I’ve always thought of Pixar as being this magical creative machine where you ate Lucky Charms all morning and rode unicorns late into the afternoon. A place that produced cinematic candy with a wave of a wand and a wink of an eye.
It turns out I was wrong.
But I am a bit surprised at the similarities between a few Pixar movies and B-movie predecessors.
Did Pixar do a better job? Undoubtably!
Do I still love these two Pixar films? Yes!
You just won’t find them on my creative pedestal any longer …
Toy Story & The Christmas Toy
The most compelling argument that Toy Story played off of The Christmas Toy can clearly seen by the picture above. It’s oddly similar, isn’t it?
But the similarities don’t end there.
Woody, from Toy Story, can easily be substituted by the lead character from The Christmas Toy.
In The Christmas Toy, the main character is also a toy who grows insecure when he hears that his owner is receiving a present that could replace him as the favorite. Instead of Woody the cowboy doll, it’s a stuffed tiger named Rugby.
Hmmmm.
Sounds a lot the same, doesn’t it?
But wait, there’s more!
What about Buzz? Is there a character like Buzz?
Yes:
In The Christmas Toy, the new arrival and competitor for the owner’s affection also turns out to be an egocentric character from outer space who has trouble differentiating between fantasy and reality and doesn’t understand that it’s just a toy — her name is Meteora, Queen of the Asteroids.
Sound familiar … again?
And since it’s common for 7-year old boys to play with Bo Peep dolls, both Toy Story and The Christmas Toy included her:
*sigh*
At this point, when I first read this, I just felt stupid. I don’t know why. Maybe because I had Pixar on some kind of creative pedestal?
What else could Pixar “borrow” from this old 1986 movie #FAIL?
Here’s one more “coincidence.”
Then there’s the worn-out stuffed bear with a cane who functions as the playground’s wise old leader and is in charge of welcoming new toys …
Amazing, isn’t it?
I know there “isn’t anything new under the sun,” but what can explain this?
Was it locked into their subconscious?
I thought Pixar’s ideas were plotted-out on a coffee shop napkin some fateful afternoon and the rest was history.
But this is the only one, right?
Monsters, Inc. & Little Monsters
Oh, boy.
Here we go again.
In it, a kid played by Fred Savage (of course) meets a friendly monster named Maurice, who is basically a low-budget human version of Sully from Monsters, Inc.
Their both blue. With spots. And have curved horns.
This is getting out of hand!
Check out the bad guy:
Yeah. Crazy, huh?
Instead of the big row of doors, the monster city in Little Monsters has “innumerable staircases” leading to the human world. Also, both movies have a main villain who dresses more snappily than the rest of the monsters and who kidnaps a human child for its own evil purposes.
Finally, every villain needs a toady:
And of course, both villains have a hideous sharp-toothed henchman who does most of the dirty work, allowing them to remain hidden for most of the movie.
How weirded out are you?
Both Toy Story and Monsters, Inc. outshine their … uh … predecessors. There are plenty of differences between the films, of course, but there are some other plot points I didn’t mention that only further indict Pixar.
What’s your take on this?
[via Cracked | Top image thumb via Sarah Dope]
Geekfori says
My view is that there are very few original ideas out there any longer, specially in the world of film.
You have to enjoy it for what it is.
Recall Avatar and Pocahontas?
Eric Dye says
Ha! So true.
Ben Miller says
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9
I haven’t seen Little Monsters, but I have seen Jim Henson’s The Christmas Toy. Yes, there are definitely similarities, but there are differences, too. And neither are the first with the idea of a room full of toys that are actually alive. The Velveteen Rabbit was published in the 1920’s.
Still, Pixar comes up with lots of originality on their own. I can’t think of anything quite like Up or Ratatouille, but I’m sure if you look hard enough you could find another movie with similar plot lines or characters.
Eric Dye says
Not only that, but those that they may have replicated, they did 110% better. It still takes you a little off guard when you see some of the similarities.
Peter Saddington says
eh.. there are only really like 7 types of movies. everything is recycled and refurb. nothing new.
Eric Dye says
You can even knock it down to two types: tragedy & comedy.
Eric says
I think you’ve confused the word ‘creativity’ with ‘originality’. Creativity doesn’t only apply to new ideas, concepts or productions. Creativity can apply to new things, but it’s also about applying imagination in recreating or changing something. Check out this recent post –
http://www.chrisfromcanada.com/creativity-in-a-remix-culture/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+chrisfromcanada%2FLTOj+%28ChrisFromCanada.com%29
New things are good, don’t get me wrong. In fact – and I may get some flack on this – I think the verse that has been quoted from Ecclesiastes 1:9 is actually misinterpreted because by reading it we’re assuming it’s supposed to be true. However, the writer of Ecclesiastes writes from a state of depression, and while his writing contains some truth in its words…the truth of the writing is in the rawness of human emotion. Sometimes we feel hopeless, helpless and lost…like nothing matters and everything stinks. And while it’s normal to feel that way once in a while…the Truth is far different than that. God tells us that we can become new creations. He tells us to have not lose heart and that we have an everlasting hope. He tells us that our identity is found in Him, that He searched for us and found us and that we, and what we do, matter to Him. Inventors invent new things all the time. The computer I’m writing this on is new…my parents generation didn’t have one. My grandfathers generation didn’t have a calculator. When creativity and originality meet…new things are formed, whether in thought or in physical form.
I can understand your feeling deceived by Pixar…it’s kind of a letdown to find out they recycled an idea instead of creating something completely unique to them. However, I can still find beauty in the massive amount of groundbreaking creativity it took to create the films you mentioned. Pixar as a company literally made something new when they began making films the way they do.
Eric Dye says
Nice distinction. I like that!
Tyler H says
I can overlook ALL of that because the toy story movies are great and any story about toys come to life are going to have some similarities. What I can’t overlook? Cars 2. Holy mess of a storyline, Batman. Don’t care too much though, Brave looks awesome.
Brandon Kraft says
+1 on what the heck was Cars 2. It is, literally, a car accident that you know early on that you should look away…
Eric Dye says
Brave DOES look awesome!
Chris says
Hey Eric – wow. Great post. I love the comparison and the discovery.
Thanks for linking to the post on my site. A friend mentioned another example. Ready for this?
Watch this video of Bob Fosse from 1974. Remind you of anyone?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAbv7KlUQSQ
Micah says
Wow…The dance moves are uncanny. Thanks for sharing. I’m not going to mention who it is here so that others will watch it.
Eric Dye says
Wow. Just wow!
Eric Dye says
Here is the film clip mixed with Billy Jean — LOL! http://youtu.be/QUlEBhGgEe0
Micah says
I’m almost more inclined to blame this behavior on Disney more than Pixar, purely because I happened to read about this a few months ago:
http://www.omg-facts.com/view/Facts/2280
Eric Dye says
Wah-wah. Thanks for the link, Micah!