Should Pixar do the numbering thing?
-
- Special Edition
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 2:27 am
- Location: San Jose CA
Should Pixar do the numbering thing?
For those of you keeping score at home, "The Good Dinosaur" is currently slated to be Pixar's 15th full-length animated feature, to use Disney-speak. (Disney doesn't count their DTV movies, so likewise, I'm not counting "Planes.") So do you think Pixar should do what Disney does and promote their movies using that system?
Well, when Up came out, it was promoted as Pixar's 10th: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K-WRu7OXmA
Maybe in the future, they will start doing it for all of theirs. When did Disney start numbering the canon? Was it Oliver & Company?
Maybe in the future, they will start doing it for all of theirs. When did Disney start numbering the canon? Was it Oliver & Company?
"There are two wolves and they are always fighting. One is darkness and despair. The other is light and hope. Which wolf wins? Whichever one you feed." - Casey Newton, Tomorrowland
-
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4660
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:47 am
- Location: UK
- Contact:
The trailer for Oliver and Company does mention the numbering (I just checked via YouTube), but as far as I'm aware, no real numbering in marketing and advertising was done prior to the Eisner-era. I believe they also didn't class the package features as part of the real canon for years, and I doubt they would have done so had they not wanted to bulk things out and make them sound like they have a bit more clout. Equally, some international divisions seem to have their own way of numbering the films. For example, Disney France seem to include every Disney film including animation (including Pixar films, DTV sequels and live-action/animated films like Mary Poppins), which rendered Tangled as the 101st film as opposed to the 50th there!estefan wrote:Well, when Up came out, it was promoted as Pixar's 10th: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K-WRu7OXmA
Maybe in the future, they will start doing it for all of theirs. When did Disney start numbering the canon? Was it Oliver & Company?
As for an official Pixar numbering, I'd say no, at least for the time being. There are so far no dubious titles that will produce different counts (aka: anthology features, live-action films with animated portions, animated films with live-action portions), but I do think that the whole idea of numbering films as a means of marketing them can come across as a bit pompous.
- Disney's Divinity
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 15775
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
- Gender: Male
Why? I kind of like the numbering, and it would probably do good to number them as they go, so it doesn't get confusing about what counts and what doesn't (like what's happened with Disney).Wonderlicious wrote:but I do think that the whole idea of numbering films as a means of marketing them can come across as a bit pompous.
Listening to most often lately:
Ariana Grande ~ "we can't be friends (wait for your love)"
Ariana Grande ~ "imperfect for you"
Kacey Musgraves ~ "The Architect"
I once owned a Disney booklet from 1978 (in observance of Mickey's 50th anniversary) that listed The Rescuers as their 23rd film.estefan wrote:Well, when Up came out, it was promoted as Pixar's 10th: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K-WRu7OXmA
Maybe in the future, they will start doing it for all of theirs. When did Disney start numbering the canon? Was it Oliver & Company?
It is reasonable to assume that the package features weren't intended to be part of the canon, since they consist largely of ideas once intended for their own stand-alone features, as well as rejected Fantasia sequences. Also because, rather than re-release the movies (with a couple exceptions), much of the segments were later repackaged into separate shorts.
"OH COME ON, REALLY?!?!"
-
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4660
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:47 am
- Location: UK
- Contact:
I can't quite describe it, but it just seems a bit self-indulgent to go using the numbering in official promotions, and the fact that they can tweak it for their own needs (i.e. bulking out the list with package features, suddenly declaring Dinosaur a classic so Tangled can be the 50th film) is also a bit dubious. I suppose that it's also part of the whole thing of labelling their animated films as classics like nobody's business. Of course, there's no problem doing so for films like Snow White, Pinocchio and Cinderella (to name but a few), all of which are classics in every real sense of the word. Equally, it's safe to say that more recent films like Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King have earned the classic moniker, and can be considered modern classics at the very least. But to label every new film as a classic or masterpiece, even those that won't ever become so (Treasure Planet, Chicken Little, Home on the Range etc), does come across as a bit contrived, IMO.Disney's Divinity wrote:Why? I kind of like the numbering, and it would probably do good to number them as they go, so it doesn't get confusing about what counts and what doesn't (like what's happened with Disney).Wonderlicious wrote:but I do think that the whole idea of numbering films as a means of marketing them can come across as a bit pompous.
- Disney's Divinity
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 15775
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
- Gender: Male
Oh. I agree with that, but I was thinking the numbering (for Pixar anyway) could just be a case of saying, "Here's the 12th movie we've made." But if they were to add, "Our 12th classic," right out of the gate, that would be pompous.
Listening to most often lately:
Ariana Grande ~ "we can't be friends (wait for your love)"
Ariana Grande ~ "imperfect for you"
Kacey Musgraves ~ "The Architect"