Good catch. “Monsters, Inc.” was all about hair.
I am always impressed by the little jokes Pixar throws in their movies. Seeing a swarm of flying VW bugs made me realize this 
Anyone see the Apple sponsored car? It was aptly numbered 84. 
Wait…what?
This is poorly written, so I can’t tell if it’s wrong or if it doesn’t make sense.
Pixar has to date produced nothing for Walt Disney Feature Animation and we’ll likely never see something produced in-house by Pixar, but branded as a WDFA production. Pixar is a successful brand name and Disney wouldn’t likely abandon that brand in an effort to prop up its own productions. They will, however, try to get some of the folks from Pixar to imbue a bit of their own corporate culture into WDFA and try to revive it to its glory days.
I saw Cars … at a drive-in theater in Scranton, PA … during a *road trip * … to see the Pocono 500. Beat that. 
It’s hands-down my favorite 3D movie since Nemo. Ray-traced reflections were awesome, especially during the scene where they drive up the mountain path. See it!
As Madison has written, Pixar was only recently acquired by Disney in January. Here is an article about the acquisition.
Prior to this, Disney served mainly as the distributor for Pixar films, but took in the lion’s share of profits. Their original agreement was for Pixar to deliver a specific number of films, to which Disney would hold the rights for all sequels. To date, Toy Story 2 is the only sequel.
The delay of Cars may have been due to technical work, but it also didn’t help that an economic struggle was going on between Pixar (Steve Jobs, CEO) and Disney (Michael Eisner, then CEO). Pixar wanted a larger share of future profits, and Disney was unwilling to agree. The canning of Eisner led to a smoothing of relationships between the two companies, which finally ended up in Disney buying Pixar.
Disney would be insane to put their “brand” onto the Pixar movies. Name the 7 Pixar movies released to theaters, and then try to name the last seven Disney animations released to theaters. (Using the internet is CHEATING!)
An in the “Incredibles” it was all about water…
It’s funny how each movie, we all can pick out what they are trying to show off.
Hmmmm…
I thought Incredibles was more about them finally getting good human characters down.
Except it’s 117 mins x 60 x 24 x 17 / 24 = 119340 days or about 327 years. So, assuming that the article that said it took “3000 supercomputers 17 hours to render each frame” was slightly wrong, and meant to say it took 17 hours on each of the 3000 supercomputers, it took almost 40 days, or a little over a month.
I think you misspelled “Finding Nemo”
i would disagree. Finding nemo was primarily UNDER water. you only see the surface a few imes, and i thought that was pretty ugly, IMO. when modelling underwater, you don’t actually model the water. Yoou just treat it like it was air, and the fish are “flying.”
I think FN was all about lighting. I mean, the ENTIRE movie had caustics and shineys all over. the deepsea scene with the glowing angler fish, and nifty little reflection. that’s where it’s at.
I thought the humans in the Incredibles looked very “cartoonish” and I was more impressed with the humans in Toy Story 2. Technically I’d say nothing stands out in the Incredibles. Story wise and acting wise it is a very strong movie.
The plants in the jungle Island. thats all i can think off.
Honestly the forests in Oblivion are more note worthy than the forests in Incredibles.
http://movie-poster.ws/movies/wallpaper/cartoon/incredibles/New%20Folder/incredibles.jpg Incredibles
http://www.sg.hu/kep/2005_05/elder2.jpg Oblivion
Not a film but if your able to run a forest that amazing in a game that is definitely more not worthy than a long rendering film.
I don’t like the oblivion forests. all they are are cylinders with a plethora of 2d leave sprites, impressive fo a game, but nothing compared to the Incredibles’ forests.
i might say that the incredibles was showcasing refractions (heat off the lava, the girl’s glowy orb things, water) but maybe not. I’m kinda going from memory here. I personaly loved the hair, first human hair i ever saw and thought “wow.” another thing could be the human modelling. It’s true that they are cartoonish, but the way they are rigged is amazing. the motions are so smooth and natural, mostly. Seriously, How would YOU set up the skeleton for the stretchy girl (helen)? max doesn’t have any character rigging functions for stretch, far as I know. The incredibles didn’t have one thing that stood out to me, but i think it really took alot to another level.
I got it! Its particle effects. One of the last scenes when Buddy’s plane smashes into the incredibles family’s house the smoke from the explosion was amazing. It was until a couple of years latter when dreamworks could replicate it in “Over the hedge.” Also the fire scene in the “Incredibles” looked amazing too.
Well, I finally saw Cars, and I agree it was amazing. If anything, this movie was entirely about reflections. However, some of the scenery stuff was amazing. The only real complaint I had was that a lot of the distant scenery looked too good – the fact that it was so sharp and detailed made it look really fake. That said, the close up stuff was amazing. The scene when Lightning and Sally go driving through the woods is probably the most photorealistic thing I’ve seen in a Pixar movie (if you ignore the cartoonish talking cars).
Oh, and John Ratzenberger fans should make sure to stay through the credits!
Yup. I just saw Over The Hedge last night, and I kept looking for the different particle effects. It was done very well. The hair/fur on the animals was awesome too. Although I still haven’t gotten around to seeing Cars yet…
yeah, Over the hedge was great, the particles and fur was amazing! I could never do that 
. lol. I did see one error though. for like a fraction of a second, one of the characters moved back slightly, and his eyballs lagged behind. I would think that they would have linked the eyes to the skeleton, but I geuss not. I still haven’t seen cars yet. I probably will eventually
You must have the eyes of an eagle with binoculars. I thought the entire movie was flawless.
Doesn’t that count as a theater? Buy a pre-release and watch it at home.