Pixar Doing Live Action!

Post by **bawpcwpn** » April 29th, 2007, 2:04 am

In an article today from the Daily Bulletin, they talk with Brad Bird on Ratatouille. In it Brad reveals that his live action flick will be for Pixar!

As for that live-action film (possibly an entry from the "John Carter of Mars" series?), Bird says it's next, and it will be for Pixar.

"The company is evolving into a place where all kinds of movies, not just animated ones, can come out," Bird says.
says the article.

This will definitely be very exciting news for some, but maybe not so much for others. Leave a comment below and let your thoughts be heard.

[via Upcoming Pixar]

Post by **ShyViolet** » April 29th, 2007, 2:23 am

Wow...this is kind of a shock, I have to say.

I know Pixar has TALKED of doing live-action, but I didn't think they'd actually do it, much less with Brad Bird, what with the whole brouhaha there was when he switched from traditional animation to CGI....

I personally don't understand what the point of this is. Animation is what they do best, it's what people pay to see. Why would they do live-action?
Money? Making their name more well-known?

And is this coming out under "Disney" or "Disney presents a Pixar Animation Studios Film"?? Will it have the Pixar logo? I guess Disney is the distributor as well....?

Just so weird....

And I know they said they'd do 2d, "if the story was right", but this makes me kinda doubt that even more....

Post by **bawpcwpn** » April 29th, 2007, 2:30 am

It is kind of a shock. And to be revealed in such a brief note too.

Post by **Jeroen** » April 29th, 2007, 4:05 am

So Pixar will become a 2nd Disney, even though they kinda own Disney already?

Can't they just put out live-action movies through Disney without the Pixar label attached?

I think Pixar is doing too much, too soon.

Post by **ShyViolet** » April 29th, 2007, 4:42 am

What I don't get is why they're doing it...I thought they were all about animation?

What's the point?

Post by **Jeroen** » April 29th, 2007, 4:47 am

Exactly

Post by **bawpcwpn** » April 29th, 2007, 5:02 am

Yeah. That is what is weird about the whole matter. Brad could be referring to that he is using Pixar resources to make a live-action to distribute through Disney, and ultimately not Pixar.

Post by **ShyViolet** » April 29th, 2007, 5:09 am

I'm pretty sure it is a "Pixar film" however, at least (creatively) produced by Pixar, not just Brad Bird. That's the impression I get. Like Brad said, Pixar is evolving into "many things" not just animation.

And they can't distribute through Pixar anyway 'cause Pixar's not a separate legal entity anymore (although they never distributed their own movies, that was always Disney who did that.)

Of course, their films still do say "Disney presents a Pixar Animation Studios Film" (I think) but Disney owns Pixar now: lock, stock and barrel.

They're allowed to stay separate creatively and be "their own brand" but legally, they are not their own brand--they're Disney. They can't walk away anymore, they don't distribute their own movies, and they can't look for another distributor.

I also can't help wondering if Disney will ever try to exert more power over them, or try to tell them what kind of movies to make, because they can't just threaten to leave anymore, unless Jobs resigns from the board, takes Lassetter and other with him, and they join another studio or start their own company again.

Both those actions are extremely risky, (not to mention highly improbable) and no matter what happens,
Pixar no longer owns ANY of their creative properties anymore, in any capacity. If they "left"now, Disney could make sequels to Cars, WALE-E and Ratatouille tomorrow and Pixar wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

Post by **bawpcwpn** » April 29th, 2007, 6:06 am

But you see would the rest of Disney (that is not Jobs, Lasseter or Catmull), put pressure on Pixar to do things considering that Jobs is 1. the largest shareholder and 2. A very valuable asset, considering the whole apple thing and the amount of power he appears to have over the industry.

Maybe because they are now with Disney they can start experimenting in new areas, where previous arrangements didn't really give them the option considering they were signed up to do the movies for Disney and just wanted to get out of that agreement quick smart.

I do believe that the powers that be at disney and pixar wouldn't let any production out of Pixar unless it was really good. Especially in live action where there is a lot of serious competition.

Post by **Ben** » April 29th, 2007, 6:20 am

This does feel kind of mixed up. If Pixar buys a property, then Disney owns that property.

On the other hand, this could be "live-action" like Sin City and 300 were "live-action", in which case Pixar's animating skills would be very much to the fore.

It just sounds odd though...Pixar is an animation company...Disney, with their Pictures label and Touchstone entitiy, are the live-action handlers. Maybe this film would come out as "Touchstone Pictures presents A Pixar (Animation?) Studios Production, A Brad Bird Film" because going under the Pixar name for animation is one thing for Brad, but doing a big "important" live-action film is another thing, and Bird, for one, will want screen and poster credit.

This, especially after audience recognition for The Incredibles, a fact that Disney will also want to push for "authentic" reasons.

Then again, it may be a Disney picture after all, now that Iger wants to make the world feel "Disney" is good again.

Is it me, or are these companies losing focus?

Post by **ShyViolet** » April 29th, 2007, 6:37 am

Yes.

It's definitely not you, Ben! I totally agree. Especially with the whole BVD change...

Post by **droosan** » April 29th, 2007, 6:40 am

The only live-action property I've heard Brad Bird's name associated with is 1906, which is about the great San Francisco earthquake.

John Carter of Mars is 'floating around' the Disney studio right now .. and could conceivably end up at Pixar .. but they've also recently partnered with Robert Zemeckis' mo-cap unit, which (IMO) could be the perfect medium for that material.

----------------

As for the "Pixar shouldn't make live-action movies" sentiment .. surely there were many who'd voiced the same things when Walt Disney made Treasure Island or 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. But, of course, we of today are all glad he did.

Post by **ShyViolet** » April 29th, 2007, 6:44 am

Hmmm....very interesting theory Drew!!

But, somehow I just can't picture Bird with Mo-Cap, since he keeps pushing home that whole "Animation is supposed to be cartoony, bigger than life" thing, but then I never thought he'd do live-action either....

So, if JCOM goes to Imageworks, would Brad be out of the picture? And would Brad even want to work with Bob Z?

Post by **droosan** » April 29th, 2007, 6:55 am

deleted; ignore ..

Post by **ShyViolet** » April 29th, 2007, 6:58 am

But you see would the rest of Disney (that is not Jobs, Lasseter or Catmull), put pressure on Pixar to do things considering that Jobs is 1. the largest shareholder and 2. A very valuable asset, considering the whole apple thing and the amount of power he appears to have over the industry.

Jobs is the largest shareholder but other than that I don't really see his creative value at the company, other than the legal ramifications. If he resigns, he'd just sell the stock right?

I'm not so sure how these things work, but...it would be outside public reactions to his leaving (which would no doubt be apoplectic) that would hurt worst, not his actual leaving. At least IMHO.

It's true that people say he's a valuable asset but seriously, how much involvement at Disney does he really have, I mean in their day-to-day activities? Does he approve their films, parks, rides? All I can see so far of his "influence" at Disney is Disney shorts and films on ipods. I think that's good but Disney could have done that without having him on their board or him owning so many shares....

And as for the future....OK, so I assume the iphone is gonna have a lot of Disney stuff on it...or at least the potential to put Disney stuff on it. Again, I don't see the point of Jobs "running" Disney just so Disney can do this. Unless the iphones came with Disney icons on them already...which Jobs would of course veto.

So really, I don't mean to put Jobs down, he's awesome for Apple and everything, but I still don't see his value to Disney. I still don't understand why he got so much power there, other than Iger & co. were tired of the press/Internet community constantly saying that Jobs should be running Disney and Jobs b****-slapping them and their animated features in interviews. Maybe his positive influences can't be seen yet because everything is still so secret....but like I said earlier, I have a lot of doubts about giving him so much power.