Pixar movies have gone down in quality

Good argument, Con. I'll respond in the same style as yours through rebuttal, and as you said, some of what I say may vary based on opinion, but I will post it if I find it essential to my case. 1. I agree with you that this is a concept that may vary depending on what triggers a person's emotional responses and is not information that can be set in stone, but you pointed out that you were less than impressed with Toy Story 3 and found Brave to be a better film. You used the adjectives "cheesy and distasteful" to describe it, but as one of my favorite Pixar films, I feel the need to defend why I thought it was a successful film. a. You claimed that the line "So long, partner" caused "the masses to break down in tears and agony" while you thought it was too cheesy. Personally, I think a little waterworks are acceptable for this scene. For some people, that scene brought back memories to the previous two films which came out 15 and 11 years prior respectively. There may have been adults in the theater who were still considered children when they saw the original film and cried for the sake of nostalgia. This line signified more than just what was happening on screen- it signified an end to the franchise so many people had come to love and grow up with. (Note that this was before the speculation of Toy Story 4.) b. In terms of creativity, I thought the interpretation of the daycare being a prison for the toys to break out of made for a unique story. The plot managed to flow well with Woody finding a new home for the toys and plenty of action and humor to match it. Especially considering that the film is a second sequel, I thought the film was clever. Brave however, just felt dry in comparison to this and most previous Pixar films. The plot, to me, was just a slightly altered retelling of Brother Bear that was made to appeal to the fans who wanted a female protagonist. It's for this reason that I believe it won the best animated feature Oscar that year instead of the arguably more creative Wreck-It-Ralph. (Although that's probably a discussion for another time.) What I am trying to say with all this (besides defending my preferences) is that Toy Story 3, while it has been considered overrated and has been criticized by many (including you, Con), it can't be denied that it is in fact, a successful film. It is as of yet the most recent film by the studio to be nominated for best picture, and as Pixar's two most recent films did not even receive a nomination for best animated feature, the only films not to since the creation of the Academy Award category, which is part of my evidence as to why I believe Pixar's quality in film-making is declining. They had what I'm going to consider a misstep with Cars back in 2006 (it was considered by a majority of critics to be a step down from all of their previous films and it was the only one so far not to win the Oscar for best animated feature since the creation of the category), but managed to bounce back with Ratatouille which continued the successful trend. So far, there has not been any "bouncing back" from the studio. (This is also my main rebuttal to your third point.) (Some of these statistics were verified through IMDB and HollywoodReporter.) 2. What Con says about my belief that Pixar is giving up is a good argument, but I have to point out this. The films scheduled for the future include Finding Dory, Cars 3, Toy Story 4, and Incredibles 2. What these films all have in common is that they are sequels. Yes, they may spend a lot of time and money on these upcoming films, but this may also mean that Pixar is running out of ideas. Yes, they have original ideas with the upcoming Inside Out and in the past with Brave, but with so many sequels in preparation, it makes me wonder just how many original ideas the company has left. Pixar can afford to spend money on these films because the company knows it will receive a lot of money in the box office as they usually have in the past. To me, this is not the best way to judge their level of effort on the film as it is done, in my opinion, for the money and not because of how much they value the art they are putting out. 3. While I already gave most of my opinion on Con's third point in an above paragraph, I will add one more thing. Con states "people spend money on a movie with higher quality and standard than one that lacks substance and originality". This is not necessarily true. As Pixar has established itself as a contender in the animation department, there will be loyal followers who attend every screening simply for the people behind it despite the overall quality of the film. Also, being an animation studio, a large demographic includes children, who are most likely not going to be the best judge of quality films just yet. 4. In response to the flaws Con pointed out to me: A. I should point out that Dreamworks, while many films are distributed by Disney, is NOT owned by Disney (info via dreamworksstudios.com). Con was however, right to point out that Disney owns Pixar. I mentioned it separately because I was referring to Disney films that had no affiliation with Pixar. B. I understand Con's way of thinking in terms of the trailer, but I still believe it is done this way to remind viewers of previous (and arguably better) films that made viewers respect the company. Of course this statement is just my opinion as was yours, but I would have preferred to see more about the film that I was viewing the trailer for. Also, I should point out that I did not mean that they were reiterating the same concepts, just that they were throwing in previous film scenes to "pat themselves on the back" so to speak. C. For the lying in the snow scene, I did mean display resolution, and I agree that the animation has improved since then. Still, I should point out that in this day and age, I no longer feel that Pixar necessarily has the "edge" over other film companies as I think it once did. This makes me think of film such as Rango or The Adventures of Tin Tin, two non-Pixar movies which I thought to have brilliant animation, and are worthy of being compared to Pixar's animation skills. I mentioned the snow scene because I believed that at the time, Pixar was the only studio capable of that feat, whereas they have more competition now. While the success of other studios does necessarily affect Pixar's quality of film-making, more worthy competition could potentially be enough to one day make Pixar a company that faded into the background. Of course this prediction may not come true at all, but it's worth pointing out that there is a higher possibility now than in the past. Well, Con, it's your turn now. I hope I've put up a worthy fight. Like you said, this topic is subjective and it isn't an easy subject to professionally argue about.