually, it's pretty neat to notice the similar upturned noses from Elio and Turning Red after you pointed out they had the same director!) Even if they weren't, I wouldn't fault Pixar for having similar character designs because it's normal for studios to develop their own, internal styles. I also know Disney historically has many characters with the same faces, and would reuse animation in the olden days. I actually find that pretty neat!
However, Pixar is but one studio. The problem I have is the lack of overall stylization across all animation, particularly when it comes to humans. Animals and aliens are fine and tend to have a LOT more variety, but humans... not as much. That, and just the animation itself.
As I said, for a long time there seemed to be an emphasis on trying to attain a degree of "realism" with 3D animation. This translates to keeping movements and motion realistic, and character models fitting certain physical physiques. Some characters do get more stylized designs—for example, Gru in Despicable Me—but they tend to just do that for certain characters. They'll alter general proportions of "baseline" characters so that the highlighted character won't look like an out-of-place freak, but generally, they tend to stick to the same overall... skeleton, maybe?
Because of that, the overall style between movies never really feel as distinct from each other as, say, Samurai Jack, Dexter's Lab, The Fairly Oddparents, Danny Phantom, or Kim Possible. All of those I named, most people can identify if a character belongs to it at a glance. Heck, when trying to find examples, I got reminded of the fact that the art styles are distinct enough to have drawing challenges to draw characters in various shows' styles. (Actually, here's a fun site that seems to be from a college art class where students had to draw characters from media in the style of a cartoon of their choice. Stumbled on it looking for a Fairly Oddparents image, and it's pretty neat to see all the interpretations.)
That's the sort of stylization I'm talking about. A super distinct design style and aesthetic you can identify at a glance. I know TV shows have more freedom for this sort of stylization than movies, but... Well, even within Disney, just compare Atlantis: The Lost Empire to Lilo and Stitch. Feature films, and very visually distinct from each other. On that note, I know a lot of people often mistake Don Bluth's films like Anastasia for Disney films because the style was very similar to the overall Disney style. For whatever reason, 3D animation rarely has that "know at a glance" distinct quality though.
Besides all that, I think the trend for "realism" in 3D animation shows through the most with the technical aspects. I mentioned the lighting and colors, so I'll expand on that. One of the beautiful things about animation is that it's not truly beholden to the physical restraints of reality. Everything is under the animators' control. You don't need to worry about the sun's position and timing when shooting a scene, you can have the light source at any angle you want. If you want a scene to be predominantly blue, you don't need to stress over choosing a physical setting that's primarily blue and costume design, you can just add blue lighting! If you want blood or a single butterfly to pop out, you can make everything else monochrome or muted and brighten that one element.
In the 2D sphere, Samurai Jack was a master of this. One of my absolute favorite sequences was in the final season, when he was injured. It's nighttime in a forest so everything is blue and black, except for the bright, vivid red streaks of blood. It makes his blood, something we never really saw in earlier seasons, that much more prominent. Another episode from that season takes place in the stomach of a monster, and their skin gets tinted neon pink and their hair bluish-purple. Then there's a much earlier episode centered around light and darkness, where he fights a ninja and tears his white robe to become a white ninja and blend into the light. That's not something you could do with live action, and it's also particularly unique to the lineless art style of the show.
Meanwhile in the 3D sphere, you can find so much analysis of the colors in the Spider-verse films. Color is a constant and active presence, from the characters designs (one of them is literally black-and-white) to the special effects and backgrounds. I mean, just look at this scene where Gwen reveals her identity to her dad in the second film. The colors and lighting are constantly shifting, the background fills with dripping paint that bleeds over the rest of the world so that the focus is solely on them. In another scene in the movie, it abandons their true color schemes altogether to slap them with teal skin and red hair in one shot, and gives her purple skin and hair in another—seriously, the use of colors in this movie is incredible. And that's before getting into how they use colors to foreshadow reveals.
All of this is to say: a lot of 3D animated films just focus on realistic lighting and colors. They rarely do anything special with the colors or shading or backgrounds, or anything special with the character models. I said earlier, part of the beauty of animation is that anything is possible. You're not constrained by the same rules as live action, yet for some reason, 3D animated films have a tendency to follow those rules, much more strictly than 2D animation. They tend to go for scenes with fully rendered backgrounds at all times, have a focus on replicating "natural" lighting and shadows, try to keep all motion realistic outside of the occasional gag, which in turn means they need to have human models match a general shape...
And as a result, the movies just feel very visually similar even though I know the styles can vary a lot. To me, a lot of 3D animation basically feels like the animated equivalent of live action. It's a bit too rooted in reality, and makes a lot of it blend together at a glance.
I don't think there's any specific "trend" that animators are trying to emulate behind this. I think that with this brand new technology, the early focus was on learning and developing it on a technical level to make sure the movies looked good, and also didn't fall into the uncanny valley like The Polar Express. That was all well and good for the early days, but once they had the technical details and skills figured out, there was room to experiment. Instead, they just refined those realistic technical aspects further, which I think just contributed to the overall sense of "same-ness" that a lot of 3D animated movies seem to have. As I said, I think animators fell into a sort of mental rut by focusing on improving those technical aspects.
Again, this is 100% my own personal thoughts and observations. A bunch of this admittedly likely boils down to personal preference (I love super stylized 3D models over realistic ones in video games), but I do think there is some "same-y" quality to a lot of 3D animated films. I used to think it was just a limitation of the medium, but then I saw Spider-verse and a lot of stuff clicked in my head. The industry has the technical stuff mostly figured out now, so I'm hoping for more films to start experimenting with the aesthetics!
Honestly, I would have a very, very hard time telling the difference between Kim Possible, Danny Phantom, and The Fairly Oddparents - because I didn't grow up watching them. I did watch Samurai Jack, though, and you're right - it strikes a very unique style, much the same way that Batman: The Animated Series did/does. In Batman's case, it came down to the actual way it was drawn - with backgrounds drawn on black paper rather than white. The style was a literal mechanical decision.
Regarding 3D modeling and what not ... I think the issue becomes one of expectations. I don't think it's necessarily that people "expect" realism in their 3D rendered movies/shows/etc, but rather I think people have an in-built ability to tell when something is "off". You bring up lighting colors and directions; I think people would be taken aback if they were watching something animated in the style of a typical Pixar offering that had lighting that didn't match the direction of a local, visible source of light.
You also bring up experimental and artistic movies like the Spider-Verse movies, which seems to be the go-to example of a 3D animated movie that has wild, artistic vibes. And it does! I love the Spider-Verse movies, watched them a ton. We can heap praise on them and it's well-deserved, but let's not forget that movies like The Mitchells vs. The Machines throw some excellent, stylish, and wild artistic decisions out there too. Same with The LEGO Movie, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem, Nimona, and others.
To be honest, I think a lot of people are reminiscing about their favorite cartoons and movies from their adolescence, things that they watched ad nauseum and can recite from memory, and comparing them against what they see in adulthood only a handful of times.
Fair enough, though the art styles are still distinct. Worth noting Danny Phantom and Fairly Oddparents are by the same creator so they're still pretty visually similar.
Yeah, I agree that it's not that people expect realism from 3D animation, and just trying to avoid making it off. In terms of lighting, it does need to fit a certain logic or people get thrown off. I was referring more to how directors can control the location of that light source more easily than in live-action.
Come to think of it, part of it might just be the approach to textures and shading. A lot of 3D animated movies go for very similar approaches to semi-realistic textures and shaders. Just changing that to be more stylized (for example, adding subtle paper-like textures to everything for a more storybook feel, or making the shadows less "natural" and closer to cell shading) can really change the overall aesthetic. Heck, Pokémon is a decent example of that since they use the same models for the Pokémon, but they do different stuff with the textures and shaders in each game.
All that said, there is most likely a nostalgia filter being applied here when people talk about this stuff. I still do want more variety and stylization in animation though. Like I keep saying, anything is possible in animation, so I want to see animators take advantage of that more.
Also, thanks for listing other movies! Spider-verse was the main example to come to mind for obvious reasons, but I loved The Mitchells vs. The Machines for the reasons you mentioned. Everything just felt incredibly fluid in that movie. And while I haven't seen Nimona or the TMNT movie, they found their own stylistic niche to set them apart from other movies. Arcane and Puss in Boots: The Last Wish are also pretty good examples of adding more stylistic elements.
The style used by Arcane and more recently, the Chinese (maybe Chinese-Japanese? Not sure) show To Be Hero X which gives 3D models a “painted” look and mixes in 2D elements is really cool and creative, I thought. A great example of pushing the limits without getting as wild and experimental as the Spider-verse movies.
Honestly, all of those feel very similar. I don't know anything about the CalArts stuff or what a bean mouth is, but they all feel the same sort of bubbly, round shapes that feel like a modern, post-Inside Out Pixar movie. There's some variation between looking more realistic (alive Soul, Lightyear) and more bubbly and cartoonish (Elio, Luca), and there's some characters that have more specific traits (the fire creature from Elemental, or a number of the characters from Inside Out), but by-and-large, they all feel very very similar.
And they can do different things — Incredibles had the Rob Liefeld-esque hyper-stylised human figures, WALL-E had its angular, boxy aesthetic (at least on Earth), Brave had its super-detailed texture rendering that made the characters feel almost like dolls — so it feels like a very deliberate choice to focus so much on this "3D Chibi" style in recent releases.
I just thought I'd interject with a tangent here; it's not that Pixar was trying to make things boxy and angular, it was that they were trying for realism. They made a lot of effort to simulate camera defects to make things look real, (most of their films are showcases for new technologies, and that was one of the primary things for that film) and they even went so far as to use actual photography for some recorded video segments. They chose a boxy look for Wall-E because it was realistic for a robot with the purpose that Wall-E had, and his design was very much influenced by a 'real' robot, Johnny 5 from Short Circuit.
Let's not forget that WALL-E also had these humans, full of bubbly, round shapes. The angular, boxy aesthetic of Earth was used as juxtaposition against the rounded, bubbly aesthetic of ... everything else. Elemental used similar contrasting shapes and styles for comparing Fire and Water, for example.
If one doesn't like the "3D Chibi" aesthetic of Pixar's offerings, it makes me wonder about their memory of Pixar's offerings - because that's been part of their style since the beginning. From Woody and Flik with their big, round eyes ... to Frozone and Linguini having some hyper-deformed and exaggerated features, not unlike those of more modern characters from Soul and Onward.
I did think about the humans in WALL-E when I wrote my comment, but decided against mentioning them. They absolutely have the same aesthetic as the modern Pixar films, but where in WALL-E, that's a deliberate choice to make the humans feel almost like chubby, incompetent babies, in the modern films it's just the default — sure, not quite so rotund, but similarly round with very few hard edges.
I don't quite understand what you mean by bringing up the older examples. Lots of cartoons use stylised, caricaturish features — that's pretty normal, and exactly what I'd expect from any medium that doesn't need to be constrained by photorealism. It's not those features that I'm talking about with modern films. It's really specifically this very bubbly appearance that seems almost ubiquitous in modern Pixar movies.
To be clear, I don't dislike this aesthetic, I just think it's disappointing that a studio like Pixar — once known for really original design and concepts — seems to have settled into such a fixed aesthetic. I'd love to see them push the boat out more here, and incorporate more complexity into their designs.
I'm arguing that the aesthetic is not fixed (see Elemental), and I've explained several times throughout as to why I feel that way. We can agree to disagree.
Could you explain why you mean by the term being a dog whistle? I tried to read the medium post but it is walled off for me. I can’t find much else about it other than John K being the one who came up with the term.
ButteredToast shared a non paywalled version here:
https://archive.is/0Doyk
Dog whistle here means what it always does - racism, sexism, all of the popular negative -isms.
The CalArts style problem has gotten pretty bad. People say that East Asian animation has a samey-ness thing going on, but it’s got nothing on North American animation (with a handful of notable exceptions like Castlevania).
Interestingly other western countries don’t have this issue. It’s just the US and Canada.
I think this is the heart of the problem. If you showed me the preview without Pixar or Disney animation studios intros I would not be able to guess who made this. Maybe Pixar moved to be more like disney after the success of Frozen. But so much of everything, the plot and art styles etc. are so generic looking to me.
Did anyone see it? is it worth going to? I want to go see a movie but I'm not interested in anything and I was thinking I'd just wait for Wicked part 2, but I wouldn't mind seeing a pixar movie if it's good
I saw it with my kids last weekend, and was pleasantly surprised. It's a really heartwarming story, and a lot less formulaic than I was anticipating. I would say it's definitely worth a watch.
Edit: Also several easter egg references to R-rated sci-fi, if that's interesting to you. I found it strange, but fun. All of the references of course were completely lost on my kids. :)
nice, that sounds positive enough that if I feel a pull towards a movie in the next couple weeks I'll go see this, thanks!
Including Lightyear under "trying something new" is odd and seems like unnecessary padding of the article's point, it's a prequel and the sixth movie in the Toy Story franchise.