Yeah, sometimes we get the toilet seat cover iBook and Cars 2, but by and large having a creative guru under nobody else's thumb seems to work well for both companies.
Say what you will about the original iBook, 14 year old me would have killed anyone you asked to have a Tangerine model. Loved that design so much. And it had Airport, which was science fiction shit at the time.
It was certainly playful and fun and seriously one of a kind in the laptop category to this day.
But, Ive kinda let his design overwhelm the product and the design was a lot less timeless comparing to his similarly themed first gen iMac.
I consider it an evolution of the pretty ugly eMate (though of course much better), and it was created at a time Ive still was maturing as an industrial designer working closely with Jobs.
That's a fair point. Later designs grew ever more timeless. The only giveaway that the first all-white iBook is an older model is its dimensions, since it didn't have a widescreen display.
I would offer one counter, though – the portable computer was long seen as a super serious affair. It was a thing for suits. The iBook was a bold declaration. It said "Fuck that, guys, portable computers are for everyone. Look how fun that's going to be!" The design positioned it as a friendly tool for kids, for students, for mom and dad. It was, in its way, egalitarian in a sense that no portable had previously been.
Over the top? I guess, in hindsight, yes. But it reconfigured expectations, so in that way, the design did its job.
I thought this about the first Cars (I've yet to see Cars 2). What you have to keep in mind is that kids loved the first one, and probably the second one too. Even Pixar is going to bow to commercial viability now and again so they can make things like Wall-E.
Of course, Cars 2 is the low point in Pixar's streak but overall still able to capture an audience not to mention tons of toys sold. I understand Lasseter's point and given his fixation over the concept I'll just accept the fact it is a big deal to him personally just as I accept Jobs' enthusiasm about getting Beatles in the iTMS.
I think that's a very apt comparison. It's hard to overestimate how deeply personal Cars and Cars 2 are to John, but it's also hard to overstate how tricky they were to pull off.
Sure, you can criticize Cars 2 for having a story that didn't hit the bullseye. Totally fair, by Pixar's own "story, story, story" standards. But don't think the Pixar Brain Trust didn't do so first (as mentioned in the article, things had indeed gone wrong) or that they didn't do heroic acts to make things work. Ultimately it's an artistic process within a movie studio and you sometimes have to put things into production and trust that you can work out the problems. Pixar will bend everything out of shape to delay that point but it still happens. It's the fact that Pixar had done so well rescuing movies from a burning story that makes the rest of us forget that sometimes.
Still, where Cars and Cars 2 started from and how well the stories they had were executed — I think those things are hard to criticize. These movies are love letters to the automotive culture that came of age as John did, and they are both put on the screen with a huge amount of artistry, character, cleverness and humor.
The Cars storyline was offensive to begin with. People who compete professionally in ANYTHING demand the best performance from their peers. Anything less is disrespectful. Having someone throw a race out of sentimentality, and making that seem somehow honorable is despicable. And then they make the winner of the race out to be some kind of arsehole because he gave it his best? It doesn't make any sense.
The plot is the same as Lucky You and it physically made me sick.
They usually are, but that's often the last defense of truly awful movies. I've never seen Cars 2 so I wouldn't know about it in particular, but we can all think of some truly bad movies that did good box office.
Cars and Cars 2 suffer from some of the same problems that Shrek 2 & 3 suffered from: creating a self-consistent universe based on adult puns based on characters of modern society.Unless it is done with restraint and real skill it soon behinds to feel insincere and contrived (see Sharks Tail, Chicken Run).
Toy Story & Shrek did something far cleverer. Shrek especially is smart, sophisticated humour for smart, sophisticated kids. The references are all from children's literature and culture. Kids know the references and are able to understand the clever puns.
Shreks 2&3 are dumb adult humour forced into the Shrek world. Many of the puns are above children's heads and are not sophisticated enough for the adult audience. Adding plot-lines about lawyers, unions etc just confuse small kids and leave adults slightly cringing.
Pixar and Dreamworks are at their best when they choose their target audience and focus on it. Toy Story & Nemo are for smart young kids; Ratatouille & The Incredibles are for smart older kids. Then enough is added for the rest of the family: everyone gets a clever joke every few minutes; the stories are understandable by all. Wall-E and Up are very adult in the big story (but full of great fun in the small story) I thought they were wonderful but I do understand your point (although they are I no way 'awful'—even if you are 5).
I'm not convinced that Pixar have mad a bad film yet. Cars grows on me the more I see it (and believe me if you have kids you end up seeing these films any times). Nemo (by far the funniest film Pixar have made) still makes me laugh despite having seen it 20+ times.
{I'm told that Cars 2 is relentless: too fast and too complicated for young kids, but as I haven't seen it I can't judge. The fact that I haven't seen it says something: I normally see every Pixar film the week it comes out.}
The problem that Pixar has had is that we have had to judge Pixar by Pixar standards as until recently no-one was making anything as good. This has now changed. Wonderfully for us Pixar now has serious competition. Dreamworks has made a number of films that are as good as Pixar's. Some of them are as good as Pixar's best: How to Train Your Dragon, Megamind, Kung Fu Panda. Walt Disney Animation Studios is back on form with Tangled (Monsters v Aliens wasn't bad either).
How to Train Your Dragon & Tangled are thankfully free of transfer-modern-society-into-cartoon-world puns. Instead you are given a detailed, self-consistent world that complements the story (rather than being the story). This is a very good thing—something I hope that Pixar will move back towards (although I don't hold out much hope for Monsters Inc 2).
FWIW, My 4 kids all loved cars 2. They were bored at Up! and Wall-E (2 Pixar "misses" IMHO).
Actually Shrek 2 I think was on par with Shrek. My son watched it about 5 times on a flight from UK->US. I agree Shrek 3 was poor, but I think that was more to do with the story (or lack of) rather than humor etc.
Also with Toy Story... Our kids (And I) prefer Toy Story 2 to Toy Story, it just has a stronger story and more refined.
Agree @ Tangled though. Awesome back to form. Also Princess+Frog was excellent.
