What's going on at Pixar?

For a while, Pixar could do no wrong. They were cranking out hit after hit. Every single movie they released was not only a commerical success, but also liked by critics as well as parents that were dragged by their kids to the movies.

Recently, I heard some news that had me a little upset. Pixar recently announced that they would start production on "Toy Story 4," which would hit theaters in 2017. Why did this upset me? I will get to that in a minute. But this announcement had me looking at what Pixar has been doing over the last couple of years, and I am afraid they have lost their creative edge. One could even argue they have "sold out."

So why am I uneasy about "Toy Story 4?" First of all, I believe that the Toy Story films are some of the greatest movies ever made, animated or otherwise. The characters, visuals and writing were all nearly perfect in all three movies. Part 3, which had many of us choking up and holding back tears in the movie theater, provided what I thought was a perfect resolution for the main characters, and a wonderful ending to the story and the themes we have seen played out over the three movies.

My biggest fear is that Toy Story 4 will become the next "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." The Indiana Jones trilogy, and, yes, I still consider these movies to be a trilogy, are all great movies (although some people have mixed feelings about "Temple of Doom"). The shot at the end of "Last Crusade" that had Indy, his father, Marcus and Sallah riding off into the sunset was a great way to end the story of Indiana Jones. Then, 15 years later, "Crystal Skull" hits theaters. This fourth movie was mediocre at best, with plot lines that are far-fetched, even for Indiana Jones (nuking the fridge?!), some of the worst directing of Steven Spielberg's career, and, of course, CGI monkeys.

Most fans don't even consider "Crystal Skull" part of the trilogy. Many people pretend it doesn't even exist. It has basically left a black mark on what is one of the greatest and most successful movie franchises.

I am afraid that, like "Crystal Skull," "Toy Story 4" is being made solely in the interest of the almighty dollar. John Lasseter, the movie's director and the chief creative advisor for Pixar and Disney Animation Studios, says he has a great story idea and he said "We only make sequels when we have a story that's as good as or better than the original."  He also revealed the plot will focus on a love story between Woody and Bo Peep, who wasn't in "Toy Story 3." Normally, I would believe Mr. Lasseter, but the other reason I am deeply concerned about this sequel is Pixar's recent track record.

Let's go back about 13 years or so. From 2001 to 2009, Pixar released a streak of 7 non-sequel, totally original movies that ranged from good (Ratatouille, Cars) to brilliant (Up, The Incredibles, Monsters, Inc., WALL-E). Every single one of these movies are written well, have stunning visuals, and hold up to repeat viewings. I know, because my kids watch them over and over again. "The Incredibles," like the Toy Story movies, is one of my top movies of all time.

Then we get to the current decade. After Toy Story 3 in 2010, things began to go downhill. 2011 saw the release of "Cars 2." This made a ton of money, and like its prequel, became a marketing bonanza. If you have boys, I am sure you have at least one piece Lightning McQueen or Cars swag, whether it's a blanket, toy car, or clothing item. However, despite its commercial success, this was the first Pixar movie ever to get pummeled by movie critics. The poor critical reviews were justified, because the movie was loud, light on story, and full of flaws. For example, there was too much of the Mater character. No offense to Larry the Cable Guy, but Mater works well as a supporting character, but, as a main character, he becomes grating. Many people like me were unpleasantly surprised by this movie, because of Pixar's track record up to this point. Many of us hold Pixar to a higher standard, so it was almost shocking to see such a mediocre film from the studio.

In 2012, "Brave" was released. This is the only Pixar film I haven't seen, because it didn't interest me. According to the critics, it was good, but not great.

Last year was "Monsters University," a prequel to "Monsters, Inc." which, again, was good, but not great.

As for the future, Pixar's next two movies are "Inside Out," in which four different characters portray the emotions of a young girl, and "The Good Dinosaur," which introduces a world where dinosaurs and humans coexist. This looks like another opportunity for some marketing megabucks.

After these two films, several sequels are on the way. Aside from "Toy Story 4,""Finding Dory," a sequel to "Finding Nemo," is in the works, along with "The Incredibles 2," which I am really looking forward to, and "Cars 3", which I am not looking forward to.

In other words, I have seen a drop in the quality and creativity of Pixar's films, and I am also seeing what looks like a shift to more commercial films. Why is this happening? Here are a few theories.

1. They simply ran out of ideas. The crew at Pixar may have hit a creative impasse. Instead of coming up with new ideas, they are recycling old ones. This makes no sense, because they have hired outsiders like former Simpsons animator Brad Bird, who went on to direct "The Incredibles" and "Ratatouille" for Pixar. Maybe they need to hire younger writers with fresh ideas. That having been said, Pixar recruited outsiders Rashida Jones (from The Office and Parks and Recreation), and Will McCormack (from In Plain Sight) to write Toy Story 4.

2. Stiffer competiton from other studios has them making "safer," more commercial movies. For a while, Pixar was untouchable. You had occasional successes from other studios, like the "Shrek" movies from DreamWorks, but from an animation and storytelling perspective, no one could touch Pixar. This has changed. Other studios are putting out animated films that are successful on both a creative and commercial level. DreamWorks has put out "How to Train Your Dragon," which had dazzling animation, a great story and one of the greatest animated characters ever - Toothless the dragon. I haven't seen the sequel, but I am told that it is even better. Universal's Illumination Entertainment has established a successful animated franchise with the "Despicable Me" movies. I am sure everyone knows by now that "Minions" is coming out next summer.

Surprisingly, Pixar's stiffest competiton comes from within the Disney empire. Disney Animation Studios also has John Lasseter as its de facto leader, but they are a completely different group of animators. Their recent string of hits speaks for itself: "Tangled," "Wreck-It Ralph," the newly released "Big Hero 6," and let's not forget "Frozen." All of these are well-written and skillfully animated. Some critics are saying that Disney Animation Studios has taken Pixar's place as the top player in the animation game because of "Frozen." I know all of us, especially those of us with children, are fed up with this movie, but this is a valid argument. "Frozen" was, in a way, a throwback to the great Disney animated musicals, and was a well-written story about empowerment and the conflict between two siblings. Also, the movie looked beautiful, had some great songs (there is a cute little song buried in the middle of the movie called "Let It Go," which you might have missed) and was paced well for the kids. This more mainstream approach was a marked contrast to the more witty and artistic approach of many of Pixar's movies. This is not saying that "Frozen" was better, but it was able to appeal to a wider audience. This could explain why Pixar is bringing back its proven characters and franchises to the big screen rather than introducing more new ideas. This doesn't make sense either, because Pixar's non-sequels such as "Up" and "WALL-E" also made tons of money.

3. The Almighty Dollar. John Lasseter swears up and down that Toy Story 4 is being made because of passion and not profit, but after Pixar's most recent offerings and a look at their future slate, I am hard-pressed to believe it. The recent and future schedule contains all of Pixar's biggest hits and merchandise sellers. Compare this to the period during the first decade of the 2000s, during which Pixar released no sequels, just a bunch of great movies.

That having been said, when Toy Story 4 comes out in 2017, my boys will be 8 and 6, so guess who will be there with bells on the weekend it opens?

Update: I have seen "Inside Out," and it was great! It was well-received by critics, and I agree with most of them that it is the best movie I have seen from Pixar since "Up" in 2009. (although as of this writing, I still haven't seen "Brave.") It is not surprising that "Inside Out" comes from director Pete Docter and the same team that was responsible for "Up." It addresses my concern that Pixar has run out of original ideas, because this was a great concept that was executed very well with a great story and memorable characters. I also stand corrected, for the time being, on my criticism that Pixar is playing it safe. This was definitely an original idea, and it is rare these days for an original idea to be so successful. It had a $91 million opening weekend, and Disney/Pixar is bragging that it is the highest-grossing opening weekend for a movie that isn't a sequel or based on other material (like books, video games, theme park rides, etc.) In other words, "Inside Out" has restored some of my faith in Pixar. I am still a little wary about the batch of sequels that is on the way.

Rental review: Toyota Corolla LE

I figured I would review the rental Toyota Corolla I got to drive while the minivan was in the body shop again. I was rear ended for the second time this year. This time, Enterprise provided me with a Toyota Corolla instead of another minivan, so I figured I would share my overall impressions. Let me preface this review by saying that I view most Toyotas as “transportation appliances,” meaning they are perfectly competent cars that are lacking in soul or excitement. In other words, they are adequate, competent cars for people who don’t enjoy driving. I drove the LE model, which is the middle trim level.

Exterior styling: Not bad. The previous Corolla looked like the transportation appliance that it was. The 2014 Corolla, based on the Furia concept, is sleeker, and has some nice touches, like the LED headlights and upward character line on the sides of the car. S “Sport?” models get a blacked out grille. Overall, a huge improvement over its predecessor.

Interior styling: Again, not bad. There are lots of different shapes and materials that make up the interior, and it is evident that they tried to inject some style into the car. The result is a little busy, but is, once again, a major improvement. There are many soft-touch surfaces throughout the interior. However, the fake stitching on top of the dashboard moulding looks cheap. Gauges are clear and easy to read.

Performance: Meh. The 132 hp four carries over from the previous model. Acceleration is merely adequate, and this car is easily outrun by others in its class. This car has a “gearless” CVT (continuously valuable transmission), which is obviously designed for fuel economy and not performance. The base model comes with a conventional 4-speed auto, and a 6-speed manual is available on some trim levels. The S has paddle shifters on the steering wheel. Despite the sporty trim of the S model, the car still comes with the lowly base engine. The only optional engine is on the LE Eco model, which has 140 horsepower. There is some steering feel, and the car handles reasonably well, but will never be mistaken for a sports car. I am sure the handling on the S is better on 17-inch wheels. Finally, all models except the ones with 17-inch wheels have rear drum brakes. As far as I am concerned, drum brakes, which tend to fade (lose effectiveness) quickly due to friction and heat, are outdated technology which shouldn’t be on any car, and this was Toyota doing too much cost cutting. Finally, the car rides well, absorbs bumps in the road, and is quiet, smooth and refined.

Fuel economy: Thanks to a fuel-efficient engine and CVT, I averaged a very impressive 34.8 miles per gallon. It only cost me about $30 to fill the tank, and the 2-hour trip through beautiful Pennsylvania from the State College area to Lancaster only used about 1/4 of a tank. I don’t know how people justify buying a Prius, because the mileage on this car is almost as good, the Corolla costs thousands less, and looks like an actual car.

Safety: All models come standard with a full complement of airbags and stability control. The LE, which  I drove, had a backup camera. Models with the multimedia system come with a backup camera. The Corolla did well in most IIHS tests, but earned only a “marginal” rating in the front overlap crash test, which  puts it behind other cars in its class. Again, no car should have drum brakes.

Space/utility: The wheelbase was stretched for the 2014 model, so there is a lot of rear-seat room for its class. The 13 cubic feet of trunk space is competitive for its class, and held several bags and boxes I was transporting from Lancaster to State College.

Features: All Corollas come standard with power windows, power locks, and Bluetooth, which allows your phone to connect to the car wirelessly, allowing you to use the phone hands-free and listen to music through the phone. The LE, which I drove, had a 6-inch infotainment screen which displayed audio information and detailed fuel economy information. The system is very simple and intuitive, much more so than the infotainment system in my Dodge Grand Caravan. It connected to my iPhone and imported all of my contacts and call history in a matter of seconds. I was easily able to listen to Pandora through my phone. The hands-free phone system worked very well, and the audio system sounded good. The LE had automatic climate control, which was easy to use and worked well.

Value: Pricing starts at $16,900 for the base model. A/C, power windows, power locks and Bluetooth wireless are included. The LE that I drove adds nicer interior trim, the 6-inch multimedia display, backup camera and automatic climate control for about $18,500. Considering the amount of equipment offered, this is a good value for the money.

Would I buy it? I loved the car’s multimedia system. Still, if I needed to buy a car in this class, I would say no. I stand by what I say about Toyota. The Corolla is a perfectly competent, well-made car that is designed for people who want a car to get them from point A to point B. This is not the car for me, but I certainly would recommend this car to other people. I would pass on this car because I would like the utility of a hatchback, and the Corolla only comes as a sedan. Although the Corolla is by no means unpleasant to drive, I would prefer a car that is a little bit more fun, and I don’t like the rear drum brakes. In this class, I have driven the Ford Focus, which is more sporty and is offered as a hatchback. The Mazda3 is supposedly more of a driver’s car, and is also offered in a hatchback. Another car I would consider is the Volkswagen Golf, but the Golf can get very expensive very quickly as you add options. Finally, there is the Subaru Impreza, which offers all-wheel-drive, and I love my current car, the Legacy, even though my wife drives it most of the time. However, I would recommend this car to people because of its good value, outstanding fuel economy, refinement and reliability.

Overall:

What’s good:

Fuel economy

Multimedia system

Good value

Roomy for its class

What’s not good:

Needs more power

Rear drum brakes

Not a driver’s car