玩具總動(dòng)員、海底總動(dòng)員、瓦力……提起皮克斯，一部部經(jīng)典的動(dòng)畫電影浮現(xiàn)在眼前。皮克斯動(dòng)畫通過其奇特卓絕的想象力和充滿人文關(guān)懷的內(nèi)核，成為很多人心中的動(dòng)畫之王。然而獨(dú)孤求敗的時(shí)代已經(jīng)過去，皮克如今正面臨著依靠系列電影撐門面而原創(chuàng)爆款不足的問題。一方面是老對(duì)手迪士尼的分庭抗禮，一方面是互聯(lián)網(wǎng)時(shí)代動(dòng)畫產(chǎn)業(yè)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)白熱化，皮克斯如何能夠突破藩籬，延續(xù)榮光？無論何時(shí)，老少咸宜的故事性和童趣表達(dá)后的深刻人文底色是其應(yīng)持續(xù)秉承的核心競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力。期待新時(shí)代的皮克斯，能繼續(xù)為觀眾帶來趣味和深度并存的動(dòng)畫電影。

皮克斯走下神壇

譯者：張?chǎng)谓?/span>

校對(duì)：朱星漢

導(dǎo)讀&筆記：田陽

策劃：王旻彥  朱小釗

How Pixar Lost Its Way

皮克斯走下神壇

本文選自 The Atlantic | 取經(jīng)號(hào)原創(chuàng)翻譯

關(guān)注 取經(jīng)號(hào)，回復(fù)關(guān)鍵詞“外刊”

獲取《經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)人》等原版外刊獲得方法

A well-regarded hollywood insider recently suggested that sequels can represent “a sort of creative bankruptcy.” He was discussing Pixar, the legendary animation studio, and its avowed distaste for cheap spin-offs. More pointedly, he argued that if Pixar were only to make sequels, it would “wither and die.” Now, all kinds of industry experts say all kinds of things. But it is surely relevant that these observations were made by Ed Catmull, the president of Pixar, in his best-selling 2014 business-leadership book .

一位德高望重的好萊塢業(yè)內(nèi)人士最近宣稱，影視公司一味地推出續(xù)集，意味著其“創(chuàng)意源泉的枯竭”。他所暗指的，正是大名鼎鼎的皮克斯動(dòng)畫工作室。皮克斯曾公開宣布不會(huì)出品粗制濫造的續(xù)集。接著，該業(yè)內(nèi)人士更尖銳地指出，如果皮克斯只是炒冷飯，則“命不久矣”。雖然當(dāng)今世界，專家橫行，指點(diǎn)江山，大大貶損了專業(yè)意見的可信度，但以上意見絕非無關(guān)痛癢之言，因?yàn)樗鲎云た怂构ぷ魇抑飨?，艾德·卡特?014年出版的一本企業(yè)管理暢銷書。

spin off  衍生產(chǎn)品，周邊產(chǎn)品，附帶結(jié)果 A spin-off is an unexpected but useful or valuable result of an activity that was designed to achieve something else.

Yet here comes Cars 3, rolling into a theater near you this month. You may recall that the original Cars, released back in 2006, was widely judged to be the studio’s worst film to date. Cars 2, which followed five years later, was panned as even worse. And if Cars 3 isn’t disheartening enough, two of the three Pixar films in line after it are also sequels: The Incredibles 2 and (say it isn’t so!) Toy Story 4.

然而，《賽車總動(dòng)員3》還是如約而至（2016年6月16日），在本月（本文發(fā)表于2017年6月）席卷各個(gè)電影院。此情此景不禁讓人想起，2006年發(fā)行的第一部《賽車總動(dòng)員》被公認(rèn)為當(dāng)時(shí)皮克斯最爛電影。而五年之后發(fā)行的第二部惡評(píng)更甚。如果各位看官捱得過爛片如《賽車總動(dòng)員3》，大可不必失望，接下來還有《超人總動(dòng)員2》和《玩具總動(dòng)員4》兩部續(xù)作。而皮克斯之頹勢(shì)，就連真的超人也無回天之力。

（譯者注：《賽車總動(dòng)員3》2016年6月16日，《超人總動(dòng)員2》2018.6.15，《玩具總動(dòng)員4》2019.6.21，本文發(fā)表于2017年6月）

The painful verdict is all but indisputable: The golden era of Pixar is over. It was a 15-year run of unmatched commercial and creative excellence, beginning with Toy Story in 1995 and culminating with the extraordinary trifecta of wall-e in 2008, Up in 2009, and Toy Story 3 (yes, a sequel, but a great one) in 2010. Since then, other animation studios have made consistently better films. The stop-motion magicians at Laika have supplied such gems as Coraline and Kubo and the Two Strings. And, in a stunning reversal, Walt Disney Animation Studios—adrift at the time of its 2006 acquisition of the then-untouchable Pixar—has rebounded with such successes as Tangled, Wreck-It Ralph, Frozen, and Big Hero 6. One need only look at this year’s Oscars: Two Disney movies, Zootopia and Moana, were nominated for Best Animated Feature, and Zootopia won. Pixar’s Finding Dory was shut out altogether.

皮克斯的黃金時(shí)代早已成為歷史，這一論斷雖然殘酷，但不容置疑。皮克斯走過了15年光輝歲月，其間才華橫溢，盈利也無出其右。1995年上映的《玩具總動(dòng)員1》標(biāo)志了其事業(yè)的起步。2008年的《機(jī)器人總動(dòng)員》將事業(yè)推向高潮，2009年的《飛屋環(huán)游記》和2010年的《玩具總動(dòng)員3》使皮克斯人氣持續(xù)走高?！锻婢呖倓?dòng)員3》雖然是續(xù)作，但依然出色。至此，皮克斯工作室完成了史詩般的三戰(zhàn)三捷。但在此之后，其他工作室持續(xù)推出了許多更高質(zhì)量的電影。萊卡動(dòng)畫工作室專注定格動(dòng)畫，其員工匠心獨(dú)運(yùn)，為世人呈現(xiàn)了如《鬼媽媽》、《魔弦傳奇》等動(dòng)畫電影珍寶。華特迪士尼動(dòng)畫工作室于2006年收購當(dāng)時(shí)炙手可熱的皮克斯動(dòng)畫工作室，在此之后卻萎靡不振。但其之后的作品，如《長(zhǎng)發(fā)公主》、《無敵破壞王》、《冰雪奇緣》、《超能陸戰(zhàn)隊(duì)》的熱映，使其完成了華麗逆轉(zhuǎn)，重振往日雄風(fēng)。今年的奧斯卡獎(jiǎng)便是逆轉(zhuǎn)的證明：《瘋狂動(dòng)物城》和《海洋奇緣》兩部迪士尼作品同時(shí)獲得最佳動(dòng)畫電影提名，而獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)花落《瘋狂動(dòng)物城》。但皮克斯工作室的《海洋總動(dòng)員2》甚至未能斬獲一項(xiàng)奧斯卡提名。

adrift /??dr?ft/ adj. 漂浮，漂流；茫然的，無所適從的 If someone is adrift, they feel alone with no clear idea of what they should do

This thriving expansion of high-quality animated storytelling would not have been possible without Pixar. The studio literally reinvented the genre with Toy Story, the first computer-generated 3-D-animated feature film. Each subsequent Pixar release offered new feats of technical wizardry, from engineering the delicate trajectories of millions of individual strands of fur in 2001’s Monsters, Inc. to capturing the wondrous interplay between light and water in 2003’s Finding Nemo.

如果沒有皮克斯，也就不會(huì)有動(dòng)畫電影質(zhì)量上升，百花齊放的現(xiàn)狀。皮克斯的《玩具總動(dòng)員1》是第一部電腦制作的3D動(dòng)畫電影，給業(yè)界帶來了一場(chǎng)革命。從2001年上映的《怪獸電力公司》中，每一根毛發(fā)柔和飛揚(yáng)的效果，到2003年《海底總動(dòng)員1》中令人嘆為觀止的海水和光影交織的效果，其隨后發(fā)行的每一部作品都各具特色，充滿科技的靈巧。

reinvent /?ri?.?n?vent/ v.  徹底改變；改造 To reinvent something means to change it so that it seems different and new.

Even as others gradually caught up with Pixar’s visual artistry, the studio continued to tell stories of unparalleled depth and sophistication. Pixar’s signature achievement was to perfect a kind of crossover animated cinema that appealed equally to kids and adults. The key was managing to tell two stories at once, constructing a straightforward children’s story atop a more complex moral and narrative architecture. Up, for example, took a relatively conventional boy’s adventure tale and harnessed it to a moving, thoroughly grown-up story of loss, grief, and renewal.

即使在后來，其他工作室逐漸在視覺效果方面能和皮克斯并駕齊驅(qū)，但仍難以匹及其電影劇情的深度和精妙之處。皮克斯最大的成就在于其使動(dòng)畫電影同等迎合成人與兒童的口味，從而拓寬了動(dòng)畫電影受眾面。此中關(guān)鍵在于將故事講出兩種意味，在復(fù)雜的道德背景和敘事結(jié)構(gòu)中，講述一個(gè)直白的兒童故事。如《飛屋環(huán)游記》，雖然題材是傳統(tǒng)的男孩冒險(xiǎn)故事，最后卻將其引入了另一層維度——關(guān)于愛人離世后抑郁寡歡，最后學(xué)會(huì)勇敢向前的一個(gè)感人至深的完完全全屬于成人的故事。

The theme that the studio mined with greatest success during its first decade and a half was parenthood, whether real (Finding Nemo, The Incredibles) or implicit (Monsters, Inc., Up). Pixar’s distinctive insight into parent–child relations stood out from the start, in Toy Story, and lost none of its power in two innovative and unified sequels. “Who would want to see a movie about a little boy who plays with dolls?,” Michael Eisner, then the CEO of Disney, obtusely asked when told of plans for the Pixar debut. (Disney was to co-finance it.) But the film’s creative premise is precisely—and crucially—the reverse: Toy Story is a movie about dolls who want to be played with by a little boy.

皮克斯前15年深入發(fā)掘親子題材，帶來了巨大的成功。其中親子關(guān)系有真實(shí)的，如《海底總動(dòng)員》和《超人總動(dòng)員》，也有隱晦的，如《怪獸電力公司》。皮克斯對(duì)于親子關(guān)系的獨(dú)到見解，從第一部《玩具總動(dòng)員》就引人注目。從系列整體看，之后兩部續(xù)作飽含創(chuàng)意，對(duì)親子關(guān)系的探討依舊獨(dú)具洞察力。迪士尼原本打算和皮克斯共籌資金拍攝《玩具總動(dòng)員》。當(dāng)時(shí)的迪士尼CEO邁克爾·艾斯納在得知《玩具總動(dòng)員》的計(jì)劃之后，曾提出過很愚笨的質(zhì)疑：“小男孩玩玩具的電影有什么好看的?！弊罱K電影《玩具總動(dòng)員》的前提設(shè)定和艾斯納的想法正相反，它講的是玩具想要陪小男孩玩的故事。這個(gè)設(shè)定對(duì)電影至關(guān)重要。

obtuse /?b?tju?s/ adj. 遲鈍的；愚笨的 Someone who is obtuse has difficulty understanding things, or makes no effort to understand them.

That inversion complicates and intensifies the film’s emotional power. In their desire for the attention of 6-year-old Andy, the toys—particularly Woody the cowboy and Buzz Lightyear the spaceman—mirror children’s eagerness to capture their parents’ attention. Yet of course Andy is not a parent. He’s a child, and it’s the toys that are mostly accorded the role of grown-ups. (An astute bit of psychological realism: Andy, like most kids, uses them to pantomime adulthood.) So even as, on one level, Woody and Buzz act as children to Andy’s parent, on another they act as parents to Andy’s child: His happiness is their responsibility, and they will resort to the most-extreme measures imaginable to ensure it.

關(guān)系的顛倒錯(cuò)位，也使電影情感更豐富，更激烈。以牛仔胡迪和巴斯光年為代表的玩具們渴望得到6歲的主人安迪注意力，恰好反映了兒童渴望得到父母注意的心理。但安迪只是兒童，并不是家長(zhǎng)。對(duì)他來說，玩具才代表了成人，其形象和成人的形象最為相似。這一點(diǎn)精妙地反映了兒童心理，在現(xiàn)實(shí)中也有對(duì)應(yīng)：和大多數(shù)兒童一樣，安迪用玩具過家家，模擬成人生活。所以，至少在這一層面上，胡迪和巴斯光年對(duì)應(yīng)的角色是兒童，安迪對(duì)應(yīng)父母；但在另一層面上，胡迪和巴斯光年的責(zé)任就是讓安迪快樂，而且會(huì)竭盡所能讓安迪開心。在這一層面上，巴斯光年和胡迪對(duì)應(yīng)父母，而安迪對(duì)應(yīng)兒童。

Toy Story thrilled adults and kids alike with this canny and moving portrayal of the parent–child bond. And its creators seemed to appreciate what a rich emotional and dramatic vein they had tapped into. Following the movie’s success, Disney, then the distributor for Pixar, pushed for the production of a quickly made, direct-to-video sequel. Such second-tier fare has long been a lucrative Disney sideline, generally produced by the in-house subsidiary Disneytoon Studios. (Examples of its output include such classics as The Lion King 1?? and The Little Mermaid: Ariel’s Beginning.) But Pixar rebelled, on the grounds that the studio aspired only to excellence. Instead it produced, at breakneck pace, a theatrical-release sequel that met the high bar set by the original.

《玩具總動(dòng)員》通過恰到好處地描寫親子關(guān)系，打動(dòng)了不少家長(zhǎng)和兒童，其主創(chuàng)人員也認(rèn)為自己涉足的題材富有情感和戲劇性，并對(duì)此感到滿意。迪士尼推動(dòng)了皮克斯電影錄像帶和電影上映同步售賣，提高了續(xù)集的制作速度，也是當(dāng)時(shí)皮克斯電影錄像帶的批發(fā)商。迪士尼長(zhǎng)時(shí)間把擔(dān)任中間人，批發(fā)錄像帶當(dāng)做副業(yè)，并且盈利頗豐。迪士尼旗下的迪士尼卡通工作室隸屬于公司內(nèi)部，曾制作過《獅子王3》和《小美人魚：愛麗兒的起源》等經(jīng)典電影。迪士尼也主要批發(fā)出售該工作室制作的電影的錄像帶。但皮克斯認(rèn)為，動(dòng)畫工作室應(yīng)當(dāng)專注追求卓越的品質(zhì)，并因此拋棄了和迪士尼的盟友關(guān)系。在此之后，皮克斯焚膏繼晷，以驚人的速度制作出一部專供院線的《玩具總動(dòng)員》續(xù)集。這部續(xù)作保持了和前作一般的高水準(zhǔn)。

In his 2014 book, Creativity, Inc., Catmull describes the episode as “the crucible in which Pixar’s true identity was forged.” Toy Story 2 (1999) didn’t merely equal the original. The sequel enriched it, presenting Woody with a new but related quasi-parental dilemma: Should he spend the rest of his life untouched and pristine on the shelf of a vintage-toy collector? Or should he return to enjoy loving play with a rowdy boy (as the movie opens, Andy has inadvertently torn Woody’s arm half off) who will ultimately outgrow and discard him? In the end, Woody opts for the messy combination of joy and sacrifice with Andy, as apt a metaphor for parenthood as you’re likely to find. And with its foreshadowing of eventual abandonment, Toy Story 2 laid the groundwork for still further thematic development. That promise was fulfilled almost a decade later, in Toy Story 3, a concluding chapter in which Andy finally heads off to college and a new life, leaving behind toys and parents alike.

卡特姆在他2014年出版的書籍《Creativity, Inc.》（《創(chuàng)意公司》）中，把這一時(shí)期形容為“鑄就皮克斯靈魂的煉丹爐”。1999年上映的《玩具總動(dòng)員2》不僅保持了和原作一樣的高水準(zhǔn)，而且豐富了故事的內(nèi)涵。在電影一開始，胡迪的一個(gè)手臂已經(jīng)被安迪不小心扯下。此時(shí)胡迪進(jìn)退兩難，面臨的挑戰(zhàn)和親子關(guān)系中的挑戰(zhàn)有些類似：到底是應(yīng)該在古董玩具收藏架上了卻余生，盡量保持原裝狀態(tài)，還是盡管知道那個(gè)調(diào)皮的小男孩終將長(zhǎng)大，拋棄自己，仍選擇和他一起玩耍？在影片結(jié)尾，胡迪選擇留在安迪身邊。這一決定對(duì)胡迪意味著犧牲，但犧牲中也交織著喜悅。大部分人都讀出了這一情節(jié)既暗喻親子關(guān)系，也暗喻了胡迪終將被拋棄的命運(yùn)。這也為進(jìn)一步的主題展開做了鋪墊?！锻婢呖倓?dòng)員3》是系列終章，上映于近十年之后。在第三部中，安迪邁向了大學(xué)生活，離開了父母，也離開了玩具們。這樣的結(jié)尾，也總算呼應(yīng)了前作的伏筆。

（譯者注：Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the Unseen Forces That Stand in the Way of True Inspiration）

Almost as renowned as Pixar’s onscreen magic throughout this period was its collaborative culture. Under the leadership of the studio’s founder and creative guru, John Lasseter, it relied heavily on a small, mutually reinforcing group of gifted animators and editors: Pete Docter, Andrew Stanton, Joe Ranft, Lee Unkrich, and Brad Bird (who joined Pixar in 2000). Known informally as the “Braintrust,” the group grew over time, but these five men and Lasseter stood out for their collegial self-criticism and ethos of constant refinement in the pursuit of perfection. So strong was their synergy that every time outside directors were brought in to handle a film (as they were for Toy Story 2 and Ratatouille), they were ultimately replaced by one of the early members of the Braintrust. In 2004, a Disney subsidiary, Circle 7 Animation, was created to produce sequels to Pixar films. Dubbed “Pixaren’t,” its doors were soon closed and all its scripts scrapped.

在皮克斯的黃金時(shí)期，人們津津樂道的不僅是其高超的銀幕技術(shù)，還有工作室內(nèi)的協(xié)作文化。當(dāng)時(shí)皮克斯由創(chuàng)始人和創(chuàng)意領(lǐng)袖約翰·拉塞特領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，大部分事務(wù)由一個(gè)小組處理。小組內(nèi)有一大批才華橫溢的動(dòng)畫家與編輯，包括彼特·道格特，安德魯·斯坦頓，喬·蘭夫特，李·昂克里奇和2000年加入皮克斯的布拉德·博德，他們互相幫助。大家私下里把這個(gè)小組稱為“智囊團(tuán)”。約翰·拉塞特和最初的五位成員追求完美，以學(xué)生般的謙虛態(tài)度展開自我批評(píng)，并且持之以恒地對(duì)作品精雕細(xì)琢。雖然“智囊團(tuán)”規(guī)模不斷壯大，但這六位成員因此仍然卓爾不群。他們的協(xié)作早已十分默契，外人短時(shí)間內(nèi)無法融入。因此每當(dāng)有外來導(dǎo)演插手影片制作，最終都會(huì)被老“智囊團(tuán)”的成員取代。類似事件在制作《玩具總動(dòng)員2》和《美食總動(dòng)員》曾發(fā)生過。2004年，迪士尼專門為制作皮克斯動(dòng)畫續(xù)集成立了Circle 7動(dòng)畫工作室，該工作室附屬于迪士尼。但皮克斯拒絕合作，Circle 7也很快被解散，所有工作也都付之一炬。

And then, after Toy Story 3, the Pixar magic began to fade. The last film of the golden era, it was also the first film begun after Disney acquired Pixar for $7.4 billion in 2006, when Lasseter and Catmull were made, respectively, the chief creative officer and the president of both studios. The sequels that followed—Cars 2 (a spy spoof) in 2011 and Monsters University (a college farce) in 2013—lacked any thematic or emotional connection to the movies that spawned them. Though better than either of those two, Brave, Pixar’s 2012 foray into princessdom,was a disappointment as well. The studio rallied with Inside Out in 2015. But the inferior The Good Dinosaur (also in 2015) and last year’s mediocre Finding Dory only confirmed the overall decline, which was particularly noticeable in comparison with the revival under way over at Disney Animation.

然而，在《玩具總動(dòng)員3》之后，皮克斯的光輝也逐漸消散。2006年上映的《賽車總動(dòng)員》是是迪士尼以74億美元收購皮克斯之后，開機(jī)制作的第一部作品，也標(biāo)志著黃金時(shí)代的謝幕。在那年，拉塞特和卡特姆也分別被任命為迪士尼首席創(chuàng)意官和皮克斯工作室主席。皮克斯之后推出的續(xù)作，比如間諜惡搞題材的《賽車總動(dòng)員2》和大學(xué)喜劇《怪獸大學(xué)》，與前作完全沒有主題亦或情感上的聯(lián)系。之后皮克斯大膽嘗試制作公主題材電影，推出了《勇敢傳說》。雖然本作質(zhì)量高于前兩部，但仍難以服眾。2015年，皮克斯集中全力，制作出了《頭腦特工隊(duì)》。但同年的《恐龍當(dāng)家》和《海底總動(dòng)員2：多莉去哪》表現(xiàn)中下。相較于迪士尼動(dòng)畫工作室的重整旗鼓，皮克斯的全面退步尤為明顯。

spawn /sp??n/ v. 產(chǎn)生，造成，引起 If something spawns something else, it causes it to happen or to be created.

Catmull once said that Pixar’s intent was to make one sequel for every two original features. The ratio since 2010 has been closer to the inverse. Especially lamentable was the announcement, in 2014, of plans for Toy Story 4. The narrative and emotional arc of the trilogy had clearly been completed with Andy’s departure for college. The third installment had even closed, lovingly, with a shot that neatly mirrored the opening shot of the first film: the fluffy-white-clouds-on-blue-sky wallpaper of young Andy’s bedroom in Toy Story giving way to real white clouds in the real blue sky. Yet instead of concluding on that touching note, Pixar has opted for what has been described as a “franchise reboot”—surely the most dispiriting phrase in contemporary cinema.

卡特姆曾經(jīng)說過，皮克斯本來只打算為每?jī)刹吭瓌?chuàng)電影之一制作續(xù)集，但從2010年以來，這一比例幾乎倒置。皮克斯在2014年宣布制作《玩具總動(dòng)員4》，令人唏噓不已?！锻婢呖倓?dòng)員3》結(jié)尾安迪離開家鄉(xiāng)，開始大學(xué)生活，已經(jīng)標(biāo)志了系列三部曲在情感歷程和敘事結(jié)構(gòu)上的完滿。另外，第三部的結(jié)尾，出現(xiàn)了白云漂浮在藍(lán)天上的一幕，這里和第一部開頭中小安迪臥室墻紙上的場(chǎng)景一樣，通過呼應(yīng)巧妙地結(jié)束全系列。但皮克斯并沒有利用如此感人的結(jié)尾，反而選擇對(duì)《玩具總動(dòng)員》進(jìn)行“全系列重置”。而這一行為在當(dāng)代電影業(yè)中，無疑是最讓人寒心的一幕。

The differing trajectories of Pixar and Disney Animation have hardly gone unremarked. At the time of the merger, Disney was “demoralized” and “failing as a company,” Catmull observed a couple of years ago, before adding, “Disney is now successful.” About Pixar, he was less sanguine: “There are major issues we’re addressing at Pixar now.”

皮克斯和迪士尼截然不同的命運(yùn)在業(yè)界廣受關(guān)注?？ㄌ啬吩?jīng)對(duì)兩家公司做出過分析。他認(rèn)為，在兩家公司合并時(shí)，迪士尼“潰不成軍，整體也在走向衰落”。但對(duì)于皮克斯，他的態(tài)度卻更悲觀：“現(xiàn)今階段，皮克斯內(nèi)部面臨許多嚴(yán)峻問題?！?/span>

sanguine /?s??.gw?n/ adj. 樂天的；樂觀的 If you are sanguine about something, you are cheerful and confident that things will happen in the way you want them to.

Lasseter and Catmull do, after all, have only so many hours in their days to devote to their competing obligations at Pixar and Disney, as Catmull made clear in his book. If the studio with the corporate parent’s name on it took precedence, that would hardly be a surprise. Nor would it be surprising if the dilution of focus took a toll, given how dependent Pixar’s culture was on an intimate circle of innovative minds. (Other Braintrust members have been pursuing interests beyond Pixar too: Stanton explored live-action filmmaking with John Carter, and Bird did the same with Mission: Impossible—Ghost Protocol and Tomorrowland.)

卡特姆曾在書中明確地指出，他和拉塞特當(dāng)時(shí)幾乎無暇主導(dǎo)皮克斯和迪士尼的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。而當(dāng)時(shí)，人們都認(rèn)為迪士尼公司會(huì)占據(jù)領(lǐng)先地位。而皮克斯十分依賴“智囊團(tuán)”團(tuán)結(jié)一致，人們普遍認(rèn)為皮克斯會(huì)為自己注意力的分散付出代價(jià)?！爸悄覉F(tuán)”成員曾在公司外效力，比如斯坦頓曾經(jīng)為《異星戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)》（迪士尼公司）中提供實(shí)景制作技術(shù)，以此進(jìn)行測(cè)試。博德也曾為《碟中諜4》（派拉蒙）和《明日世界》（迪士尼）中提供該技術(shù)。

Still, the erosion of Pixar’s uncompromising creative independence can’t be reduced to a case of inadequate oversight. The Disney merger seems to have brought with it new imperatives. Pixar has always been very good at making money, but historically it did so largely on its own terms. The studio, remember, rejected a low-quality direct-to-video Toy Story 2, and instead worked round the clock to come up with another tour de force. But Lasseter, among his other obligations, now oversees Disneytoon Studios as well. In that capacity he served as the executive producer of 2013’s Planes and its 2014 sequel, Planes: Fire & Rescue. The two movies are—like virtually all Disneytoon films—shameless, derivative cash grabs. What makes them unique is that they are also explicit spin-offs of Pixar’s Cars franchise, a development that would have been almost unimaginable before the merger. As Lasseter himself explained, “By expanding the Cars world, Planes gave us a whole new set of fun-filled situations.”

不過，皮克斯毫不妥協(xié)、特立獨(dú)行的創(chuàng)造性精神逐漸逝去，不能被簡(jiǎn)單認(rèn)為是缺乏監(jiān)督的結(jié)果。皮克斯被迪士尼并購之后，似乎被賦予了新的使命。從其歷史來看，皮克斯很善于盈利，但大部分盈利作品都由其獨(dú)立制作。曾記否，它曾經(jīng)拒絕發(fā)售低質(zhì)量的同步上映《玩具總動(dòng)員2》錄像帶，并且拋棄盟友，夜以繼日地制作出了另一部佳作。拉塞特身兼數(shù)職，并且是迪士尼卡通工作室現(xiàn)任掌門人。他也因此擔(dān)任了2013年《飛機(jī)總動(dòng)員》和其2014年續(xù)作，《飛機(jī)總動(dòng)員：火線救援》的監(jiān)制。而這兩部電影和迪士尼卡通工作室所有電影一樣，不過是無恥的圈錢續(xù)作。這一系列唯一的亮點(diǎn)在于，它們是《賽車總動(dòng)員》系列的續(xù)作。但這樣的事件在并購之前的皮克斯都無法想象。拉塞特本人辯解道：“《飛機(jī)總動(dòng)員》充滿了妙趣橫生的場(chǎng)景，豐富了《賽車總動(dòng)員》的世界設(shè)定?！?/span>

Not to mention a whole new set of toys. Merchandising has, naturally, always been a temptation for Pixar (as for any purveyor of kids’ movies). And Disney has played a central role in the marketing and merchandising of Pixar films since 1991. But when you become a division of the largest entertainment conglomerate in the history of the world, commercial opportunities multiply exponentially. There are a dozen Disney theme parks scattered across the globe in need of, well, themes for their rides. So the year after its acquisition of Pixar, Disney announced that it would open Toy Story Midway Mania the following year at both Disney World and Disney California Adventure. Later in 2007, Disney announced a $1.1 billion redesign of its failing California Adventure park, featuring a new, 12-acre Cars Land. Additional Toy Story– and Finding Nemo–themed rides are in the works in Shanghai and Tokyo.

發(fā)售包括玩具在內(nèi)的周邊對(duì)于，任何兒童電影制作公司都十分具有誘惑力。皮克斯也不例外。自從1991年以來，迪士尼就一直是皮克斯電影市場(chǎng)宣傳的中堅(jiān)力量。而在成為娛樂業(yè)巨頭——迪士尼的附屬后，皮克斯的商業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)呈指數(shù)級(jí)增長(zhǎng)。全球有許多迪士尼樂園，其游樂設(shè)施缺乏題材。因此，在并購皮克斯的第二年之后，迪士尼宣布在奧蘭多的迪士尼世界和迪士尼加州冒險(xiǎn)樂園添加玩具總動(dòng)員主題的Toy Story Midway Mania設(shè)施。在2007年，迪士尼又宣布投入11億美元，用于對(duì)逐漸破敗的迪士尼加州冒險(xiǎn)樂園進(jìn)行重修。新樂園新在一個(gè)占地12英畝的《賽車總動(dòng)員》園區(qū)。同時(shí)，上海和東京的迪士尼樂園也正在修建《玩具總動(dòng)員》和《海底總動(dòng)員》主題的游樂設(shè)施。

Indeed, the overlap between the Pixar movies that beget sequels and the movies that inspire rides at Disney amusement parks is all but total. Theme-park rides are premised on an awareness of the theme in question, and young parkgoers are less likely to be familiar with movies that are more than a decade old. If you want them clamoring to experience Toy Story Midway Mania, they’ll need a Toy Story 4. Cars Land could use a Cars 3, and Finding Nemo–associated rides were due a Finding Dory. Who better to preside over all this corporate synergy than Lasseter—who, to note yet one more of his many titles, is also the “principal creative adviser” for Walt Disney Imagineering, the subsidiary responsible for designing the rides?

皮克斯的系列電影才是促使迪士尼開發(fā)游樂設(shè)施的電影。哪些是令人們感興趣的大熱主題，主題公園就會(huì)建設(shè)什么樣的游樂設(shè)施，年輕一代對(duì)那些十多年前的電影可能不太熟悉，新的《玩具總動(dòng)員4》才能激起他們游覽《玩具總動(dòng)員》主題園區(qū)的熱情。對(duì)于《賽車總動(dòng)員》和《海洋總動(dòng)員》，也需要新作來保持年輕一代的熱情。拉塞特是主導(dǎo)迪士尼內(nèi)部協(xié)作的最佳人選，他提出：自己除了目前已有的諸多職務(wù)之外，還是華特迪士尼幻想工程的“主要?jiǎng)?chuàng)意顧問”，這一職位的次要職責(zé)就是設(shè)計(jì)游樂設(shè)施。除他之外，何人能出此言？

Pixar has promised that after the upcoming glut of sequels, the studio will focus on original features. But we’re grown-ups, and though the once inimitable studio has taught us to believe in renewal, it has also trained us in grief and loss. I’m not sure I dare to expect much more of what used to make Pixar Pixar: the idiosyncratic stories, the deep emotional resonance, the subtle themes that don’t easily translate into amusement-park rides. I’m thinking of the heartbreaking, waltz-set “Married Life” segment of Up, which packs more emotion into four minutes than most Oscar-nominated dramas manage in their entire running time. Or the wistful solitude of wall-e’s robotic protagonist, left behind on Earth to clean up his creators’ mess. Or Anton Ego’s artful critique of criticism at the end of Ratatouille, arguably the slyest words on the subject since Addison DeWitt’s in All About Eve.

盡管皮克斯已經(jīng)承諾，在長(zhǎng)時(shí)間用續(xù)集轟炸市場(chǎng)后，他們會(huì)回歸原本，但老粉絲都早已長(zhǎng)大成人。皮克斯制作的續(xù)集，不僅讓我們感動(dòng)過，也因?yàn)橘|(zhì)量不佳等問題，讓我們對(duì)這個(gè)偉大的工作室感到沮喪和惋惜。早期皮克斯動(dòng)畫靈魂，包括氣質(zhì)獨(dú)特的故事情節(jié)，深層次的情感共鳴和若隱若現(xiàn)的主題思想，這些都不能輕易轉(zhuǎn)化為游樂設(shè)施的主題，筆者本人不敢奢望這些本質(zhì)的回歸。相反，更感動(dòng)我的是《飛屋環(huán)游記》的一個(gè)感人片段，四分鐘華爾茲背景音樂《Married Life》中流淌出的情感比大多數(shù)奧斯卡提名的電影全劇包含的感情還要豐富；是《機(jī)器人總動(dòng)員》主人公瓦力被遺棄于地球，清理人類留下的臟亂環(huán)境的孤獨(dú)凄慘；也是《美食總動(dòng)員》結(jié)尾安東·柯博對(duì)于“評(píng)論”（柯博是美食評(píng)論家）的精明見解，它絕對(duì)是繼《彗星美人》中愛迪生·德懷特的臺(tái)詞之后最精妙的論斷。

idiosyncratic  /'?dio?s??kr'?t?k/ adj. 乖僻的；怪異的 If you describe someone's actions or characteristics as idiosyncratic, you mean that they are rather unusual.

None of these films is scheduled to have a sequel. And none is particularly suited to becoming a theme-park ride (though Disney unveiled Ratatouille: The Adventure at, of course, Disneyland Paris). Which can’t help but raise the question: Would Pixar even bother making those pictures anymore?

雖然迪士尼宣布要在巴黎迪士尼樂園中建設(shè)《美食總動(dòng)員》園區(qū)，但以上這些作品，不僅從一開始就沒有續(xù)集計(jì)劃，也沒有哪部比較適合來打造主題樂園的游樂設(shè)施。不過問題是：皮克斯現(xiàn)在還會(huì)絞盡腦汁去制作偉大的作品嗎？

#讀譯交流#

后臺(tái)回復(fù) 讀譯會(huì)，參與取經(jīng)號(hào)Q群交流

#外刊資源#

后臺(tái)回復(fù) 外刊，獲取《經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)人》等原版外刊獲得方法

#關(guān)注取經(jīng)號(hào)#

掃描 二維碼，關(guān)注跑得快的取經(jīng)號(hào)（id: JTWest）

<原文鏈接：https: www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/how-pixar-lost-its-way/524484/="">