Pete Docter, Pixar‘s creative chief officer, is hoping the animation studio’s 27th release, “Elemental,” will draw families to movie theaters this weekend. Peter Sohn‘s film is a story about immigration, families, duty and love. Not only does Docter say the visuals are “a spectacle,” but believes it should be experienced with an audience.
Docter, who has been with the studio since the beginning and was upped to CCO in 2018, has come under criticism recently that Pixar has lost its magic touch.
Here, Docter sits down with PvNew over Zoom to discuss Pixar’s approach to programming, Cannes, “Elemental,” and what’s next for the studio.
In a recent interview you said, “I don’t think of Pixar as making children’s programming.” Can you elaborate on that?
We’ve always looked at what we do as we’re the first audience. We make stuff we want to see ourselves. There’s a Chuck Jones quote that I love and he said, “We like to make films that are simple enough for adults, but sophisticated enough that kids will find them interesting too.” It’s just the switch on what you’d expect. We all have kids and we know that kids are going to watch them, but we want to find something at the heart of all these movies that speaks to us as human beings so there’s something there for the parents. We’ve had that approach from the very beginning.
Can you talk about the strategy behind putting releases on Disney+?
We made “Soul” for the big screen. We looked at every frame. There’s so much detail and gorgeous imagery and work that was done that you can’t quite appreciate on a smaller screen. However, there was a pandemic going on. On one hand, we were so thankful that there was Disney+ so that we could release the film and people could see it. Otherwise, it would just sit on a shelf for a year and a half.
In the long run, there’s been a bit of a mixed blessing because we’ve trained audiences that these films will be available for you on Disney+. And it’s more expensive for a family of four to go to a theater when they know they can wait and it’ll come out on the platform.
We’re trying to make sure people realize there’s a great deal you’re missing by not seeing it on the big screen. In the case of “Elemental,” it’s a beautiful spectacle, there’s detail everywhere. I think you feel it more and it’s a better experience. There’s the shared experience as well, that you get to see it in a room with strangers, and there’s something about the energy that comes from other people that makes the whole experience more vibrant and interesting.
In films like “Lightyear” and “Elemental,” do you ever worry that the characters are too complicated for audiences to understand?
I like to think where we start from is trying to appeal to the kid in all of us. For me with “Monsters Inc.”, l always believed in monsters as a kid. I was fascinated by them. As an animator, I wanted to sit, draw and animate monsters. With Pete Sohn, we made characters out of fire and water. What do they eat? How do they drive to work? Where do they work? There were all these questions where your mind starts to expand out in all directions and imagine this world, and that’s what I love.
That’s where we started. As we get into filmmaking, we think of it in layers. The first thing as we’re developing the story is probably the more adult aspect of the thing, trying to tap into something that appeals to our common experience as human beings: The loss of loved ones, becoming a parent, and the struggle between duty and love. Those are things that I think kids may or may not have gotten to that point yet, but the adults really resonate with that. With the layers, we go in, and we try to do physical and verbal comedy. We look at the visual puns and approach as many different venues as we can, so that there’s really something there for everybody. That’s the hope.
What’s your take on the idea that audiences prefer established IP and aren’t as keen on new and original characters like Luca and The Good Dinosaur?
My dad was a musician. He always talks about music as a combination of the comfort of familiarity and surprise. If it tips in either direction, it doesn’t work. If you can tell where every next note is going to fall, you’re like, “hmmm.” But if every note is a surprise, and you don’t know where it’s going, and it’s so foreign, it doesn’t work either. So, most people generally gravitate towards music which is a sweet spot, somewhere in the middle.
Right now, the world seems to want the comfort of what they know, which is sequels, and movies based on things like comic books or video games. But all of these things were original at one point. I think it’s essential for us to develop new original stories, which are harder to publicize, harder to get people excited to go see them. But I think audiences deserve it. They want to find that surprise, along with the comfort of the expectation. We have our share of sequels in the works. We’re doing a sequel to “Inside Out,” so you get to go back inside the mind of Joy and Sadness. We have another “Toy Story,” so Woody and Buzz are back. And we have a few other projects, but it’s always a balance.
You mentioned “Toy Story” and “Inside Out,” would you like to revisit “Cars,” “Nemo” or even the “Incredibles” as potential sequels?
It’s all fair game. Our philosophy from the beginning has been the same. The people have changed, but the approach is the same. We tap people that we believe in and feel like they have talent and something to say. We ask them to talk about things that are important to them. If this is impactful and powerful to a person, they’re going to get on the screen, and it will resonate with audiences. We’re looking to tap these amazingly talented people I get to work with to talk about universal stories that are about life issues that we all face. Our movies on the surface are about fish, cars and monsters, but just below that, they’re really about all of us, and the challenge of dealing with loss, becoming a parent, finding our place in the world.
How are you looking at getting audiences back to movie theaters?
It does seem like certain audience members are more likely to go back, from what the research has shown. First of all, when you’re young, you feel like you’re immortal and danger is not for you. It does seem that audiences are going back. I think families with kids are more reluctant. It’s not just health, it’s the cost. It’s not a cheap outing to go to the theater and buy popcorn. It’s a great time, but they really are very selective about what they’re going to go see. That’s where it is tougher to have original films because if you’re going to bet on something, you’re probably going to say, “I’ve seen that before. I know I like it and let’s go with the sequel.”
We do have a balance of those. But right now, with “Elemental,” it’s an original. What we’re trying to do is to lean on the spectacle, the scope, the scale and all those things that just make for a different and more impactful experience. Yes, you can see it on your small screen, and it’ll be cool there too. But there is something about being in the dark and seeing it on the big screen with the sound and music. The music by Thomas Newman is great. He knocked it out of the park. When you go to the theater, it’s this rich immersive experience, and you feel like you’re in the middle of the score. So, those would be the reasons I would think people would want to go see it in a theater.
Did you look at the reviews from Cannes?
That was a confusing half-hour there. The film played, we got a seven-minute standing ovation, and you could feel the love beaming down from the audience to Pete. They really responded to it. Then the embargo lifted and some of the reviews were pretty nasty. I guess there are probably a lot of reasons for that. This is our 27th film. For some reason, we seem to be critiqued not only based on other movies but on our own stuff. So, people will say, “Oh, it’s not as good as my favorite Pixar film, whatever that is.”
On one hand, that’s flattering, and it’s also kind of a tough position to be in and very tricky. I’m not sure that we would say we regret going to Cannes or anything like that. It was such a fantastic audience of film lovers.
Have you seen recent animated box office hits “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse“ and “The Super Mario Bros. Movie”? What were your thoughts?
I saw “Spider-Verse” this last week when it came out. It was amazing. I love the visuals. My friend Kemp Powers [who was one of the “Spider-Verse” directors] was one of the directors of “Soul.” I can feel his touch at certain points, especially in the scenes with Myles and his parents. It’s almost like a different language in terms of the cinema, the storytelling. It’s really leaning into the comic book of it. Compared to ours, it’s just a different thing. That’s the great thing about having so much stuff: It’s art. It’s not a competition. I think there’s room for a lot of different perspectives, and audiences respond to a great swath of different things. It’s great for animation, and the fact that it’s being pushed in so many different ways, I think it’s exciting.
What’s next for Pixar?
Our general approach is unchanged. We try to find fun subjects and tell them in a relatable and entertaining way. The next thing we have coming up is our first long-form streaming series, “Win or Lose.” We said, “If we’re going to do a series, we don’t want to do something expected. We want to push the limits as far as we can.” It looks like Pixar, but in a new flavor that we haven’t experienced before. It’s really cool.
We have “Inside Out” coming out next summer, and then “Elio.” That’s about a kid who feels like he doesn’t quite fit in. Somehow, he is selected to be the Earth’s representative at an intergalactic community of planets. The fate of the Earth is in this kid’s hands. We had an audience test screening last week. It’s compelling, fun and very funny.
As for “Inside Out,” a bunch more emotions get to come in. It’s not just the five we saw in the first film. The team on that one put together a really great story that I think also has real depth and meaning to it. So fingers crossed that people like it.
