Lightyear (2022) (1 Viewer)

[Colin Jacobson]

Pete Docter had this to say about Lightyear in a recent interview:

Pete Docter on Pixar's Future, Where Lightyear Went Wrong

Pete Docter, the filmmaker and chief creative officer of Pixar, opens up about his Annies award and the past, present and future of Pixar.

www.thewrap.com

I'm on record in this thread. I loved Lightyear. It was my favorite movie of 2022 and the only one I went to see three times in theaters. I've also watched it more than that at home. I am glad that it exists. But I do think this is a fair assessment.

Glad you loved the movie, but I don't think the issue with "Lightyear" is that audiences expected it to be more part of the "Toy Story" universe.

The problem is that it's just a bland sci-fi/action movie that never does much to stand on its own feet.

I accepted the premise behind it and wasn't yelling "where's mothabuckin' WOODY?!?!?" at the screen.

I just thought it wasn't a particularly clever or engaging movie.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

On a completely different note, Disney released a 2023 Lightyear calendar some time back. While this is a completely normal merchandise item to put out, I was a little surprised that they still did it because it came after the film had already underperformed. Amazon is selling it for $6.95. I'm sure this is because we are in February now and they're trying to get rid of it. Obviously, you'd get the most use out of a yearly calendar if you have it at the beginning of the year. But for that price, I decided to spring for it just as a memorabilia item.

View attachment 176847

They have "next year calendars" on shelves in July, so production for this one was clearly underway - and probably complete - when the movie debuted in June.

Not sure how late in the year a movie would have to flop to stop production of a calendar for the next year, but clearly Disney didn't realize "Lightyear" would fail to find much of an audience until this one was already done.

Update: "Onward" had a 2021 calendar and it came out in March, not June.

Of course, we'll never know the "true theatrical audience" since COVID damaged its theatrical window, but it didn't look to become a real hit even without the pandemic.

 

[Jeff Cooper]

Since they made Lightyear as an in-universe film, maybe they could make a Woody's Round Up show. And finally resolve the cliffhanger that that ended with!.

 

[Edwin-S]

Pixar is in the same trap that Disney Animation became trapped in. Pixar's main audience thinks animated films are meant primarily for children, so the company is allowed to make only one kind of film: family comedies with the emphasis on comedy.

If they try to do something less comedic, they get crushed. It's the same old same old problem that animation has always faced in North America: that animated filmmaking is a ghetto media meant only for cranking out children's films.

 

[Joe Wong]

Pixar is in the same trap that Disney Animation became trapped in. Pixar's main audience thinks animated films are meant primarily for children, so the company is allowed to make only one kind of film: family comedies with the emphasis on comedy.

If they try to do something less comedic, they get crushed. It's the same old same old problem that animation has always faced in North America: that animated filmmaking is a ghetto media meant only for cranking out children's films.

I would agree that Pixar films are meant for the whole family, with plenty of humour, slapstick, and frantic finales, but I would also argue that some Pixar films explored very "grown-up" themes (and had the creative clout to do so):

* The Incredibles (and its sequel)
* Inside Out
* Soul
* Ratatouille
* Wall-E
* the opening montage in Up (the rest was more "conventional", IMO)
* Turning Red
* Toy Story series (especially 2, 3 and 4)

The themes were conveyed via story, character actions, and sublime animation, as well as humour. Younger folks would still be entertained, while adults can be entertained and appreciate the subtlety.

 

[TravisR]

Pixar is in the same trap that Disney Animation became trapped in. Pixar's main audience thinks animated films are meant primarily for children, so the company is allowed to make only one kind of film: family comedies with the emphasis on comedy.

If they try to do something less comedic, they get crushed. It's the same old same old problem that animation has always faced in North America: that animated filmmaking is a ghetto media meant only for cranking out children's films.

I love nearly everything that Pixar has done so I'm not really complaining about them largely making family friendly comedies but it is something of a heartbreaker to imagine if Pixar was allowed to make something more adult oriented.

 

[Malcolm R]

I think most of the Pixar films include some themes that appeal to adults while also keeping most kids entertained. Often these themes involve the importance of family. To Joe's list above, I'd add Coco, Onward, and even Finding Nemo and Finding Dory.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Part of the reason Pixar was the gold standard for 20 years or so stemmed from the fact their movies appealed just as much to adults as to kids.

Animated action movies that shoot for the stereotypical "boy"/teen audience are the ones that hit the wall.

And that was essentially what "Lightyear" was.

Disney's "Strange World" went the same way and also didn't do well.

 

[Jason_V]

Part of the reason Pixar was the gold standard for 20 years or so stemmed from the fact their movies appealed just as much to adults as to kids.

Animated action movies that shoot for the stereotypical "boy"/teen audience are the ones that hit the wall.

And that was essentially what "Lightyear" was.

Disney's "Strange World" went the same way and also didn't do well.

Add to that...

Treasure Planet
Mars Needs Moms
Meet the Robinsons
The Black Hole
Atlantis: The Lost Empire
The Black Cauldron
Tron: Legacy

Wreck-It Ralph mostly worked. The sequel, while I liked it, isn't a slam dunk for a lot of folks. (I'm not going to even talk about the quality of those films, either. Some are better than others...but they all were designed for the same demographic and had the same-ish result.)

Non-princess movies from Disney are an incredibly hard sell, but they keep trying.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Lightyear was a big swing that didn't work out (financially.)

But I respect Pixar for trying it.

 

[Edwin-S]

Add to that...

Treasure Planet
Mars Needs Moms
Meet the Robinsons
The Black Hole
Atlantis: The Lost Empire
The Black Cauldron
Tron: Legacy

Wreck-It Ralph mostly worked. The sequel, while I liked it, isn't a slam dunk for a lot of folks. (I'm not going to even talk about the quality of those films, either. Some are better than others...but they all were designed for the same demographic and had the same-ish result.)

Non-princess movies from Disney are an incredibly hard sell, but they keep trying.

All of those just prove my point. They are all films that do not primarily rely on comedy, except maybe "Meet The Robinsons", and they all flopped.

I found Pete Doctor's comment about Miyazaki's films being financial misses interesting too. Miyazaki's films are family films which are not comedic, except to a certain extent "Porco Rosso" and they were all financial disappointments for Disney.

It just shows that North American audiences think animated films have to be comedies. They also have to be geared primarily for children under 12. Adding some themes to make them tolerable by adults is acceptable, but the film will flop if it doesn't primarily act as a non- threatening babysitter for their toddler rugrats.

The films can especially contain nothing controversial that might make their children think.

 

[Jason_V]

All of those just prove my point. They are all films that do not primarily rely on comedy, except maybe "Meet The Robinsons", and they all flopped.

I found Pete Doctor's comment about Miyazaki's films being financial misses interesting too. Miyazaki's films are family films which are not comedic, except to a certain extent "Porco Rosso" and they were all financial disappointments for Disney.

It just shows that North American audiences think animated films have to be comedies. They also have to be geared primarily for children under 12. Adding some themes to make them tolerable by adults is acceptable, but the film will flop if it doesn't primarily act as a non- threatening babysitter for their toddler rugrats.

The films can especially contain nothing controversial that might make their children think.

I'd go a different way with some of the analysis. Disney made their name on princess movies and musicals. When they deviate from that genre, the movie doesn't hit with the audience. Disney isn't "cool" for boys, the demo these films are aimed at.

Pixar, on the other hand, is known for lots of different movies. But Lightyear has a lot going against it: lots of people rag on Toy Story 4, no Woody, Chris Evans as a young Buzz, "Sci Fi" movie, made up controversy, short Disney+ debut window.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Pete Docter had this to say about Lightyear in a recent interview:

Pete Docter on Pixar's Future, Where Lightyear Went Wrong

Pete Docter, the filmmaker and chief creative officer of Pixar, opens up about his Annies award and the past, present and future of Pixar.

www.thewrap.com

I'm on record in this thread. I loved Lightyear. It was my favorite movie of 2022 and the only one I went to see three times in theaters. I've also watched it more than that at home. I am glad that it exists. But I do think this is a fair assessment.

I finally got around to watching this movie on 4K/UHD. I thought it pretty good and enjoyed testing out my new HT receiver with this Dolby Atmos soundtrack. After watching the entire movie, I think the initial controversy about this film was overblown, but that's what people do.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Lightyear director Angus McLane and producer Galyn Susman are no longer working at Pixar.

‘Lightyear’ Director & Producer Among Disney Pixar Layoffs

Among the layoffs that took place at the Walt Disney Company were job cuts at Pixar that included the director and producer of Lightyear, Deadline has confirmed.

deadline.com

I find this unfortunate. I know that Lightyear didn't perform the way Disney wanted it to, but these two have been such longstanding employees of Pixar on so many successful films that it is too bad they were shown the door. Susman was at Pixar going all the way back to Toy Story and McLane started during production of A Bug's Life. So they did a lot more for the studio than just Lightyear. It's too bad this is how their tenures ended.

Hopefully they both land somewhere else very soon.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I found it hard to disagree with much of this:

PIXAR is Losing Hollywood's Animation War

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

I found it hard to disagree with much of this:

PIXAR is Losing Hollywood's Animation War

Some comments below the article say what I think, and while it was time (more than time, even) to lose Lasseter, that is not the reason they are now no longer as successful as they were.
And that's all I have to say about that.

But Soul wasn't half bad, Lightyear had its moments, as did Luca, and Elemental looks fairly promising.
Nothing near Inside Out, but still ...

 

[benbess]

There were things in Lightyear that I enjoyed—like Sox, the excellence of the animation, and the diversity of the characters. The concept of it, however, seemed misguided, since it didn't make sense as a movie Andy would have watched, it didn't have the very well known and enjoyed voice of Tim Allen for Buzz, and for me it just wasn't very funny. The movie's box office of $226 million, on a budget of $200 million, means that this movie was a vast pool of red ink. As we know, for a movie like this you need to add something like $100m in advertising and other costs, meaning that the real cost of the project was more like $300 million. Since only about half of the box office gets back to the studio, this one film lost more than $150 million dollars. Disney and Pixar spend about twice as much making an animated movie than other studios, and their quality is stunning, but the reality is their animated movies need to make at least half a billion just to break even.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I’ve always had very mixed feelings on Pixar. I appreciate the innovations behind their animation style more than the films themselves. I remember seeing movies like Toy Story and A Bug’s Life on their original release and I just found them interminable. Pixar also loves to reuse one of my least enjoyed story tropes - “I’m lost and I need help getting home” - again and again. It’s like they create these new and exciting environments and visuals but use them in service of telling the same couple of stories again and again, and because it’s a story that I’m not that jazzed over, it sticks out to me more than it does when other studios repeat their ideas.

I felt that Monsters Inc. showed me something I hadn’t quite seen before and balanced the imaginative visuals with storytelling that worked for me. I love the first half of Wall-E so much but I feel like they sort of chickened out by bringing humans in halfway through - but that first half was really special. The first ten minutes of Up showcase all of their best instincts as artists and storytellers; the rest of the film showcases their laziest instincts.

So those were generally where Pixar fell short for me in my pre-parenthood days.

Now as a parent, I’m frustrated with all of animation studios for failing to create any “G” rated movies appropriate for very small children. Whether it’s the PG-rated-rude humor, or just the jokes that would fly over their heads or the plots that are more geared towards grade school age kids, I’m disappointed that everyone has seemed to abandoned storytelling for the very young. I’m not worried that my kids would be damaged or traumatized by seeing what Pixar (or any of the studios are making), but I think they’d just be bored and restless, and I’m not going to spend money to take them to something that I know won’t hold their interest. I’d love nothing more than to have a movie I could take the kids to see in a theater but I’m still waiting in vain. I just saw the Elemental trailer and while the movie itself looks beautifully rendered, it seems very clear that it’s more for ten year olds than three year olds.

Do I think that’s why Pixar hasn’t dominated the marketplace of late? Not wholly. But I’m not sure that it helps either. And no, animation doesn’t automatically mean something has to be for kids. But it would be nice if occasionally something animated was for them.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I happened to like Lightyear on its own merits, but it also felt like 75 minutes of story expanded into a 105 minute container, and it didn’t really feel like a movie a young kid like Andy would watch. I think it actually worked better as it’s own thing than it did as part of the Toy Story universe. And it’s yet another “we’re lost and have to find our way home” story from Pixar.

 

[Jason_V]

Now as a parent, I’m frustrated with all of animation studios for failing to create any “G” rated movies appropriate for very small children. Whether it’s the PG-rated-rude humor, or just the jokes that would fly over their heads or the plots that are more geared towards grade school age kids, I’m disappointed that everyone has seemed to abandoned storytelling for the very young. I’m not worried that my kids would be damaged or traumatized by seeing what Pixar (or any of the studios are making), but I think they’d just be bored and restless, and I’m not going to spend money to take them to something that I know won’t hold their interest. I’d love nothing more than to have a movie I could take the kids to see in a theater but I’m still waiting in vain. I just saw the Elemental trailer and while the movie itself looks beautifully rendered, it seems very clear that it’s more for ten year olds than three year olds.

I understand what you're saying about 3-year-olds vs. 10-year-olds. But, on the other side, Disney and Pixar movies have never been okay with 3-year-olds. Each of them has something scary, traumatizing or very adult in them. I won't go through the entire catalogue, but Snow White is a G-rated movie with a very adult and scary storyline in it. Even that would likely be a PG rating if made today.

Two of our nieces are going to be 8 and 4 this year. The one thing they can agree on is Bluey. (The 8-year-old LOVES roller coasters and wants to live on Space Mountain, Big Thunder Mountain and Cosmic Rewind...but freaks the F out halfway through the second Harry Potter when she watches it at home...go figure.)

Sure, you're not going to get a big screen movie from those properties, but animation is being created for this age group. It's just at home and not in a theater. Again, I understand the point and wanting to bring the kids to the theater. 100%, not questioning it.