Post by Zweilous on Jun 14, 2016 8:50:55 GMT -5
I was sorting Pixar movies by director and found a really interesting pattern, and that inspired me to discuss the functions involved in each movie. I'll list the Big Guys in chronological order of their first movie. But first, predictions, typed up before I even watch any video! Because this wouldn't be fun without wild guessing to prove right or wrong, here are the results of a conversation I had with my wife.
John Lasseter, the OG Pixar director, helmed Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Cars, and Cars 2. These movies seem very old-school Pixar. "What if X was sentient and had a story". My wife pointed out that these have a very Little Boy Imagination feel to them; each is focused on the kinds of things traditionally associated with little boys (cowboys and spacemen, bugs, cars) and thinking about what would happen if toys were alive, or we were as small as bugs, or... cars? I guess? It's a weird franchise. Anyway, Lasseter has said in interviews that the idea for Cars was conceived on a family roadtrip down Route 66, and that he was inspired by the take-life-slow, dusty/rustic simplicity of the whole experience. To me, the films have a very heavy Si feel to them, and specifically SiTe, with an entertaining of polar Ne as a launching point for exploring childhood experiences in a different way. Te/Fi is more of a hunch, based on the way older SiTe I know talk about things including childhood.
Pete Docter has the short but impressive resume of Monsters, Inc., Up, and Inside Out. Wow. There's a lot to say here. Monsters is kind of the odd one out, but it's also one of the original movies discussed by the creative crew at a restaurant back when Toy Story was finishing production. In that sense, Monsters represents a combination of Docter's and Lasseter's combined creative process, and this makes sense considering that Up is the first Pixar film conceived after that initial conversation. Up and Inside Out are legendary for their nuance and emotional intelligence, being widely regarded as the best two films in Pixar's lineup so far. Monsters, less so, but even if we include that one we can still sense a pattern: all three have very intricate setups and processes that are explained throughout, and the later two are heavy on symbolism and presentation of complex, adult emotions in a child-accessible format.
Monsters, Inc. didn't need to explain the method by which monsters access the human world, but it does so using elaborate technology and economic justification, in my opinion miring down the film with its intricacy. Inside Out takes psycho-emotional concepts, already beyond the day-to-day thinking of most adults, and presents it using delightful shapes and colors. Even Up, as simple as it is, features visual explanations of it events, like the dog translator collars and flying balloon house. My wife pointed out the emotionality in these movies is much more Fe than Fi, centering around familiarity, loss, and melancholy rather than pure sentiment- Monsters has its strained and repaired friendships, Up's main character is an Si-lead old man coming to terms with the passing of his wife and missed opportunities in life, and, perhaps most telling, Inside Out is about a young child dealing with unfamiliar and complex emotions that come from growing up and experiencing change, learning to feel and value a broad range of emotions, and to let other people in. I've talked a lot, but our prediction is TiNe with heavy Fe, or possibly SiFe with heavy Ti.
Andrew Stanton directed Finding Nemo and Wall-E, and it's immediately clear that these movies were made by the same person. Even without sharing a composer that orchestrated their beautiful, sweeping, elegant scores, both movies have heavy use of whitespace and contrasting opposing atmospheres, and generally being the most zen Pixar movies. There are themes of innocence and juxtaposing it over harsh environments (Nemo, Dory, and Wall-E are all innocent characters in very not-innocent situations). Nemo himself is a sort of Fi-innocent-child-wants-to-be-free archetype, Dory is a loving exaggeration of an Si-subconscious, Te-unconcious NeFi, and Wall-E is a fairly clean, balanced, and surprisingly realistic NeFi, perhaps without much Te use. Speaking of Wall-E, most of the characters in that movie are antropomorphized inanimate objects that barely speak but make adorable whistles and bee-boops. The emotional content of both films, unlike Up and Inside Out which take hard looks at complex combinations for simple emotions, is complex from the very start and is based around viewing relationships honestly and sometimes differently than they "should" be. Marlin is wrong about how to be a good dad, Nemo is wrong about how to be a good son, everyone on the Axiom, inspired by Wall-E, learns about the important things in life. We think some kind of Fi-heavy Delta is sure, and I think the films' cleanness and minimalism points to Ji. So FiNe, with lots of Si.
The last director is Brad Bird, with The Incredibles and Ratatouille. This one is much, much harder to pin down from the movie side of things. Bird also directed The Iron Giant, another fantastic (non-Pixar) movie, and from that I'm able to get a little more of a handle on his vibe. All three movies have really... in the case of Incredibles and Iron Giant, mature themes, and all together the films have strong (but controlled) dark elements. There's a lot of "You can't do X, you're just a Y!" going on, with Ratatouille and Iron Giant (the better of the three films, honestly), having more complex explanations of their themes toward the end. The movies are all very straightforward and have a "real life" feel to them, with Incredibles being Pixar's only "action movie", Ratatouille having its focus on gourmet food/sensory experiences (sound of fresh bread, colorful representations of taste) and technical mastery, and Iron Giant featuring a single mom that has little home time because of her extra shifts. Speaking of technical mastery, Bird talks a lot about the theory and work that goes into making films, with lots of emphasis on communicating things correctly and making things feel weighty and balanced. He spent his entire commentary track on The Incredibles thanking every person he could think of in every scene. All this, coupled with lack of "himself" in the movies, I'm going to guess TiSe.
Every other Pixar movie has been made by one-off directors and the quality is usually shaky, so I'm leaving it there. All done! I'll post videos so we can type for real in a bit, but if anyone gets here before I do, feel free to weigh in from a theoretical perspective. No cheating by looking at videos yet!
John Lasseter, the OG Pixar director, helmed Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Cars, and Cars 2. These movies seem very old-school Pixar. "What if X was sentient and had a story". My wife pointed out that these have a very Little Boy Imagination feel to them; each is focused on the kinds of things traditionally associated with little boys (cowboys and spacemen, bugs, cars) and thinking about what would happen if toys were alive, or we were as small as bugs, or... cars? I guess? It's a weird franchise. Anyway, Lasseter has said in interviews that the idea for Cars was conceived on a family roadtrip down Route 66, and that he was inspired by the take-life-slow, dusty/rustic simplicity of the whole experience. To me, the films have a very heavy Si feel to them, and specifically SiTe, with an entertaining of polar Ne as a launching point for exploring childhood experiences in a different way. Te/Fi is more of a hunch, based on the way older SiTe I know talk about things including childhood.
Pete Docter has the short but impressive resume of Monsters, Inc., Up, and Inside Out. Wow. There's a lot to say here. Monsters is kind of the odd one out, but it's also one of the original movies discussed by the creative crew at a restaurant back when Toy Story was finishing production. In that sense, Monsters represents a combination of Docter's and Lasseter's combined creative process, and this makes sense considering that Up is the first Pixar film conceived after that initial conversation. Up and Inside Out are legendary for their nuance and emotional intelligence, being widely regarded as the best two films in Pixar's lineup so far. Monsters, less so, but even if we include that one we can still sense a pattern: all three have very intricate setups and processes that are explained throughout, and the later two are heavy on symbolism and presentation of complex, adult emotions in a child-accessible format.
Monsters, Inc. didn't need to explain the method by which monsters access the human world, but it does so using elaborate technology and economic justification, in my opinion miring down the film with its intricacy. Inside Out takes psycho-emotional concepts, already beyond the day-to-day thinking of most adults, and presents it using delightful shapes and colors. Even Up, as simple as it is, features visual explanations of it events, like the dog translator collars and flying balloon house. My wife pointed out the emotionality in these movies is much more Fe than Fi, centering around familiarity, loss, and melancholy rather than pure sentiment- Monsters has its strained and repaired friendships, Up's main character is an Si-lead old man coming to terms with the passing of his wife and missed opportunities in life, and, perhaps most telling, Inside Out is about a young child dealing with unfamiliar and complex emotions that come from growing up and experiencing change, learning to feel and value a broad range of emotions, and to let other people in. I've talked a lot, but our prediction is TiNe with heavy Fe, or possibly SiFe with heavy Ti.
Andrew Stanton directed Finding Nemo and Wall-E, and it's immediately clear that these movies were made by the same person. Even without sharing a composer that orchestrated their beautiful, sweeping, elegant scores, both movies have heavy use of whitespace and contrasting opposing atmospheres, and generally being the most zen Pixar movies. There are themes of innocence and juxtaposing it over harsh environments (Nemo, Dory, and Wall-E are all innocent characters in very not-innocent situations). Nemo himself is a sort of Fi-innocent-child-wants-to-be-free archetype, Dory is a loving exaggeration of an Si-subconscious, Te-unconcious NeFi, and Wall-E is a fairly clean, balanced, and surprisingly realistic NeFi, perhaps without much Te use. Speaking of Wall-E, most of the characters in that movie are antropomorphized inanimate objects that barely speak but make adorable whistles and bee-boops. The emotional content of both films, unlike Up and Inside Out which take hard looks at complex combinations for simple emotions, is complex from the very start and is based around viewing relationships honestly and sometimes differently than they "should" be. Marlin is wrong about how to be a good dad, Nemo is wrong about how to be a good son, everyone on the Axiom, inspired by Wall-E, learns about the important things in life. We think some kind of Fi-heavy Delta is sure, and I think the films' cleanness and minimalism points to Ji. So FiNe, with lots of Si.
The last director is Brad Bird, with The Incredibles and Ratatouille. This one is much, much harder to pin down from the movie side of things. Bird also directed The Iron Giant, another fantastic (non-Pixar) movie, and from that I'm able to get a little more of a handle on his vibe. All three movies have really... in the case of Incredibles and Iron Giant, mature themes, and all together the films have strong (but controlled) dark elements. There's a lot of "You can't do X, you're just a Y!" going on, with Ratatouille and Iron Giant (the better of the three films, honestly), having more complex explanations of their themes toward the end. The movies are all very straightforward and have a "real life" feel to them, with Incredibles being Pixar's only "action movie", Ratatouille having its focus on gourmet food/sensory experiences (sound of fresh bread, colorful representations of taste) and technical mastery, and Iron Giant featuring a single mom that has little home time because of her extra shifts. Speaking of technical mastery, Bird talks a lot about the theory and work that goes into making films, with lots of emphasis on communicating things correctly and making things feel weighty and balanced. He spent his entire commentary track on The Incredibles thanking every person he could think of in every scene. All this, coupled with lack of "himself" in the movies, I'm going to guess TiSe.
Every other Pixar movie has been made by one-off directors and the quality is usually shaky, so I'm leaving it there. All done! I'll post videos so we can type for real in a bit, but if anyone gets here before I do, feel free to weigh in from a theoretical perspective. No cheating by looking at videos yet!