OldBoy

i mean they keep churning out these critically acclaimed animated features that are beyond scope of imagination with every new story they try. the movies are consistently blockbusters worldwide and they have hardly had a misfire.

With "Up", the next in their arsenal getting absolutely rave reviews prior to release i don't understand why other studios do not steal and copy the formula or technology to make such gorgeous animated features.

Hollywood is notorious for ripping everything off from every other competitor and you are telling me that no one has tried to mimic Pixar?

are they so titanious that no one dares? it is just baffling that this one studio dominates the animation market and others do not usually come close.

Super X

Well, Dreamworks, with Shrek and the others they do, try to copy Pixar, and while they do some good computer animation, I don't think they've been as daring in the concepts they've attempted as Pixar.

Solid Snake

Pixar goes more for a mastery and entertainment of the form..while others go for...mainstream product that doesn't wow you in originality but is there to entertain. I can't think what NON Pixar film has suprised me really...Pixar just rocks your pants off everytime...except with Cars. It was good but not my bag. Maybe it's cuz I got tired of the whole look of the cars..

Navinabob

I think we have about 8 to 10 non-Pixar films a year come out, most do not do too well even with major publicity and star backing. We have even seen independent CGI movies like Delgo fail hard trying to catch some Pixar money. It's rough out there trying to make animated movies for very little money. Anything under 100 million is going to be pretty rough to do so many studios don't want the gamble.

FinkPish

Because there is no formula for what Pixar does. They make and treat every movie differently, according to its specific needs. Hollywood studios are all about boiling things down to basic formula: if it worked for this movie, with these stars and this budget, then it must be true for every other movie similar to that.

fumanstan

People have been trying to copy Pixar. For years. It's just not that easy to make a movie with touching stories and good writing. You could apply that to every single movie made, live action or 3D animated and wonder why people haven't tried to copy Titanic, or copy best picture winners.

It's also difficult to develop your own rendering tech like Pixar's renderman, let alone purchase the kind of rendering farm that Pixar owns.

Michael Corvin

Dreamworks tries as they may...

A Bug's Life - Antz
Monsters, Inc. - Shrek
Finding Nemo - Shark Tale

fumanstan

I don't think i'd include Shrek in that, given they came out the same year and Shrek was based off an existing book.

whoopdido

Other studios have been able to produce popular movies that make money. In fact, 12 of the top 20 highest grossing animated movies of all time are "non-Pixar" movies. I'll take out Aladdin and the Lion King because those movies weren't computer animated, so really 10 of the 18 highest grossing computer animated movies of all time are "non-Pixar" and the only Pixar movie in the top 5 (excluding The Lion King) is Finding Nemo.

The thing is that I enjoy Pixar movies much more than any other studio that puts out animated movies, but they're not necessarily the king of the box office.

PopcornTreeCt

A Bug's Life and Antz came out the same year too, that really doesn't mean anything being that they're in pre-production for years. But I agree I don't think Shrek is copy of Monsters Inc.

Jason

This sums it up pretty well...

Supermallet

This is the correct answer. Pixar makes one movie a year, and have an amazingly talented team of people who really care about filmmaking as a visual and storytelling medium. Dreamworks churns out mediocre crowd-pleasers to rake in cash. If one or two of them happen to be good (Antz, Kung Fu Panda, Monsters vs. Aliens), it's by accident, not by design.

OldBoy

but what animated features have come out since their domination that comes close to mimicry? Super X mentioned "Shrek", but i don't think the story (a pretty typical fairytale) comes close to the ingenuity in Story that Pixar uses. nothing else really pushes the boundaries from any other company.

RichC2

IMO, Pixar sticks closer to formula than most studios, but it works for them so be it.

The plot structure for a majority of their movies is so damn similar that it's almost annoying. Meet character a, character a meets/knows character b, character b gets taken, character a saves character b, character a and b realize how much they need each other. You know, like what happened in Toy Story (Buzz), Monsters Inc (Boo), Finding Nemo (Nemo), The Incredibles (Mr. Incredible) and Wall-E (Eve). Of course, they're all wrapped with cuddly cute characters. Their claim to fame is they make characters memorable and likable enough that you can overlook the fact that you're seeing the same story in a new setting, and if you can remember a movie is supposed to be how its about and not what its about, then this is probably a non-issue.

But yeah, as for me, not such a huge fan of Pixar, save for the Incredibles and Ratatouille. They're well made movie, but they very much boiled down what made Toy Story work and have recycled it ever since, and at this point it all feels very calculated (which it undoubtably is). I will say though, I do look forward to them on the basis that they're well made, good eye candy, and don't cater specifically to kids... But I generally leave disappointed. I also generally feel they just lack "magic", but then outside of Miyazaki flicks, I can't name many that successfully capture it.

As for why other studios don't rip off Pixar? They tried and realized they didn't need to. Shrek 2 is the highest grossing of the CG animated flicks ($919m worldwide, highest for Pixar was Finding Nemo with $864m), Kung Fu Panda also outdrew a majority (International, scored an 89% critically -- Pixar usually has 96 - 98% unless it's Cars (75%)) their flicks, and when it all comes down to it, money is king. Fox's Blue Sky animation studio does stuff on the cheap compared to Pixar and Dreamworks and still does fairly solid on its own (though a fraction of the other studios)

All that said, I'm looking forward to Up! and hope it delivers.

Defiant1

It's not so simple to "copy" another movie. Look at Titanic and Pearl Harbor. Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer were trying their hardest to replicate James Cameron's success and failed. It takes artistry and vision and Pixar's rivals seem more content with flash than sizzle.

Son of Odin

pixar puts storytelling first. it's that easy. lassetter and company have been sitting in coffee shops for years going through ideas. they are kids at heart that have great imaginations. pixar makes great movies for all ages that just happen to be animated..... while DW just tries to make good animated movies.

slop101

Yup.

The other guys, for whatever reason, don't take nearly as long developing story and characters like Pixar does. Pixar isn't afraid of restarting from scratch if the characters and story don't sing - the other guys have more of a "that's good enough" attitude when it comes to that stuff.

Abob Teff

The last guy that tried ... well, parts of him are still washing up on the shore.

jeffkjoe

Shrek and Monsters, Inc

Worst comparison ever.

V-ism

Iron Giant is a great example of a non-Pixar animated movie during the Pixar era that was beautifully executed and imaginative. Although the director later went to Pixar, heh.

Superboy

Okay, as opposed to Shrek, which didn't have a plot, and for that matter all the other stupid Dreamworks and Disney CG animated movies that didn't have a plot.

And your plot outline isn't universal to all Pixar movies. It's pretty much universal to almost all of fiction. But I guess that's humanity for you. We're just not very original.

Wow... I have three words for you:

Star Wars Prequels.

RichC2

I don't get it, so you're saying I shouldn't be looking forward to Up? Or that Star Wars didn't achieve the bottom line and make a boatload of money?

Shrek's plot was a riff on other fairy tales, it was fragmented, and I agree it wasn't great. But Shrek not having a great plot doesn't suddenly make Pixar's template for almost every one of their movies "OK".

And no, it isn't universal to all fiction, just fiction where cute characters get separated in very similar ways, and come back together to form a stronger bond. And that is it, they focus on a really cliche character arc and everything else generally feels like an afterthought. The Incredibles (which follows the basic template, but is nowhere near as obvious about it) and Ratatouille managed to add some character depth to proceedings, something I felt was missing from a majority of their other work.

But to each their own I suppose

Heat

Wait, the plot of UP! is that the guy wants to float from the US to South America? Via what winds? He would end up in Europe.

cungar

Have you seen these two films? They have virtually nothing in common.

tylergfoster

They are both about monsters.

The Wild was also in production at Disney for about a decade, but DreamWorks managed to complete Madagascar before Disney finally finished The Wild.

I remember reading at one point, way back when www.upcomingmovies.com was a website (before Greg Dean Schmidt was eaten by Yahoo! Movies and the site became a footnote), that DreamWorks was prepping a movie about a superhero family. I guess they realized that was going too far, because it never came out, but I'm positive they had one in the works.