[whywhywhywhy]

This is why every kid I know has only one Pixar film they rave about and that's Cars, objectively one of their worst films. Pixar films used to appeal to everyone now they just seem to try to appeal to people who grew up with Pixar and are now adults.

I'm not talking about the gender politics angle, I'm more just talking about they have moved from telling stories about a simple whimsical idea that captures all imaginations which follows through to emotion to maybe trying to be too clever and maybe poignant with their ideas, it's almost like they're writing to the target of an adult Pixar fan that needs validation for their interests rather than everyone.

Just feel like they've lost the joy along the way, putting a Pixar film feels like I'm going to be in for a emotional slog now rather than something enjoyable, can't imagine any child getting excited about watching Inside Out or Up (I understand this is a fan favorite for good reason, but is it any child's favorite?)

[twtw]

> objectively one of their worst films

I'm very intrigued by this - what kind of metrics does one use to objectively rank Pixar films?

[jerf]

Well, it reviews worse than a lot of Pixar movies. Although the idea that all Pixar movies review well is a bit of a selective memory thing too. I observe there's basically two tiers of Pixar movies, the ones that get 9+ out of 10, and the ones that come in at 7 or below. There's not a lot of "OK" Pixar movies, though Incredibles 2 happens to be one of them.

Also, somewhat ironically, I disagree that Cars (Metacritic: 73) is one of Pixar's worst, on the grounds that there are quite a few worse movies from Pixar, not least of which are the two sequels Cars 2 (Metacritic: 57) and Cars 3 (Metacritic: 59) and the spinoff Planes (Metacritic: 39 (!)). Cars is slow, and dripping with nostalgia callouts for people who are now in their 70s or 80s (I asked my father, currently mid-60s, and he said it was even older than anything he was nostalgic for), but it's at least watchable once.

[mttjj]

Worth pointing out that Planes is NOT a Pixar film so you can't count that in your metrics.

[jerf]

I did not know that. My apologies to Pixar.

[twtw]

Averaging subjective metrics doesn't turn them into an objective metric.

[jerf]

But it will be highly, highly correlated to any reasonable objective metric agreed to by the general public, so it's close enough for government work. I wouldn't use Metacritic to declare an 81 is better than an 80, but a 85 being better than a 44 is pretty solid.

Of course, there's a multiplicity of possible objective metrics, but then, that's why I phrased my sentence the way I did. You're free to define your own, but then, nobody else will care, either.

[twtw]

> any reasonable objective metric

Any true objective metric would rank films would likely be uncorrelated with reviews - stuff like frames per second, duration, resolution, etc.

I'm of the opinion that talking about "objective metrics" in a discussion of the quality of films makes zero sense. I don't think there is any meaningful way to say any film is objectively worse than another.

Perhaps it seems I'm being too narrow in my definition of "objective," but i don't think so. I'm using it to mean what the word actually means, instead of using "objectively" to mean "in my opinion, which is better than yours," which is how 'whywhywhywhy used it, as far as I can tel.

[jerf]

Which is why I said "will be highly, highly correlated to any reasonable objective metric", rather than "is an objective metric".

This is a technique used all the time in science and engineering, when the underlying hypothetical metric is either impossible to obtain or may not strictly speaking exist.

[tc7]

Frames per second.