And its not political, its what is coming out of Hollywood and not celebrities looking for political optics. Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) based films have lacked to put out any reasonable film since the original Shrek film in 2001. DreamWorks, the creation of Hollywood giants, Jeffery Katzenberg and Steven Spielberg, has lacked to put out a partially good film since Shrek's sequel in 2004. Sony's poorly animated films, Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs and The Smurfs, haven't yielded anything significant. So, what's the get-up? Recent releases like The Boss Baby and The Emoji Movie shows Hollywood is running out of ideas. One film is a stereotypical, white male as an infant and the other is a feeble attempt at appealing to the new generation that communicates with emojis. It's the lack of something fresh, pushing the boundaries of norms for the animated genre. Why did films like Toy Story have, and continues to leave such an impact? The introduction of the animation, I am sure, was a contributor, but it was because of an interesting plot (and I'm certainly not a Disney fan) and not a recycled plot like that of every Hollywood release these days. A group of toys, enslaved by a tyrannical kid, set within two homes of each other. An interesting plot to say the least, though not one of my favorites. Hollywood needs a film that pushes what is normally considered acceptable, into territory that might make executives think its risky. That's what "Fresh" offers. It's so easy to create another sex-driven flick for teenagers, but fresh plots and interesting characters last for decades.
Pixar's strength has always been its storytelling, computer graphics were secondary and that's what these other studio have a hard time understanding. The first 10 minutes of Up has more emotion in it than I've seen in entire 2 hour movies, Inside Out made us cry over an imaginary friend. CGI is only a tool, but the art comes from the artist.
I agree. Pixar/Disney has the grand story to tell. The others are all about attitude and the same rehashed characters.
I think it goes beyond simply who makes what, it's who the screenwriter is and how they bring what is in their mind onscreen. People don't or tend to forget Steve Jobs had a role in Pixars humble beginnings before Disney acquired it. What you described with Up! Illustrates what power symbolism has. Miscarriages and watching clouds happen, and it has a psychological effect on the audience. Animation, I think, can reach in more places than live action can or ever will, while decreasing cost and resources. I think even DreamWorks could make a really symbolic film, it comes down to who is the mind behind the creation of the art. When art, not so much money, goes into the development of the film and its characters, along with the music, you got a formula for a film that will hold its value decades from now. Why Hollywood won't see that, I'll never know.
On the topic of Hollyweird, this is bound to "tickle our fancy": Source: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/0...00-major-movies-and-more-than-1000-tv-titles/
