Which animation studio would you rather work at?

Post by **mr. squarepants** » April 20th, 2005, 3:39 pm

Which animation studio would you rather work at? I suppose that everyone would say 'Pixar'. That's why I didn't include it as a choice.

Post by **Ben** » April 20th, 2005, 5:33 pm

I've gone for Disney FA.

They were always great and will be again.

Post by **Josh** » April 20th, 2005, 5:54 pm

Ditto.

Post by **ShyViolet** » April 20th, 2005, 6:48 pm

I'd say who I voted for but....it's kind of redundant.

My second choice: WDFA.

BTW, I WOULDN'T want to work at Pixar. I love what they do, I own three of their films on DVD, I LOVE their films. They are great movies. But by and large, they stick to a formula...personally I'd rather work somewhere that gives you more freedom than that...

Also, shouldn't Blue Sky be a choice? Or is that 20th Century Fox?
Also, if it were still viable, would anyone want to work with Don Bluth?

Post by **Guardstone** » April 20th, 2005, 7:28 pm

Needless to say I would love to work at any of these studios, but if I have to choose... WDFA. Just the chance to work with so many of the people who created the classics that inspired me to aspire a career in animation would be enough to choose Disney. Glen Keane, Andreas Deja, Andy Gaskill, Chris Sanders... the films these people have made have changed some of my goals in life significantly, I would LOVE to work with them!

Mr. Squarepants, good call on leaving out Pixar though. In spite of the previous paragraph, I might very have chosen Emeryville over Glendale...

Post by **Macaluso** » April 20th, 2005, 7:44 pm

pfft. my OWN company. FOOLS.

Post by **Christian** » April 20th, 2005, 8:30 pm

WDFA for sure. Pixar would be alright. ShyViolet took the words right out of my mouth about them. Their films are very well-made and creative (I've seen every one of them at least twice if not quite a bit more) yet oddly formulaic, the formula being, "Somebody's lost! Let's go get 'em!"

Post by **ShyViolet** » April 20th, 2005, 9:25 pm

I agree.

Also, I thought Incredibles was great because it departed from that theme, but Cars seems right up the ol' Pixar alley.

I don't know what "Ratouville" is supposed to be about, though. (Or is it Ratopolis?) It's hard to imagine rats as Pixar creations.

Post by **Christian** » April 20th, 2005, 9:35 pm

Actually Incredibles didn't depart from that theme all that much. It still had Helen searching for Bob and trying to rescue him.

Post by **PatrickvD** » April 21st, 2005, 3:15 pm

WDFA, need to fix them from the inside

Post by **AniMan** » April 24th, 2005, 12:57 pm

ShyViolet wrote:I'd say who I voted for but....it's kind of redundant.

My second choice: WDFA.

BTW, I WOULDN'T want to work at Pixar. I love what they do, I own three of their films on DVD, I LOVE their films. They are great movies. But by and large, they stick to a formula...personally I'd rather work somewhere that gives you more freedom than that...

Also, shouldn't Blue Sky be a choice? Or is that 20th Century Fox?
Also, if it were still viable, would anyone want to work with Don Bluth?

Formula? What formula? They are the least formulaic of the animation studios, unquestionably less formulaic than Disney (whom I love nonetheless; formula doesn't bother me if it works). I read in one of the other posts that they thought they stuck to the "lost" formula; someone's lost, they have to be found. Wow, is that a stretch. In The Incredibles, who was lost? No one was. Helen was trying to find out what was really going on with her husband. "Someone's lost" was not the theme, thus no formula. In Monsters Inc., no one was lost. Boo was not lost, she was just on the other side of the looking glass, so to speak. Sully and Mike were just trying to protect her and get her back home. No formula. The formula argument doesn't hold up to the test. Sounds more like a little resentment of the Pixar success.

Oh, and as far as Don Bluth is concerned: I would never want to work with him. He hasn't done anything good since An American Tail. All his other stuff stank out loud.

Post by **Ben** » April 24th, 2005, 3:36 pm

PatrickvD wrote:WDFA, need to fix them from the inside

Best answer so far...

Post by **Christian** » April 24th, 2005, 3:43 pm

"Someone's lost" was not the theme, thus no formula.

The movies are all about rescuing somebody. I have no resentment. I've seen the Incredibles probably about fifteen times and all of the other Pixar movies at least twice if not more and I don't watch a movie more than once if I didn't like it the first time. The movies all look different from each other and very visually appealing and they are all good about keeping the pace up. There's also a theme running through Pixar movies about some character or entity being concerned that they aren't important anymore or concerned that they are soon to become unimportant: Woody being displaced by the new-fangled space character, Flik being kicked out of the colony because he wasn't a help, Buzz feeling displaced and neglected because of all the Woody nostalgia, the scream factory worrying that kids weren't very scared of monsters anymore, Nemo worrying he might end up in a plastic bag uncared for just like the fish in the photo at the dentist's office, Bob Parr concerned about the glory days being over and that he could no longer put his powers to use for the good of mankind.

Post by **ShyViolet** » April 24th, 2005, 5:14 pm

Very well said.

Oh, and as far as Don Bluth is concerned: I would never want to work with him. He hasn't done anything good since An American Tail. All his other stuff stank out loud.

I have to disagree....I think All Dogs Go to Heaven was a strange but uniquely beautiful little film, and gorgeous to look at...Land Before Time dragged a little but was also very emotional and exciting as well. Thumbelina was...maybe a little childish, but it was a fun film, and sweet. Yeah, his later films were weaker (and although I liked Anastasia it's not NEARLY as good as An American Tale) but from what I understand that wasn't completely his fault, more due to money problems than anything else.

There's no one way to make an animated film, and although Pixar has done great things, I don't really hold them as the "standard" for what animated films "SHOULD" be like.
Pixar films have a very specific template, like Christian said. Believe in yourself, don't give up hope, one person can make a difference...all admirable themes, but limited in scope. Some filmmakers aspire to reach beyond those borders. Pixar also has a HUGE focus on visual stimulation and storytelling through visual means; it's great how they do it, but not all filmmakers tell their stories in that way. Sometimes there has to be some variety.

I don't resent Pixar; I really like them. The only thing I didn't like was the way certain people such as Brad Bird, Lee Unkrich and John Lassetter would make these unnecessary swipes at DW films, (ESPECIALLY Bird.) That doesn't change how I feel about their films, however. I've seen Nemo like a dozen times and I LOVE A Bug's Life (which as I understand it is one of the "less popular" Pixar films) I admire what they do and hope to see more of it. But artistically, I indentify the most with DW (and the earlier Disney) films. That's just me.

Post by **Christian** » April 24th, 2005, 8:49 pm

I really like Bug's Life.