In Defense of "Lesser" Pixar Movies

Scene from Brave

There is a certain overwhelming opinion that began to develop following the success of Toy Story 3 in 2010: Pixar's winning streak was over. After all, the time that followed would see no less than three sequels and The Good Dinosaur would be their least successful film to date. The idea of taking the CG giant down a peg may be appetizing, but its unfair maligning to Blue Sky Animation-level criticism is unearned despite producing one genuine masterpiece (Inside Out) in the past five years. Still, when one thinks of Pixar, there's a handful of "lesser" films that round out the bottom of anyone's list. Most come from this time, and service as fuel for detractors. However, I am here to argue against those saying that the lesser Pixar movies signify the decline of quality. They may not be as good, but considering how hit-and-miss other studios are, they deserve a little more credit than they get.

When one thinks of Pixar, they're likely thinking of the time between Toy Story 2 (1999) and Toy Story 3 (2010). While they have done work before and since, this period was the golden era for the studio, and it seemed like each year had a genuine masterpiece on their hands. While they did have those off kilter titles like Cars, most people were willing to believe that the studio was here to save animation with films as audacious as The Incredibles and Up. To some extent, it still doesn't make sense why this era is so impressive other than that the work is, at its best, otherworldly. The fact that WALL-E was at all successful despite its limited technique is a testament to dedication. There's no denying that with exception to maybe Studio Ghibli and LAIKA Studios, there was no animation studio taking as many creative risks as Pixar was.

The truth is that Pixar is so fascinating because of the risks that they take. They had to be for the sheer fact that they were the first to do CG animation in feature length form. Toy Story itself may have been the biggest risk, as it potentially could've failed to warrant any acclaim. Still, the studio pursued a run that could easily be described as "genre" films. This is not in the traditional sense of comedy, action, etc.; but more in the vein of types. In this time, there were movies about: anthropomorphic toys, robots, cars, superheroes, fish, rats, and whatever Up is. It could be the resource for kooky ideas, but instead most of them were used to explore story technique and animation style that turned the average animated story on its head. These tales were fairly familiar, but they still felt heartwarming without damaging intellect. It's the type of dream that family entertainment strives for.

Scene from A Bug's Life

By all accounts, the "lesser" Pixar movies started early on. Following Toy Story, the studio turned to A Bug's Life, which is an entertaining film that may be shallow when it comes to deeper emotion. Instead there's fleas burning, men being mistaken for women, fat jokes, humor based on eccentricity, and more than a few fecal matter jokes. Of course, it all works when balanced as entertainment and is possibly one of the studio's most raucous and exciting films. However when compared to Pixar's big hits, it has a disparaging gap in tonal quality. Its story is itself a rip-off of Three Amigos (which is a rip-off of The Magnificent Seven (which is a rip-off of Seven Samurai)), but with bugs. Still, one could see how Mater from Cars fits into Pixar's brand when dealing with some of the lowbrow humor here. Thankfully, A Bug's Life is a lot better - but it set a strange bar for what "lesser" Pixar movies inherently are.

So, what is "lesser" Pixar? Considering that of the 17 movies released that 10 are irrefutable classics, it becomes jarring when forced to assess the less-than-magnificent seven: A Bug's Life, Cars, Cars 2, Brave, Monsters University, The Good Dinosaur, and Finding Dory. These aren't necessarily bad movies, but most people will be quick to drop them in the lower rung because they largely don't meet the standard by which they think that Pixar excels. This usually comes in a mixture of a few too many lowbrow or childlike jokes, unchallenging (for them) animation, stories with too many logical jumps, or just simply unmemorable characters. Each of these films have their demerits and it may be difficult for anyone to defend any of these as the all-time best. Personally, I love A Bug's Life and find endless enjoyment out of it. It's generally why it pains me to see it ranked alongside Cars 2 as the studio's worst work. It's a streamlined story, a good vs. bad in its most blatant form, however it manages to convey so much about what quality family entertainment could be at a basic level that it made me forever observant of the "lesser" Pixar films, of which I generally respect for effort.

Scene from The Good Dinosaur

Of course, the "effort" sometimes even escapes me. I am one of those who did not like Cars - in large part because I am not an automotive type of guy (I also don't care for Larry the Cable Guy's humor). While Cars 2 remains my only blind spot of their entire filmography, I can even admit that on a core level, Cars worked for what it was. Much like A Bug's Life, Cars was an unassuming remake of Doc Holiday that also exploited how awesome cars can be. It also had the lowbrow humor that most of the films in the "lesser" camp get flack for. It also doesn't help that studio head honcho John Lasseter even admits that the merchandise for Cars brings in a lot of money. In this regards, Cars does seem like the cynical franchise in a group that seem intent on purity. Despite all of the headache inducing logic of the universe, it had a competent and heartfelt plot regarding pride - poignantly servicing as race car enthusiast Paul Newman's final film. To an extent, the choice to turn the sequel into a spy story and give Mater a bigger story remains the biggest black hole for the franchise, sucking up any credibility that Cars had with it. 

I cannot solely defend Cars, but it does have to fit into what the "lesser" Pixar films are represented as. They're in some ways far more illogical and disingenuous than the prestigious counterparts that win Oscars. However, there's one thing that I want to suggest that may seem blasphemous. The "lesser" films do serve a purpose that is far more fascinating than the most successful films. The failures of Brave and its mother-daughter rivalry story actually have an endearing undertone. The animation pushed boundaries to how hair could be designed while also pushing away from the more familiar aesthetic. There was a sense of realism and wonder that most Pixar films wouldn't achieve. To a large extent, it's the literal red headed stepchild of what should've been one of the studio's best. It was a film that managed to push feminism with its protagonist Merida, which got immediately overshadowed by Frozen the following year. Unlike almost all of the "lesser" films, it did win an Oscar.

The truth is that Pixar isn't great because they tell great stories. They are great because they take chances that allow for interesting stories. Be honest with yourself when I say these things: 1. Would you see a movie from any other animation studio about a flying house?; 2. Would you see a movie about a melancholic robot with almost no dialogue that is also a family film?; 3. Would you see a film that deconstructed with precision how the mind works? The obvious answer in hindsight is yes. However, we're living in a time where franchises reign supreme and familiarity is better than off-the-wall ideas. Along with surprising and effective animation evolution, watching a Pixar movie is realizing the potential of what family entertainment can be when you take risks. 

Risks don't always pan out. Sometimes it involves applying great ideas in ways that don't entirely make sense. For instance, The Good Dinosaur is a jarring film for some thanks to the animation. The backgrounds are beautiful. The water never looked more real. Yet there's the protagonist Arlo, who looks out of place. I suggest it does fit within a deeper thematic core of a film that meshes together genres and is often accused of ripping off The Lion King. The design is meant to show how daunting nature is and how innocent Arlo is. Speaking as we gave Leonardo DiCaprio an Oscar for almost the same dumb story (only more masochistic) for The Revenant, it doesn't make sense why the film was lobbied against so harshly. It could be in part because of the animation, or that Arlo's comical panics seem almost too juvenile. There's no denying that making him almost cowardice was a risk. It's just that for some, it didn't pan out as he was far too annoying to sympathize with.

Scene from Cars

These films have largely come out in the post-Toy Story 3 era, and it seems like every new film is doomed to enter the "lesser" camp. Even Finding Dory - despite being a crowd pleaser with box office success to boot - is a bit nonsensical in terms of logic (it's also considered a clever remake of the original). It does seem fitting because it is the sequel to Finding Nemo: the only film to embrace the "lesser" film tropes while still managing to become one of the all time greats. In a sense, the 2003 film also is indicative of what Pixar wanted to achieve with these less intelligent films. It wanted to have big adventures in worlds that audiences haven't been to. With exception to Brave, these worlds may never be inhabitable to humans. Finding Nemo worked because it was silly and had comical characters that appealed to younger kids. Finding Dory has more of the same, and possibly one of the more poignant subtexts of any recent Pixar movie.

As dumb of an argument as can be made, the "lesser" films are worth remembering in some part because they're crucial to what makes the studio work. For instance, Alfred Hitchcock has a vast filmography, and one that's too exhaustive to get into here. However, he does have some genuine masterpieces that deliver. These are your Psycho or Vertigo films. There's those like The Birds or Lifeboat: films with better intentions than execution. Even if they don't seem like it, all of the films show a progressive improvement or change that would make his later hits like Rear Window pop. You have to fail to succeed as an artist, and Pixar has finally reached the point where their best ideas have been used. Now they're doing their best to make their back-up ideas work. Considering how much heart is in Finding Dory, it doesn't seem right to call Pixar's post-2010 work "lesser" so much as it is a fascinating period. There may be fewer great films, but it's interesting to see a studio with a lot of artistic ambition doing things that other studios who earn as much annually choose to ignore. It makes a difference, even if you don't notice it.

I am not encouraging you to love the "lesser" films and call them masterpieces, though I have done my best to appreciate their value (I consider Brave to be vastly underrated). I simply want to push away the agenda that Pixar is getting worse. Much like any artist, there's good and bad works. Some will just not click with you as well as others. It's a miracle that Pixar's catalog remained as strong as it did for so long. However, it has only gotten more interesting as time has gone on, and I actually like watching films whose intentions aren't entirely met. It makes them feel more special. It makes the studio feel more like they're taking risks than simply following a formula. As uneven as The Good Dinosaur is, I do enjoy its stark animation shifts. I do enjoy Brave's bizarre choice of narrative devices. There's a lot to mull over, and I think that the best cinema is not necessarily what does it best every time, but makes you think about its execution - warts and all.