/3/ - 3DCG

>>744636
>Every animation studio seems to go creatively bankrupt after their third or fourth film without exception.
Why do you spout shit that is 100% wrong?

>>744636
I had totally forgot Robots existed.
I would have preferred to have gone the rest of my life like that.

>>744636
This is the same with every big company that deals with creative endevours. As soon as the "business types" call the shots as opposed to the creator types, things will go downhill.

>>744641
I know, right?

>>744636
If an animation studio has a third or fourth film then that means they're successful.

(((Grabblers))) latch on to any success whatsoever. They're fundamentally incapable of creating anything because they're of their father, The Devil.

Seriously, though. (((They))) only care about making money, they can't create because they have zero interest in creating anything because they can't even comprehend it. By their very nature they see movies as a way of making money and not as a creative endeavor. Therefore they will do and say anything that they believe will make them more money.

Creative types are the exact opposite. They see money as best as something that might facilitate their creativity. Creativity is the end goal, not money.

When a creative and a grabbler work together it always ends badly. This is because they have fundamentally different goals. The grabbler assumes the artist just wants money, and the artist assumes the grabbler just wants to make movies. By the end one of these parties will suffer and it's usually not he grabbler.

Because the grabbler is unable to understand why his employees keep quitting on him even though he's paying them a lot, he's going to end up with a bunch of artists who are like him. And as I've said before, grabblers can't create, they always follow the money.

True creatives always choose the freedom to make stuff over money. Grabblers will always choose money over anything. And grabblers can't create.

>>744636
>Every animation studio
so Pixar is bankrupt?

>>744682
yes lmao. have you been living under a rock for the past 6 years?

>>744637
wrong? Look at Toy Story, the most overrated franchise in the industry. After 2 it was over.
Same with Incredibles, once 2 came out it lost the magic of the original

>>744682
i don't watch this shit, but how many sequels and spinoffs does the talking cars movie have now? and didn't they just shit out another toy story? sure looks like a trash factory to me.

>>744704
Those are both series from a studio, but your OP post makes it clear that your contention is with the studio itself. The Incredibles is Pixar's sixth feature title, and at the very least they still had WALL-E and Up afterward, Brave too if you're into it.
So, is your argument about series decay, or is it about studio decay?

>>744704
I was so excited for Incredibles to get a sequel, and then I was so disappointed with the result.
I thought Incredibles was super cool, and I dug the cold-war aesthetic, but the sequel was fucking meh hardcore. It's got nothing to do with the whole feminism angle; which I guess in the sense of the time the style is based on (60s-70s), that whole 3rd wave feminism or whatever was really big, it just lacked the overall style and charm of the original.

>>744709
I'm not OP, just butthurt about Pixar circle jerks when they're an overrated studio praised to hell and back

>>744835
same. I like the first and found it funny that they never addressed the few times Mr Incredible killed some people (that one seen when he threw a rock at a guards head when he was sneaking in).

1 had soul, while 2 never had a cool twist like the 1st one.
The story should've explored more family stuff with how serious super heroing really is but treated like an annoying destraction / a job, which the kids get lazy with and causes people to die. That would've been a cool theme to explore

>>744896
>>744835
Basically they're young adults, Dash stops giving a crap about saving people and people dying because he'd rather do other things (like Nurses) while the Sister who has a lot of empathy would pick up the slack.
The parents would be disgusted with Dash's attitude towards saving people's lives, and Violet is concerned for her brother, which brings up a good theme of "Why is this MY problem?" that's never been addressed.

Dash would be a mini-villain, who realises he as a Super is superior to non-supers, so he uses his superiority to get what he wants. Since he's isolated he lets the idea grow that he really is superior to the inferior races (ie non-supers) and believes in that in their domination there'd be peace (an idea for the sequel).

The family fights the bad guys and hoping on Dash to help but he never shows up. He feels abandoned, shunned and angry, all he needs is someone who understands.
Dash never gets the help he needed throughout the movie and kills Mole-Man in the final battle.

The family is divided on Dash. Dash at the end hugs his family goodbye and runs away, leaving him as a possible villain in the 3rd movie

>>744896
>>744902
You're missing the point where they kind of never really wanted their kids to be superheroes in the first place and wanted them to find their own thing. Partly because of the whole thing where they had to keep things secret, but also because of the dangers involved with being a superhero. No parent wants their kid actively seeking out dangerous situations or getting hurt.
One of the big points in the first movie was that they didn't want their kids put in the same dangers that they were and that it was a different world and more dangerous than the "propaganda" made it out to be. Which was the important bit about them actually using their powers to their fullest extent when faced with actual danger of people trying to kill them.
It all ends with everyone coming to grips with themselves, the times they live in, and learning to celebrate their differences with each other, and the regular people at large.

It's basically a movie about being yourself. Except in this case it's with superpowers.
The sequel didn't have any overarching lesson/narrative to tie it together. It was just bad fan-service and "yaaaaassss queen" moments.

>>744896
>>744902
I'm not really into your idea for a sequel though. Seems like it'd be too edgy for something that'd ultimately be rated G or PG.
I think a good place to go with it, would be one of the kids decides to be a superhero, and both parents take it upon themselves to show them the ropes, and teach them. While also showing more of the behind-the-scenes stuff about being a hero. More of the super-suit stuff where they show the logistics and stuff besides the flashy saving people stuff. Like where they get their cars/gadgets, is there some kind of union or something with other superheroes, what happens when 2 heroes arrive at the same crisis, where do heroes go to unwind? But also show change with a new generation of heroes entering the fray since the ban on supers being lifted and other heroes' kids deciding to enter the hero game.
With a villain in the group of kids that were friends with them. So they have to take down someone they're close to and deal with that. With the kid's parent being an old villain as well for the parallel narrative.

At this point though it doesn't really matter. We got what we got. No use really speculating on what could have been.

jump

>>744704
Yes, wrong

>>744704
never gonna make it

>>744636
>dips up and down wildly with every movie and peaks at their 18th one.