It sounds like a bad article but it’s not too bad. I actually found it entertaining. Basically yes, Pixar’s business strategy is “quality,” and so people giving them the benefit of the doubt and going into their movies expecting great things already is a consequence of great storytelling.
In terms of reviews, then yes, I can see what this person is saying- the critics love and trust Pixar now, so unless a Pixar film really is bad, then it’ll generally be reviewed well. But from my experience, the general audience don’t always know what company has made a film, and therefore a general audience is not always obliged to like it, even if it is Pixar. Yet WALL-E is still making plenty of money, so there must be something good there.
I think whoever wrote this does have a point- the exact same point which makes someone like me very sceptical of the idea of a Cars sequel, for example. If Pixar is going to make a bad movie at some point, that seems like the obvious time for it to be made. But at the end of the day, the reason that Pixar movies are generally so well-reviewed is because they HAVE built up that trust, and hey, if a company has managed to make nine good movies, why shouldn’t people have a bit of faith in that company?
Yeah, either way Pixar has earned that trust.
I can see his point, but I gotta disagree about WALL-E just being a good, if simple film. It’s really a deep thing if you dig, and incredibly well written.
I don’t feel we give PIXAR too much credit. They do incredible things that no one else in the world of animation even dares to try. They deserve the extra hugs and love. IMO.
You gotta keep in mind, high love for a studio also means high expectations. The fact that they meet what the fans think they’re gonna do, no, they EXCEED it, time after time is enough to make them amazing IMO.
I agree completely with Netbug009.
Yeah, I don’t think WALL-E’s plot being clear-cut makes it any lesser of a film. The point is that Pixar has a clear idea of what they want to accomplish and then are exceptionally good at crafting films in a way that perfectly brings that to life. Bringing a simple fable to life in a magical and enjoyable way is a challenge in itself.
Exactly, at the end of the day, who watches these movies, general audiences, and kids and adults love them, and don’t necessariy know they are by Pixar, so that shows Pixar is doing something right. It shows clearly in the reviews AND the box office.
Exactly! Especially if the alternative is a more complicated, yet badly told story.
I felt that Juno was only a “nice little movie” and Ratatouille was delightful, yet the former was nominated for best picture and the latter wasn’t. So the academy could owe Pixar a little bit of recognition and maybe next time they’ll tip the scale in WALL-E’s favor. Still, part of me wants Pixar to be nominated for their best work, not because they’re due to be nominated.
Regarding WALL-E:
Surely this person hasn’t actually watched the film.
I absolutely loved Juno and I absolutely loved Ratatouille. I actually loved Ratatouille a ton more, but if I were on the Academy, I’d vote for Juno.
Juno had a budget of 6.5 million dollars. Ratatouille had a budget of 150 millions dollars. Juno was first shown at a small film festival. Ratatouille premiered at the El Capitan. Juno was written by a stripper in her spare time. Ratatouille was written by a veteran in Hollywood. Artistically, they are equal.
Juno would get my vote… as much as I would love to have seen Ratatouille up on the list.
Ex-stripper. 
But yeah I would’ve picked Juno over Ratatouille too, but then again I never “got” the big deal with the Rat.
Actually… I’m having second thoughts…
Ratatouille! How could I have betrayed you! I’m sorry!
I’d have voted for Ratatouille…
Wall-E is a “nice little, overated film”? That’s funny.
To tell you the truth, I never expect anything when I go to a Pixar film. Whenever I see a trailer for one, I’m like, “Guess I’ll go watch it.” Heck, Wall-E amazed the heck out of me, but I’m still not expecting anything grand from “Up”, Cars 2", “Toy Story 3”, etc, etc until I see it.
I guess I agree with the writer rof this article. I’m fair game when it comes to movies, so I don’t judge them on what studio made it, but whether the film made an impact on me or not.
That “not layered” comment makes me wonder if he watched the film though, like Midgard Dragon says.
The author of the editorial incorrectly assumes that people who give WALL-E, or any Pixar film, a good review automatically assume that just because because it’s Pixar, it must be good. He also says that there aren’t many layers to WALL-E…which couldn’t be more incorrect (And we all know that).
And why does he think Pixar must make a bad movie in order for Pixar to truly be praised? Is the point not of The Incredibles and Ratatouille to celebrate excellence, not mediocrity? Is the point not of Cars and WALL-E to live life, love it, and take control of it? If Pixar purposely makes a bad film, it would only show that they are settling with “good enough.” They’re not in the business just to make money, they’re also in the business to make great films, which they do.
The one criticism he makes of WALL-E that I can testify to is that the movie is a mere hour and a half long. Now, if only it was longer and I had more time to see WALL-E’s world than I would love it that much more!