Saturday, September 13, 2014

No Thaw in Sight for the "Frozen" Ice Age

Photo by twoworldsonekingdom on deviantART

Because the Frozen train is still going full speed it seems, Disney World has announced that it will be building a Frozen attraction at Epcot in the Norway Pavilion. I've been mostly silent about the whole Frozen phenomenon, but I say to myself, "Hey, if everyone else is still milking this thing, why not me too!" 

I will qualify my following commentary with this: I do not think Frozen is a bad movie. It looks great, has some good music, and some of the characters that I thought would be incredibly annoying animated tropes and stereotypes were much more palatable. HOWEVER, it is also not as good as its rabid fan base may lead you to believe. At its core, Frozen is another paint-by-numbers Disney fairy-tale musical. It does plenty well enough, but besides some if its visuals it doesn't do anything remarkable. 

I could pontificate on this topic at some length, but instead I thought I would try something a little different. This will be short philosophical dialogue in the tradition of Plato that utilizes an adapted scene from Jurassic Park. For tonight's performance, John Hammond will be playing the role of Disney Animation CEO John Lasseter, and for the role of myself, his co-star Dr. Ian Malcolm. Enjoy...

Dr. Ian Malcolm: If I may... Um, I'll tell you the problem with the [animated] power that you're using here [in Frozen]: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now
[bangs on the table] 
Dr. Ian Malcolm: you're selling it, you wanna sell it. Well... 
John Hammond: I don't think you're giving us our due credit. Our [artists] have done things which nobody's ever done before... 
Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, yeah, but your [artists] were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.
John Hammond: [Wreck-It Ralph]. [Wreck-It Ralph] is on the verge of extinction... 
Dr. Ian Malcolm: [shaking his head] No...
John Hammond: If I was to create a [Wreck-It Ralph sequel] on this island, you wouldn't have anything to say.
Dr. Ian Malcolm: No, hold on. This isn't some [film] that was obliterated by [bad marketing], or the building of a [franchise]. [Musical fairy tales] had their shot, and nature selected them for extinction.

There you have it.  Let's hope that animation, uh, finds a way.

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Why a Looney Tunes Movie Can't Work

In further news of classic cartoon properties being developed into flashy motion pictures, film sites are reporting that there is another Looney Tunes movie in the works to be written by X-Men: First Class writers Ashley Miller and Zack Stentz with Steve Carell supposedly attached to star. Details about the film, ostensibly titled Acme, are sparse, but it is hinted that it will be a "spin-off" film and will not focus on the main roster of Warner Bros. cartoon characters. It is presumed however that they will make an appearance.

Acme is just the latest movie to feature Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, and the rest of the Looney Tunes roster. Who can forget the stinking pile of nostalgia that is Space Jam and who can actually remember Looney Tunes: Back in Action? Neither of these movies succeeded in capturing the true essence and magic of these characters for various reasons.

Aside from perhaps the complete lobotomy that Disney gave to Mickey Mouse fifty years ago, no animated character has been as cruelly subjected to the world of pop marketing like Bugs and the gang. You couldn't walk ten feet in the '90s without seeing someone wearing a shirt with the Tasmanian Devil or a smug looking Bugs Bunny or Wile E. Coyote.

Never forget.

What many people see as the Looney Tunes brand is just a derivation of the cartoon shorts directed by Chuck Jones and Isadore "Friz" Freling in the later (and frankly lackluster) period of the Warner Bros. studio in the late fifties and sixties. They hung on longer than the other unit directors, and as the last men standing, they got to literally write the book on Looney Tunes. Since then, that one vision has been watered down and distorted into one-dimensional versions of what were originally some of the most vibrant personalities ever animated.

Case in point:  when he was created by Tex Avery, Daffy Duck was the epitome of the screwball character. Under the direction of Bob Clampett in the '40s, the character reached his peak as an unrestrained id, causing chaos for its own sake and hooting maniacally the entire time. Under Chuck Jones however, the character was changed to be the greedy, jealous asshole that most people know today. It's a cheapening of the character and central to why Looney Tunes movies don't work.

The sad matter of fact is that the Looney Tunes have lost their looney-ness. Today we have The Looney Tunes Show on Cartoon Network that is essentially Seinfeld but with talking animals. And even though that particular program has been recently discontinued, CN is quick to come back with Wabbit, a series that sounds like it will focus primarily on Bugs Bunny and will feature some new original characters. While these shows pale in comparison to the original shorts, I do appreciate that they did not try to replicate them exactly.

The original theatrical shorts were lightning in a bottle. They were created by some of the finest animators to ever pick up a pencil, and given the freedom to express themselves in unprecedented ways. The screen was barely able to contain the sheer amount of energy that was in a scant seven minutes. This highlights the other problem with movies:  they're too long for that kind of sustained action. A feature-length Looney Tunes short would be exhausting to watch. It would be like trying to eat a bowl full of candy. Sure it sounds fun, but once you dive in you (and your pancreas) start to see the error of your ways.

This does not mean all hope is lost.  In the past few years, there have been some incredible shorts that combine old sound recordings of Mel Blanc's voice and Carl Stalling's music with modern CGI tools, and the results are astounding.  Here's one from 2013 that does Sylvester and Tweety more justice than Friz Freling ever did:

The resources are out there, it's just a matter of harnessing them properly.  We shouldn't take Bugs, Daffy and the rest and put them on the shelf to gather dust and enjoy as museum pieces. These characters by their very nature are meant to be enjoyed.  Reinvention is all part of the game, but not at the expense of what made them appealing in the first place.  In short, keep the shorts short.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Why A "Dumbo" Remake Reveals Everything Wrong With Animation Today

I've been gone for more than a year now, but I'm finally back to bring you more from around the world of cartoons and animation.  First up, the thing that finally got me off of my lazy ass and into writing again.

Earlier this week, the Hollywood Reporter announced that Disney is planning a live-action/CGI version of its 1941 classic, Dumbo. The film is to be written by Transformers franchise writer Ehren Kruger, but no projected release date has been announced.  

I can only hope that this turns out to be a hoax, but given the current direction that Disney is taking regarding its movies, I feel like I am only going to be disappointed. The studio has already cranked out Alice in Wonderland and Maleficent, both of which have been well-received at the box-office. In addition, there are live-action adaptations of Cinderella, Beauty and the BeastThe Jungle Book, and (a rumored) The Little Mermaid in the pipeline.

This crap needs to stop. Remaking these already classic films robs the originals of their legitimacy as honest works of cinematic art. Dumbo is one of the tightest and most emotional entries of the Disney canon, Sleeping Beauty is perhaps the most sophisticated, and The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast were instrumental in kicking off the Animation Renaissance of the '90s. Hell, the latter of those two was the first animated film nominated for a Best Picture Oscar.  

So what is the problem here? Lots of things to be sure. Perhaps the first major issue was the ghettoizing of animation to children's television. With the film industry's deconstruction in the '50s, TV started to become the only marketable home for animation. In order to easily create weekly programming, many TV studios would create half-hour shows out of old theatrical cartoons shorts and play them for kids on Saturday mornings. This is the hurdle that we as a culture have been unable to overcome and it has resulted in the stigmatization that all animations are simply, "kid stuff."

This leads to my next point on why these live-action adaptations exist. I place much of the blame on the shoulders of Generation Y. Ours is a generation that is obsessed with nostalgia. Facebook news feeds and other social media sites are flooded daily with reminders of our childhood, from the foods we used to eat, the clothes we used to wear, and especially the movies we used to watch. As a side effect of the cornucopia of information on the internet, many of these movies, shows, and other material are readily available to watch and relive. In addition to leading many young people to strive and capture their lost youth, it also causes older generations to perceive us as the generation that can't let go of our childhoods, furthering the kiddy stigma of cartoons.

Enter the corporate suits. They know what is trending on Twitter and Facebook. Marketing firms collect data to show that these older animated films are still popular today, so the CEOs ask themselves, "How can I make money off of this without taking a huge financial risk?" The answer: remake an already established brand, but alter it slightly to make it fit with contemporary tastes and to give it the illusion of being a more mature story (just for fun, let's say it's a dark fantasy setting). Next, you find bankable names to write, direct, and star in them. After all, who doesn't love Johnny Depp or Angelina Jolie?  The end result is the cinematic equivalent of a hot dog; manufactured and only slightly reminiscent of the steak of burger that once was. Certainly in Hollywood money needs to be made, but if you're in animation to get rich, you're in it for the wrong reasons. Walt Disney took every dollar he made off of his movies and cranked them back into the company to do even better next time. Recent investigations into the tech and computer animation industries have proven just how far we have fallen.

The bottom line is this: animation does not get the respect that it deserves as an art form. When it was first being pioneered in the early decades of the twentieth century, it was regarded as the top tier of movie magic. When Walt Disney stepped onto the scene, he blew everyone away with his passion, work ethic, and willingness to go beyond what was considered possible and brought the medium to an entirely new level. Mickey Mouse was a bigger star than many of the real-world figures of the silver screen. Critics were astounded that Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was able to engage the emotions of an entire theater audience for a feature-length animated film.  People are still moved today by the honesty and emotion of a movie that was made in 1937. How many other films can truly claim to have that kind of lasting power?

Animation is not simply the dominion of princesses and talking animals with attitude. It is a medium in which the only limitations are the imaginations if the people who create it. It can be so much better than it is if people would stop worrying about only finding something for your kids or making money on an investment. Embrace it. Enjoy it. Let go of any preconceived notions about Pollyanna endings and stupid sing-alongs. Animation is a medium as old as film itself.  Many of our most cherished films are animated. Don't let the cynics and bean counters take those memories away from you and twist them to suit their own desires.  If we allow these films to be lost, we lose a part of who we are.

Sunday, June 9, 2013

The Lonely Boy: A Psychological Case Study of Christopher Robin

This week I've got something a little different in store.  I went digging around some old writings of mine and stumbled across a post from an older blog that I used to write a few years ago.  I've reworked some of the wording to make it sound less like a pretentious college kid wrote it, but it is some interesting food for thought.

I have a theory that the whole Winnie the Pooh universe is actually a psychological case study. Christopher Robin (CR) is the central figure of the whole affair, and each of the Hundred Acre Wood inhabitants is actually a metaphor for some part of Christopher’s damaged psyche.  There have been a few instances on the internet recently of labeling each character as a specific disorder, but this is an attempt to unify each character as a piece of a single, disturbing image.  I present the evidence:

Winnie the Pooh - The main character and perhaps the most dominant of Robin’s neuroses. He is fat, lazy, naive, and focused only on obtaining honey. Pooh is the reptile brain, the most basic part of our brain and is concerned only with instinctual drives and self-preservation.  Since the rest of the personalities tend towards the dynamic, and even the dangerous, Pooh is a safe port in the storm. This explains his position as the main character of many stories.

Tigger – Tigger is in part of an extension of the Pooh personality. Tigger is just as basic as Pooh, but where the bear is slow and passive, the bouncing tig[g]er is active and behaves in a manner that defies any sort of outside constraint. Today, he might be diagnosed as the personification of ADHD, but another interpretation is that Tigger serves as the child’s id; raw and impatient passion that does what he wants when he wants. He is also an extension of the child’s still forming libido. If CR were a few years older, Tigger's behavior could become more violent and rapacious and would require immediate action to prevent harm to others.

Piglet – CR’s low self-worth is embodied by a diminutive pig in a sweater. Piglet is unsure of himself and lives in his grandfather’s house, clearly an indication that CR feels pressure from his family who impose unrealistic standards on the child.  This shows up as severe anxiety, possibly mitigated by the soothing softness of Piglet's sweater.  The character's stuttering may be an actual speech impediment, or it is simply another symptom of his anxiety.  The Piglet personality is unable to make decisions and values himself too little to ever try and make something of himself, leading to a cyclical self-fulfilling prophecy of failure.

Eeyore – Just as Tigger is the companion personality of Pooh, so too is Eeyore to Piglet. Whereas Piglet is in a constant state of anxiety over his inability, Eeyore instead has descended into a deep depression that has reached the point of apathy. A diet of thistles and a tail that needs to be nailed back on indicates a tendency toward masochistic behavior, perhaps as a form of self-inflicted punishment as a result of poor self-esteem.

Kanga – This is the CR’s largely dormant anima, or female side. Here it is presented as a maternal figure as CR's mother is perhaps the only female influence in his life. The fact that she is a kangaroo is interesting in that her pouch allows for the juvenile Roo personality to retreat there whenever the harshness of life becomes too unbearable. It would be interesting to see how this personality develops as the child matures.  Kanga could either remain maternal or, like Tigger, become more sexualized with the onset of puberty.

Roo – Roo is perhaps CR’s emotional avatar that most resembles himself. A childish Everyman personality, he is largely the manifestation of CR’s still immature personality and desires. His friendship with Tigger is tied to a child’s innate tendency toward chaos and lack of control, yet he is helpless without the Kanga figure. As CR matures, the Roo personality should gradually become less and less prominent, indicated by Roo’s second-string status among the characters in the story.

Rabbit – This character is a more sophisticated expression of the neuroses expressed by the Piglet personality. Rabbit is an agitated perfectionist and is easily distraught by change or dominant personalities such as Tigger. The strong desire towards the status quo and disdain of extreme passion with overtones of OCD seems to show that CR is the victim of some form of abuse.

Owl – This is an interesting contradiction of a character.  The wisdom and malapropisms of Owl are the representations of CR’s shaky intellectual abilities. Although much respected by the other personalities, this is only because of their own ignorance and failure to recognize that much of the information presented is false. The constant references to relatives again hint at stress stemming from some sort of family-related pressure. Owl is CR’s main source of empowerment, but its overall lack of solid grounding will result in confidence without any skills to reinforce it.

Heffalumps and Woozles – I group these two together because they are different expressions of the same psychological themes. Unseen and mostly regarded as dangerous beasts, these two abstract creatures are perhaps the most frightening aspect of CR’s personality. This is a warped perspective on the abuse hinted at by many of the other personalities. The difference however is that the horrors of the abuse itself have been almost completely suppressed in the mind’s effort at self-preservation. Importantly, the phallic nature of the Heffalump's "trunk" and the Woozle's elongated body may hint at sexual abuse.  If the Heffalumps and Woozles were to gain control, CR would undoubtedly descend into extreme psychosis and potentially dangerous behavior, both to the child and to others.

So there you have it.  If true, Christopher Robin is a profoundly disturbed individual who requires immediate psychological treatment.  And even if it is just a fun children's book/movie, it still makes for some fun theories.  Maybe a creepypasta is next?

Sunday, June 2, 2013

"SheZow" May Save The Day, But Can She Save The Hub?

I've covered a few different animated superheroes here, but none quite like SheZow. The eponymous star of a new show on The Hub, she is a superhero decked out in a pink costume, complete with a miniskirt and white go-go boots.  She has many of the usual superpowers (strength, speed, supersonic voice) as well as a collection of super-accessories like laser lipstick and hair spray that immediately fixes frizzy hair (her one weakness).  And, oh yes, her alter ego is a twelve year-old boy.

Guy Hamdon and his sister Kelly discover a magic ring that belonged to their aunt, who also masqueraded as the female crime fighter.  After accidentally putting on the ring, Guy transforms into his super form with the words, "You go, girl!"  After a bit of an adjustment period, he comes to embrace his super-self and vows to protect the city of Megadale from supervillains and other dangers,

Observant comic fans will recognize this as little more than a twisted version of Captain Marvel from DC, a Superman-like hero who dwells in the body of young Billy Batson until he says the magic word, "Shazam!"  The comparison is right there in the title.  Others however, have chosen to once again look for problems where none really exist. Conservative groups have been attacking the show as an attempt to push the transgender agenda onto young children.  These groups would have a legitimate bone to pick if not for two major things:  the show is not about transgender/cross-dressing, and it's so colossally bad that who cares if it is?

I actually like the concept.  Guy is your typical hyper-masculine kid who loathes girly stuff with the power and fury of a thousand dudebros.  To take someone like that and make him a super-feminine superhero is a great opportunity.  It's not about gender confusion, gender dysphoria, or any other element associated with the transgender movement.  It's simply a unique take on the fish-out-of-water type of storytelling.  Remember Toby Maguire when he was trying to figure out all of his new spider powers in Spider-Man? Just add in a scene where he also learns how to walk in high heels and you'll get the general gist of the concept.

You know when Happy Meals have a toy made either for boys (cars, robots, deer hunting equipment, etc.) or girls (ponies, princesses, or other pink paraphernalia)? That's pretty much The Hub in a a nutshell.  The Hasbro-owned channel is really only known for Transformers: Prime and My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic.  Since the channel's inception, it has struggled with trying to compete with the big three of Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, and Cartoon Network.  SheZow is The Hub's latest effort to try and drum up some ratings.  Will it work?  Not likely.

While a solid enough premise, SheZow just fails to deliver on so many levels.  The art has an annoying wonky-for-the-sake-of-wonky look to it.  One basic rule of animation is to make your eyes asymmetrical to make your character look more lifelike and less like a cardboard cutout.  This does not mean to simply make one eye bigger than the other in every shot.  The Flash animation is smooth, but the bright colors and style just don't work visually.  It worked for My Little Pony, but since then, every new Hub show uses the exact same style of animation regardless of whether or not it looks good.

And the writing, dear God, the writing!  The characters are far too obnoxious to be likable and have dreadful senses of humor.  Imagine every lame gender-based trope you can, then cram it into a single show.  Remember my Peter Parker in heels joke earlier?  Well take that and make it worse.  Several jokes aren't even inherently bad, but are just so mishandled that they fail completely.  And the puns...puns everywhere.  The puns are so "she-lariously" awful that they make Joel Schumacher's Batman & Robin look like Shakespeare, and this is coming from someone who laughs like an idiot at every single "Veterinarian's Hospital" sketch from The Muppet Show.

"Maybe he just needs a good pun-ch to the face!"

Maybe SheZow just needs some time to develop itself.  MLP: FiM was similarly cringe-inducing for much of its first season, but then really blossomed into a rather enjoyable series after that.  Season one of SheZow has already aired in Australia and hasn't caused too much of an uproar, so maybe it has a chance.  I do truly like the idea of a show that doesn't sit comfortably into one of the several boxes that tend to categorize programs, but if it doesn't get better, all I see is one more failed show from The Hub. Get your act together and go get it, girl!

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Blue Sky's "Epic" Is Slightly Less So But Still Fun

Summer movie season has kicked off, and amidst the blockbusters there are always a few animated ones thrown into the mix.  First up is Epic from Blue Sky Studios, based on the book The Leaf Men and the Brave Good Bugs by William Joyce.

The story is straightforward and painfully predictable.  Teenager Mary Katherine (or M.K. for short to sound cool *cringe*) goes to live with her eccentric father who is obsessed with discovering the secret world of the forest.  After attempting to run away from home, M.K. is  accidentally shrunk and caught up in the struggle of the miniature Leaf-Men as they fight to protect the forest from the evil Mandrake and his army of Boggins who seek to destroy it.

The whole thing feels like the sort of movie Don Bluth would have made back in the '80s and early '90s (Think The Secret of NIMH or Thumbelina).  Despite the filmmaker's claims to the contrary, there are flavors of Avatar and Ferngully, although it lacks the overt humanitarian/environmental messages of either.  The movie is more about the usual believing in yourself and remembering the importance of family, especially fatherhood.  Everyone in this movie has some sort of father issue, even the villain.  Part of Mandrake's motivation comes from the loss of his son and top general early in the movie.  It doesn't exactly make him more sympathetic, but it's an interesting twist on an otherwise completely over-the-top performance by Cristoph Waltz.  

The rest of the cast suffers from the all too common problem of too many celebrity voices.  Ever since Robin Williams was cast in Aladdin, studios have used high-profile celebrities in their casts to hype the movies, usually to the detriment of the characters. Amanda Seyfried, Josh Hutcherson, and Colin Farrell voice the main cast and all do a solid enough job.  The real problem is the secondary cast which is filled with popular names, especially musicians.  Beyonce, Pitbull, and Steven Tyler all lend their voices to the film, and each of their roles would have been much more satisfying had they been played by proper voice actors instead.  They even gave Tyler's quasi-sage Nim Galuu a little song-and-dance introduction.  No.  Just no.  The one exception I'll make here is Aziz Ansari's role as a slug named Mub.  I went into this movie fully expecting to find every single line out of his mouth to be stupid and forced, but some of his them were actually funny, so he gets a pass.

The visuals of the movie look great from far away, but less so up-close.  The forest setting looks incredibly real and fantastic to the point of making me want to take a hike afterwards.  The way that the miniature world of the Leaf-Men is portrayed is both believable and captivating.  Who ever would have thought that a mouse could be so dangerous?  The character acting and posing is also quite good, but the characters themselves don't stand up quite as well.  Beyonce's Queen Tara in particular looks like Mother Nature Barbie.

Perhaps my favorite part of the movie however is M.K.'s pet pug, Ozzy.  Animal companions are usually a given in movies like this, but Ozzy is unique because he is an older dog but is not played with the usual lazy hang-dog approach.  Even though he's half-blind and only has three legs, Ozzy is a little ball of love and energy, and never stops moving throughout the picture.  As the owner of a 12 year-old dog who still bounces around like a puppy, I'm thrilled to see this type of pet portrayed accurately in a movie.

This may be the best animated dog since Huckleberry Hound

Overall, Epic is a good movie.  It falls into some conventional traps, but there is plenty of action, humor, and feeling to make this a solid family flick.  With summer just getting started, the movie is a good reminder to go outside and enjoy some of the beautiful scenery that surrounds us every day.  So stop reading this and go out and play!

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Better Know A Studio Part II: Pixar

My ongoing series about animation studios continues with Disney's new right hand man in feature films, Pixar.

Pixar's first film was Toy Story in 1995, but the company's history reaches back much farther.  Founded in 1979 by Ed Catmull, Alvy Ray Smith, and Steve Jobs, The Graphics Group, as it was originally known, was part of Lucasfilm and developed rendering software and special effects along with Industrial Light & Magic.  In 1983, Jobs bought the company outright from George Lucas who was starting to lose steam after Return of the Jedi.  The name Pixar derives from the Pixar Image Computer that the company produced and sold to high-end clients, including Walt Disney Studios which was at the time experimenting with computer animation to replace the traditional ink-and-paint system.  John Lasseter, a Pixar employee, had been creating short animated segments to show off the computers capabilities.  The first of these, Luxo Jr., features the hopping desk lamp that has since become the company's mascot. This is a much better mascot than the hideous baby that starred in Tin Toy.

Oh, God!  It has come to take our cute children!

After a few years of struggling to stay afloat, Pixar finally struck a deal with Disney to produce three computer-animated films.  The success of Toy Story started to build faith in the company, but the relationship between Pixar and Disney was often contentious until the former was purchased in full in 2006.

Pixar is the current critical darling of the animation scene.  Over the last ten years, they have produced some of the most acclaimed animated films ever and are always the horse to watch when award season rolls around.  This is partly due to the company's emphasis on nurturing creativity and story.  Employees are encouraged to work on their own projects using company resources when available, and the results are breath-taking.  My personal favorite is Enrico Casarosa'a La Luna.  The short is like a children's book come to life and fills me with a sense of wonder that only animation can achieve.

Story is king at Pixar.  Rather than cram in pop culture references and memorable one-liners, Pixar strives to create strong, believable narratives with rich characters that connect with audiences.  Several of them feel like folktales in the way they portray simple messages like love, family, and loneliness and touch something basic in the spirit of the audience.  If you have never felt a swell of emotion watching at least one Pixar movie, you have no soul.

After 25 years of success though, Pixar is starting to wander over a few speed bumps. For one, even though early on the studio had an unofficial policy about not cranking out loads of sequels, that's pretty much what we're getting now.  We've already had three Toy Story movies (with a rumored fourth) and Cars 2, plus a Monsters Inc. prequel later this year and a sequel to Finding Nemo called Finding Dory in the works.  I'm not saying all of these are bad; I'm excited for Monsters University and Toy Story 3 made me cry like Santa Claus just killed my dog in front of me.  Pixar just needs to make sure that they don't just become a franchise factory.

There have also been some issues about the studio being a boy's club.  This isn't unique to Pixar, but the controversy surrounding Brave, its hero Merida, and Brenda Chapman being fired as director all cast a bit of doubt over the studio's ability to embrace a female point-of-view.  Also, with John Lasseter now serving as the chief creative officer of both Walt Disney Animation and Pixar, the lines between the two companies have started to blur slightly.  Compare Brave, from Pixar, and Disney's Wreck-It Ralph.  The two have a slight feel of switched-at-birth syndrome.  I'm even concerned that Disney is placing all of its animation stock in Pixar so that it doesn't have to worry about making animated movies anymore.

The story of Pixar, much like a fairy tale, is the story of a young beautiful princess who goes to live with the successful prince.  The marriage is happy, but after a while, the politics of ruling start to change the way the princess looks at the world.  She's still beautiful, but she has to decide whether she wants to rule with grace or with power. Hopefully, Pixar will make the right choice.