I understand why you left out Chuck Norris.
Pixar removes identity politics from Elio..
8,168 Views |
94 Replies |
Last: 5 mo ago by fig96
oragator said:
Who is the target demo for a movie about an 11 Y/O gay kid, if that's what it was? How many parents want to have that discussion with their kid after seeing it, or how many more would just avoid it, even many moderate thinking folks? Of course the test screen bombed. But someone green lit it, just crazy how far the pendulum swung a few years ago.
White BSC liberal moms who badly want a kid they can virtue signal about.
This whole thread is generally entertaining to read. Some of y'all really think that a couple rogue artists did this thing all on their own then got mad because they couldn't did it, and that they shouldn't have been hired in the first place.
To start, Pixar has thousands of people applying to every job opening. The people that work on these films are the best of the best and insanely good at their jobs, anyone working on this is a world class artist or animator.
If this film was at the point of having test screening that means it was deep into production. Movies like this are in the concept and development phase for a year or two minimum, storyboarded as the story is developed more, then put into production. That means the early versions of this were worked and pitched to leadership and reworked, then approved to move forward at several different stages. The same happens when it gets storyboarded and moves into production, there's signoffs and approvals all throughout the process. When the film is being animated shots are reviewed and critiqued daily till they're approved and moved forward in the process, and all throughout this stage the producers will be viewing rough cuts of all different parts of the film.
So no, this wasn't some random person going off and doing their own thing. This was a project that was greenlit and developed and had hundreds of people working on for multiple years, and was then changed to something different. And people who had worked on it for years weren't happy about that, understandably so whether you agree with their political views or not.
Whether that was justified or not depends who you ask, we won't ever get the full story and the director and artists that worked on the film likely have a very different opinion than the leadership that made the change. But please stop with the narrative that this was a handful of artists who got mad they couldn't make some crazy thing that no one knew about it till the end.
To start, Pixar has thousands of people applying to every job opening. The people that work on these films are the best of the best and insanely good at their jobs, anyone working on this is a world class artist or animator.
If this film was at the point of having test screening that means it was deep into production. Movies like this are in the concept and development phase for a year or two minimum, storyboarded as the story is developed more, then put into production. That means the early versions of this were worked and pitched to leadership and reworked, then approved to move forward at several different stages. The same happens when it gets storyboarded and moves into production, there's signoffs and approvals all throughout the process. When the film is being animated shots are reviewed and critiqued daily till they're approved and moved forward in the process, and all throughout this stage the producers will be viewing rough cuts of all different parts of the film.
So no, this wasn't some random person going off and doing their own thing. This was a project that was greenlit and developed and had hundreds of people working on for multiple years, and was then changed to something different. And people who had worked on it for years weren't happy about that, understandably so whether you agree with their political views or not.
Whether that was justified or not depends who you ask, we won't ever get the full story and the director and artists that worked on the film likely have a very different opinion than the leadership that made the change. But please stop with the narrative that this was a handful of artists who got mad they couldn't make some crazy thing that no one knew about it till the end.
The actual article is worth a read if you've got any genuine interest in the topic and is a lot more nuanced than the tweet.
Inside 'Elio's' "Catastrophic" Path
And interesting note, the original director also wrote and directed Coco (mentioned earlier in the thread).
Inside 'Elio's' "Catastrophic" Path
And interesting note, the original director also wrote and directed Coco (mentioned earlier in the thread).
I tend to think that if the story was good, and it was really a well-made movie that had many test audience members enthused about seeing this movie, there would have been no major overhauls.
I find it interesting that nobody in a test audience volunteered that they would pay to see it in a theater. I am sure that the audience had several "woke" subjects.
Major overhauls to films happen, and avoiding negative publicity was one of the choices that an executive made.
I also think that some who did not approve of the change engaged in a little bit of informational warfare and hoped the movie tanked after the change.
I find it interesting that nobody in a test audience volunteered that they would pay to see it in a theater. I am sure that the audience had several "woke" subjects.
Major overhauls to films happen, and avoiding negative publicity was one of the choices that an executive made.
I also think that some who did not approve of the change engaged in a little bit of informational warfare and hoped the movie tanked after the change.
Imo it falls on leadership for greenlighting and getting so far down the road something that a focus group could have told them they didn't want to see on day one of production. Just because leadership nuked the identity aspect at the end of production doesn't make them any less culpable.
But still as an artist I would also take the focus group criticism to heart and at least take to heart that literally no one wants what i made. Unfortunately that is probably not what they will take from it.
But still as an artist I would also take the focus group criticism to heart and at least take to heart that literally no one wants what i made. Unfortunately that is probably not what they will take from it.
Were there feedback directly supporting that I'd totally agree with you. Would still suck for the artists, but it is what it is. (I would argue that you can't really focus test a concept, there's lots of movies that sound like terrible ideas and end up being great and vice versa.)
From the article, however, that wasn't the case:
I do user research for a living and I wouldn't know what to do with that feedback. They liked it so the themes apparently weren't an issue but…they needed to like it more? They only go to the theater for films that are exceptional? They liked it but know it'll be on D+ in a month or two so they'll just wait?
Then from there, what's the solution to make it something that people would go see in theaters? Do you remove some of the thematic elements, or do you lean into them even more?
If there was no direct feedback that the queer themes were an issue, and we have no indication of that either way, I totally get why artists would be frustrated that they felt the heart of the movie was really watered down.
From the article, however, that wasn't the case:
Quote:
The writing was first on the wall for the troubled production when the film from Molina, known as the co-director of Pixar's Oscar-winning 2017 hit Coco, conducted an early test screening in Arizona. Although viewers expressed how much they enjoyed the movie, they were also asked how many of them would see it in a theater, and not a single hand was raised, according to a source with knowledge of the event. This sounded alarm bells for studio brass.
I do user research for a living and I wouldn't know what to do with that feedback. They liked it so the themes apparently weren't an issue but…they needed to like it more? They only go to the theater for films that are exceptional? They liked it but know it'll be on D+ in a month or two so they'll just wait?
Then from there, what's the solution to make it something that people would go see in theaters? Do you remove some of the thematic elements, or do you lean into them even more?
If there was no direct feedback that the queer themes were an issue, and we have no indication of that either way, I totally get why artists would be frustrated that they felt the heart of the movie was really watered down.
Not a fan of these ai videos, but I admittedly lost it at the von trap transgender kids' preferred pronouns of "they, them, other and candy floss."
I would take that wording about how much test audiences liked the film with a grain of salt. It's basically 3rd hand info and could be framed by the author to make it seem much more liked than it actually was without being technically inaccurate. I mean the test audiences could have said, "Not that much," when talking about how much they liked the film, but if you leave that part out and say they talked about how much they liked it, it gives the opposite impression without being technically wrong.
Imagine how much money they could make if they would just make movies that appeal to 98% of the population.
If only the shareholders would mass exit the stock
If only the shareholders would mass exit the stock
How many movies follow the same process and are green lit by executives and end up being terrible? It happens all the time regardless of what messaging they try to cram in it. This is just an example where people go point and say, "lol, go woke go broke you idiots!".
Maybe this story was just bad with or without the woke messaging. It's just low hanging fruit to point out that he sucked because it had a woke message initially.
Maybe this story was just bad with or without the woke messaging. It's just low hanging fruit to point out that he sucked because it had a woke message initially.
Or maybe they framed the "would you buy a ticket" question in a way that tilted responses negatively.. Both are pure conjecture, all we have to go on is what was said.ABATTBQ11 said:
I would take that wording about how much test audiences liked the film with a grain of salt. It's basically 3rd hand info and could be framed by the author to make it seem much more liked than it actually was without being technically inaccurate. I mean the test audiences could have said, "Not that much," when talking about how much they liked the film, but if you leave that part out and say they talked about how much they liked it, it gives the opposite impression without being technically wrong.
I'm actually curious to poke around twitter/Bluesky and see if I can find any Pixar people talking about it.
The problem is that the majority shareholders of companies like these are Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street. And it's through management of 401K plans and mutual funds that provide a ton of investment into these companies, which we don't really see when selecting how to distribute our investments.HalifaxAg said:
Imagine how much money they could make if they would just make movies that appeal to 98% of the population.
If only the shareholders would mass exit the stock
So, no, the shareholders won't mass exit because the shareholders are you and me, without us really knowing we are.
tk for tu juan said:
2:03 Elsa von Hootenmax is a very accurate name.
Bigole cans.
I would argue though that stories that center around someone who is "diverse" (however you want to define that) do work, do make money, do become beloved by kids and adults *if* the story is good and well-executed. Coco is a prime example of an absolutely beautiful movie - it's an adventure and a deeply powerful movie about family and loss, that also is centered around a family in Mexico. Moana is a story of a brave girl and there's zero romance/princess stories. Andor had an amazing love story between two complicated, compelling women characters - it worked because the story telling was well-written. It didn't work in other Star Wars shows because the writing and acting weren't there.
Turning Red was a movie that many people had reactions of "ugh is this about gross lady stuff?" My tween niece LOVED that movie. When it came on streaming she watched it on repeat. Her mom and I watched Little Mermaid over and over as teens and sang all the songs…when the live action came out she took her daughter and it was deeply moving to see herself reflected as Ariel. She still loved the original but it was really meaningful to her and her daughter.
Not everything has to be for everybody, and not everything has to be for *you.* But what it should be, is well written and developed and creative. There are more stories to be told than just teenage princess wants to get married the end.
Turning Red was a movie that many people had reactions of "ugh is this about gross lady stuff?" My tween niece LOVED that movie. When it came on streaming she watched it on repeat. Her mom and I watched Little Mermaid over and over as teens and sang all the songs…when the live action came out she took her daughter and it was deeply moving to see herself reflected as Ariel. She still loved the original but it was really meaningful to her and her daughter.
Not everything has to be for everybody, and not everything has to be for *you.* But what it should be, is well written and developed and creative. There are more stories to be told than just teenage princess wants to get married the end.
fig96 said:Or maybe they framed the "would you buy a ticket" question in a way that tilted responses negatively.. Both are pure conjecture, all we have to go on is what was said.ABATTBQ11 said:
I would take that wording about how much test audiences liked the film with a grain of salt. It's basically 3rd hand info and could be framed by the author to make it seem much more liked than it actually was without being technically inaccurate. I mean the test audiences could have said, "Not that much," when talking about how much they liked the film, but if you leave that part out and say they talked about how much they liked it, it gives the opposite impression without being technically wrong.
I'm actually curious to poke around twitter/Bluesky and see if I can find any Pixar people talking about it.
It's not about how a question might have been tilted to illicit a response, it's about how the response is framed and communicated. "They talked about how much they liked it," is meaningless without some kind of reference point of exactly what "how much" is. They could have been asked how much they liked it, responded, "It sucked," "It was completely mid," or, "It was amazing!" and all could still be reported as, "They talked about how much they liked it."
"Would you pay to see this movie in theaters?" is a pretty direct question with a binary response. I don't think you can really tilt that question, and you can't spin the response when no one says yes.
ABATTBQ11 said:fig96 said:Or maybe they framed the "would you buy a ticket" question in a way that tilted responses negatively.. Both are pure conjecture, all we have to go on is what was said.ABATTBQ11 said:
I would take that wording about how much test audiences liked the film with a grain of salt. It's basically 3rd hand info and could be framed by the author to make it seem much more liked than it actually was without being technically inaccurate. I mean the test audiences could have said, "Not that much," when talking about how much they liked the film, but if you leave that part out and say they talked about how much they liked it, it gives the opposite impression without being technically wrong.
I'm actually curious to poke around twitter/Bluesky and see if I can find any Pixar people talking about it.
It's not about how a question might have been tilted to illicit a response, it's about how the response is framed and communicated. "They talked about how much they liked it," is meaningless without some kind of reference point of exactly what "how much" is. They could have been asked how much they liked it, responded, "It sucked," "It was completely mid," or, "It was amazing!" and all could still be reported as, "They talked about how much they liked it."
"Would you pay to see this movie in theaters?" is a pretty direct question with a binary response. I don't think you can really tilt that question, and you can't spin the response when no one says yes.
Jeremy Jahns mentioned in his review that he actually liked the movie with the caveat that a family of 4 was going to be forced to drop at least $60 for just matinee tickets and that he'd wait for streaming.
That was once true, but the truly talented have been replaced with narcissists incapable of writing an entertaining story about anyone but themselves.fig96 said:
To start, Pixar has thousands of people applying to every job opening. The people that work on these films are the best of the best and insanely good at their jobs, anyone working on this is a world class artist or animator.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Feels like you're reaching to assume that "it sucked" was reported as how much they liked it.ABATTBQ11 said:fig96 said:Or maybe they framed the "would you buy a ticket" question in a way that tilted responses negatively.. Both are pure conjecture, all we have to go on is what was said.ABATTBQ11 said:
I would take that wording about how much test audiences liked the film with a grain of salt. It's basically 3rd hand info and could be framed by the author to make it seem much more liked than it actually was without being technically inaccurate. I mean the test audiences could have said, "Not that much," when talking about how much they liked the film, but if you leave that part out and say they talked about how much they liked it, it gives the opposite impression without being technically wrong.
I'm actually curious to poke around twitter/Bluesky and see if I can find any Pixar people talking about it.
It's not about how a question might have been tilted to illicit a response, it's about how the response is framed and communicated. "They talked about how much they liked it," is meaningless without some kind of reference point of exactly what "how much" is. They could have been asked how much they liked it, responded, "It sucked," "It was completely mid," or, "It was amazing!" and all could still be reported as, "They talked about how much they liked it."
"Would you pay to see this movie in theaters?" is a pretty direct question with a binary response. I don't think you can really tilt that question, and you can't spin the response when no one says yes.
And any question can be tilted a dozen ways to shift your answers more towards a desired response.
"Who enjoyed the film? Great, leave your hand up if you'd go see it in a theater."
"Who enjoyed the film? Ok, hands down. Raise your hand if you'd buy a ticket for it at the theater?"
"Who enjoyed the film? Ok, hands down. Raise your hand if you'd buy a ticket for it over anything else playing at the movies right now?"
"Who enjoyed the film? Ok, hands down. Raise your hand if you'd pay for your family of 4 to go see it?"
Again, all we have to go on is what was reported, any attempt to interpret beyond that is introducing personal bias.
You are really passionate in your defense of Pixar and Elio.
I think this is a good points and a bigger issue with animated and family films in general. A family of four is going to drop $100 plus for tickets and snacks when they could wait 6-8 weeks for streaming.rich1232 said:ABATTBQ11 said:It's not about how a question might have been tilted to illicit a response, it's about how the response is framed and communicated. "They talked about how much they liked it," is meaningless without some kind of reference point of exactly what "how much" is. They could have been asked how much they liked it, responded, "It sucked," "It was completely mid," or, "It was amazing!" and all could still be reported as, "They talked about how much they liked it."fig96 said:Or maybe they framed the "would you buy a ticket" question in a way that tilted responses negatively.. Both are pure conjecture, all we have to go on is what was said.ABATTBQ11 said:
I would take that wording about how much test audiences liked the film with a grain of salt. It's basically 3rd hand info and could be framed by the author to make it seem much more liked than it actually was without being technically inaccurate. I mean the test audiences could have said, "Not that much," when talking about how much they liked the film, but if you leave that part out and say they talked about how much they liked it, it gives the opposite impression without being technically wrong.
I'm actually curious to poke around twitter/Bluesky and see if I can find any Pixar people talking about it.
"Would you pay to see this movie in theaters?" is a pretty direct question with a binary response. I don't think you can really tilt that question, and you can't spin the response when no one says yes.
Jeremy Jahns mentioned in his review that he actually liked the movie with the caveat that a family of 4 was going to be forced to drop at least $60 for just matinee tickets and that he'd wait for streaming.
I don't think it's coincidence that most of the highest grossing animated films were released pre-2020. Only 6 of the top 25 were released in the last 5 years.
Haven't really defended much, though I do know how incredibly talented folks who make it to Pixar are which makes it all the more funny to see people who have no clue passing judgement.maroon barchetta said:
You are really passionate in your defense of Pixar and Elio.
Not defending Elio either way, I've got no idea if it is good or would have been better if it stayed on its original path. I'll watch it when it drops on streaming and see.
I will, however, shoot down the stupid idea several posters keep tossing out that some rogue artists made a film that no one wanted or that there was some backlash against the concept or content of the film where there's zero evidence for that.
I also work in user research so I always have lots of questions when it comes to test screening and the like, and I love animation.
Featured Stories
See All
Ten season-defining moments along Texas A&M's championship run
by Richard Zane
14:26
3d ago
4.3k
The Film Room: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Stephen McGee
25:58
4d ago
5.1k
Defense in Review feat. Sean Porter: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Billy Liucci
9:03
3d ago
1.9k
LB Blitz: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Sean Porter
Three Things: Top Christmas movies, portal reminders & more
by Jason Howell
TrueTechZen
Billy, David, Brauny, Olin, Zane, Jason, Luke, et al...
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
8