Why is Pixar allowed to experiment with different animation techniques while Walt Disney Animation Studios is stuck...

Why is Pixar allowed to experiment with different animation techniques while Walt Disney Animation Studios is stuck copy/pasting Rapunzel's face for most of a decade?

How is what Pixar does a "different animation technique"? Disney movies also have ugly, old and vastly differnt looking side characters.

Pixar hasn't changed their animation style fucking once. They've only gotten better textures and models, but their actual style has stayed consistently the same since Toy Story.

Toy Story 3 Andy who is more up-to-date in technical CG looks like he could accidentally bump into Miguel on his college trip to Mexico.

Dreamworks has done different styles. How to Train Your Dragon, Madagascar, Captain Underpants all look different. Even Sony is trying. Disney tried during their 2D "phase" with Lilo & Stitch, Atlantis, Sleeping Beauty, and Emperor's New Groove.

Until Disney outputs more films than Pixar, they'll be the biggest most stagnated animation company out there.

Disney did too with Wreck it Ralph. But regardless, why do some people pretend that different styles are a necessary thing to make a good animated movie? Just tell a good story. Unless the style is horrendously ugly, which neither Pixar nor Disney's styles are, it literally doesn't matter. Having a house style that audiences are familiar with is perfectly fine.

>Unless the style is horrendously ugly, which neither Pixar nor Disney's styles are, it literally doesn't matter.
1. Because visuals are a big part of animation, so to just assume that one single style works for every story is bland. Imagine how much charm would be sucked out of Lilo & Stitch if it looked like Little Mermaid. Imagine if 101 Dalmatians tried to have realistic looking environments akin to Bambi. Pocahontas looks nothing like Belle. But Anna and Rapunzel almost look like the same model.

CG has really stunted Disney's visual growth and made them kind of lazy. Which is especially sad because CG can do way more as proven by indie animators, video games, and even themselves with Paperman + Feast.

2. Because then you end up with people trying to ape them, both 2D and CG, in order to replicate their success or even try to trick audiences into thinking they're going in to see a Disney/Pixar film. So many people were trying to ape Disney in the 90's that even they mixed up their own art style for later films so audiences wouldn't get bored.

Captain Underpants was dirt cheap to make and is gorgeous looking. If a film studio really wanted to tap into the CG market and just pump something out, they could creatively use their budget and make something great rather than trying to mimic a Disney feature on 1/5th the budget.

>while Walt Disney Animation Studios is stuck copy/pasting Rapunzel's face for most of a decade?

Pixar's been using that ugly wide nosed child style for years now.

Sorry, I know I could look it up on my own, but your post made me wonder how many of the same workers were apart of movies such as the Disney cartoon movies you named?

lol

Yep, their designs never changed, but their tech got better.

>doesn't know that Disney owns Pixar
Now that's just silly.

holy shit those arms

When has Pixar experimented with different animation techniques? With Moana they used 2D for a few bits like in 'You're Welcome' and developed completely new software for the water and hair. Also the first 3D musical to not use the Disney sameface

You're kidding, right? It's still baby face. Except brown.

bleh, it's slightly more realistic than the average disney fare but you can still see the influence, especiall in the eyes.

what?

I really don't like this. All my mind sees is this jarring clash of realism and cartoony

>developed completely new software
sounds like a bunch of bunk.
I wasn't impressed by the snow in frozen either. I care more about characters than environments.

I remember expecting a bunch of rule 34 of aged up molly back when this came out, but it never happened

I dunno about that

I forgot how cute she was. But then again she had like five minutes of screentime. Why couldn't we have seen more of the davis family?
Hell, why couldn't Andy have given Molly the toys?

a cute indeed

where is the experimentation you are talking about ?

Cause Molly didn't give a shit about her toys. She donated Barbie.