Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pixar's Next Three Films Will Be Sequels

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the low-hanging-fruit-is-the-first-to-rot dept.

Movies 379

brumgrunt writes "Should we be worried? As Pixar, with Up, once more proves itself to be home to some of the most original and daring blockbusters on the planet, the news that its next three films are likely to be sequels — with the confirmation of Monsters, Inc. 2 — gives cause for concern. Are commercial pressures catching up with one of our most inventive movie companies?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No (5, Insightful)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273379)

You shouldn't worry. Shut up and get a life.

Re:No (5, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273547)

Definitely, what's the worst thing that happens? They run their franchises into the ground, ruin the good name of their company, and make horrible movies? That's going to cause you personal WORRY? You are waaaay too emotionally invested in this.

Re:No (5, Insightful)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273965)

Sounds like Disney to me.

Re:No (3, Informative)

Wamellx (1518011) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273979)

I really don't think we have anything to worry about. In my opinion Pixar has never made a bad movie, why would they start now? The upcoming sequels are sequels to some of their most popular franchises, and judging by Toy Story 2, Pixar knows how to do sequels.

Re:No (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28274115)

I think you meant to say, they haven't made a good movie yet. Their animation looks like dookie and they use athletes and bored movie folks to sleep talk the way through the script. It's not even as entertaining as Hanna-Barbera. I can't wait for Pixar to try to save themselves with an updated Captain Planet.

Re:already happening (4, Insightful)

recharged95 (782975) | more than 5 years ago | (#28274081)

They're already in trouble.
  • Finding Nemo: $339 mil cost, $94 mil US gross. Profit: $245 mil. US
  • Cars: $120 mil cost, $244 mil US gross. Profit: $124 mil. US
  • Ratatouille: $150 mil cost, $206 mil US gross. Profit: $56 mil. US
  • WALL-E: $180 mil cost, $223 mil US gross. Profit: $43 mil. US
  • Up: $175 mil cost, ??? mil US gross. Profit: ??? mil. US

See the trend? (and including the world releases follows the same trend). And I'm not including marketing costs, which can be nearing the cost of the movie.

.

Hell, Fast and Furious released outside of summer timeframe and has hit 154mil with a 80mil cost, that's a 74mil US profit and still growing and it's definitely not oscar winning material. Now you know why crappy movies continue to dominate the scene. Show some T&A (thrill and action? ;) ) and the crowd forms.

.

Yeah, don't worry, cause Dreamworks is in the same boat, as they discovered sequels cost more (just look at the Shrek series), Pixar will obviously come to the same conclusion. 3D (and real 3D) animation has just become just too expensive. Why? cause their employees think like IT: you need to constantly upgrade: cooler tools, faster computers, more editing, more realism, more challenges for the sake of keeping things fresh and innovative, like technology itself. Perfection is the motto of the tower of Babel. Which is ironic in a business where a simple, ingenious story can do wonders [with low-tech]. And some T&A doesn't hurt too (\tongue out\>

.

I'd be interested to see how Princess and the Frog turn out...

Ya! Finally.. (1)

msimm (580077) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273657)

Commenters on /film! ...oh, wait..

Re:No (0)

Macrat (638047) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273791)

Sequels don't HAVE to be bad. I think Pixar will do a good job.

Re:No (1)

longacre (1090157) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273915)

It'll be time to worry when they can't get financing for anything whatsoever.

Re:No (4, Informative)

Devout_IPUite (1284636) | more than 5 years ago | (#28274041)

But first they should read the damn article. The article clearly says there will be new content by the time Monsters Inc 2 is out, so that's not 'the next 3' that's just 'some 3'.

meh (-1, Redundant)

markringen (1501853) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273383)

meh, sequels. i hope they better do a better job than disney used to do with their crappy straight-2-dvd! i don't want to see straight-2-dvd ever again!

Titles (1)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273467)

Down
Left
Right

Titles-Clearing a row. (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273617)

Down
Left
Right

Pixar makes a movie involving Tetris?

Would it look like this? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273883)

Pixar makes a movie involving Tetris?

If so, would the setup look anything like this [tetrisconcept.com] ?

Re:Titles-Clearing a row. (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273975)

No that's going to be the next Saw film. All the victims are going to be the pieces in a giant tetris machine and have to move themselves into the appropriate slots. Of course they won't realize that finishing a row causes the industrial shredders to move in and remove that row.

Re:Titles (1)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273793)

Left
Right
B
A
Select
Start

Re:Titles (4, Funny)

quenda (644621) | more than 5 years ago | (#28274095)

I'm waiting for "Charm" and "Strange".

Re:meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28273577)

i don't want to see straight-2-dvd ever again!

Dude. You just eliminated the porn industry.

Re:meh (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28273725)

Direct to web is fine by me.

Re:meh (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273967)

Don't worry you quite possibly won't.

Ready to sign up for your strait-2-download account?

First Comment! Sequels Follow! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28273385)

First Comment! Sequels Follow!

Re:First Comment! Sequels Follow! (3, Funny)

Deltaspectre (796409) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273415)

Looks like they already made prequels as well

Aren't all films these days... (4, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273397)

...either sequels or remakes?

Re:Aren't all films these days... (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273839)

...either sequels or remakes?

So what else is new?

Stories and characters that have proven enduringly popular in film and other reappear often. Batman first appeared in the comics around 1940 and has obvious links to The Shadow and The Mark of Zorro.

I would welcome... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28273403)

... an Incredibles II.

What did you expect ? Some sort of overlord !?

Re:I would welcome... (3, Funny)

Golddess (1361003) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273697)

Actually, I was expecting more of an underminer [wikipedia.org] than an overlord.

Re:I would welcome... (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 5 years ago | (#28274093)

Its funny you mention that. Just this weekend I was talking to a co-worker about 3D CGI and "Why is there a Toy Story 3? Wouldn't Monsters Inc, or The Incredibles be a better choice for a sequel." Lo, and behold, well, 1 out of 2 ain't bad.

I was pleasantly surprised with Cars, but I would of thought any other movie would have of had a more interesting back-story for a sequel.

Just have to wait, and be pleasantly surprised with Pixar, like always :)

Hay's In the Barn (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28273409)

Well, now that we have already made all the code, models, artwork we need. Just recompile and pop out another movie!

Genius!

Re:Hay's In the Barn (1)

rasper99 (247555) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273491)

Plus all the molds to make the toys are ready. As Yogurt said in Spaceballs "Merchandising!"

No. He said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28273517)

Moychendeyesin'

Re:Hay's In the Barn (1)

mr_exit (216086) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273669)

That's actually a problem with sequels. One people have one buzz lightyear or woody toy, it's very unlikely they'll buy another one when a new film comes out.

The cost in designing and tooling up for the merchandising is tiny compared to the income from it.

Re:Hay's In the Barn (1)

Neeperando (1270890) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273719)

Yeah, but kids that were little when Toy Story 2 came out are teenagers now. What about kids who weren't even born in 1999?

eBay (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28274091)

Yeah, but kids that were little when Toy Story 2 came out are teenagers now. What about kids who weren't even born in 1999?

Today we have something called eBay. The younger kids' parents will buy the toys from the teenagers' parents.

Toy Story (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28273417)

The sequal to Toy Story was better than the original.

Sequels don't have to be bad. (3, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273427)

Toy Story 2 and GoodFather 2 where good examples. I have to admit that I liked cars more than Toy Story 2 but I loved Monsters Inc so I am actually looking forward to these.

Re:Sequels don't have to be bad. (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273605)

I actually liked Shrek 2 better than the first, but Ice Age 2? Should have been a straight-to-betamax release

Re:Sequels don't have to be bad. (1)

Macrat (638047) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273803)

Neither are Pixar films.

Re:Sequels don't have to be bad. (0, Offtopic)

mcatrage (1274730) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273715)

Hollywood would never make a movie about a good father let alone a sequel to it.

Re:Sequels don't have to be bad. (1)

ibmjones (52133) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273911)

I have to admit that I liked cars more than Toy Story 2 but I loved Monsters Inc so I am actually looking forward to these

I don't, at least not Monster Inc 2. The Monster Inc movie has one of the most touching endings I seen in animation - it just a *perfect* ending to the film that to have a sequel afterwards cheapens it.

well, the economy does suck (4, Insightful)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273429)

And sequels are safer bets.

Or this is just speculation and/or distorted information as the result of a long game of telephone, like the content of most articles you find posted on slashdot these days.

Re:well, the economy does suck (5, Insightful)

antiaktiv (848995) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273495)

As far as safe bets go, a Pixar film is a safer bet than a sequel. Have they ever failed?

The headline is wrong, by the way. There will be non-sequels in between.

Re:well, the economy does suck (1)

Tokerat (150341) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273721)

Cars?

Re:well, the economy does suck (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28273737)

Possibly commercially, but Cars was actually an entertaining movie. I've seen it a couple dozen times (I have two young kids), and it is fun to watch over again.

Re:well, the economy does suck (4, Insightful)

antiaktiv (848995) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273907)

The article states that "the merchandising on Cars currently accounts for over $5bn in revenues." I fail to see how that could be considered a failure, even if it is their weakest film.

Re:well, the economy does suck (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273961)

Cars

The one certainty is that the Pixar feature is going to make a strong showing at the box office and do exceptionally well in home video.

It may not not deliver the numbers of Finding Nemo - but it will never quite disappear from view, either.

If 3D or the ultra-HDTV video display ever becomes mass market in the home, the Pixar back list will be pure gold.

Re:well, the economy does suck (4, Informative)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273959)

The current slate of Pixar features in development are:
* Toy Story 3 (summer 2010)
* Cars 2 (summer 2011)
* The Bear and the Bow (xmas 2011, a princess wants to be an archer instead)
* Newt (summer 2012, the last two members of their species are a mismatched couple)
* Monsters Inc 2 (201?)

At least the movies they're making sequels to are ones where you can make a decent rationale for following the character to further adventures (Incredibles would be another). I can't see a sequel to Nemo, Rat, Wall, or Up - each of which told the by-far-most-important events of the protagonist's life - working as a story.

Re:well, the economy does suck (1)

gv250 (897841) | more than 5 years ago | (#28274063)

As far as safe bets go, a Pixar film is a safer bet than a sequel. Have they ever failed?

I'm not sure what "fail" means, but no, they have never failed. Excluding Up, every Disney-Pixar movie has grossed at least 3x their production budget. Toy Story had the best return at 10x, Wall-E the least at 3x.

In absolute numbers, Toy Story and A Bug's Life grossed the least at about $360,000,000 each. The worst take this decade was Ratatouille at $450,000,000, but it still grossed 6x its budget.

Over the course of 10 movies, Disney/Pixar has grossed $5,000,000,000 on a budget of $1,000,000,000.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/Pixar.php [the-numbers.com]

Re:well, the economy does suck (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273643)

Indeed. For another perspective on this telephone-game, I offer:

In the beginning was the plan, and then the specification; And the plan was without form, and the specification was void.

And darkness was on the faces of the implementors thereof; And they spake unto their leader, saying: "It is a crock of shit, and smells as of a sewer."

And the leader took pity on them, and spoke to the project leader: "It is a crock of excrement, and none may abide the odor thereof."

And the project leader spake unto his section head, saying: "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, such that none may abide it."

The section head then hurried to his department manager, and informed him thus: "It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide its strength."

The department manager carried these words to his general manager, and spoke unto him saying: "It containeth that which aideth the growth of plants, and it is very strong."

And so it was that the general manager rejoiced and delivered the good news unto the Vice President. "It promoteth growth, and it is very powerful."

The Vice President rushed to the President's side, and joyously exclaimed: "This powerful new software product will promote the growth of the company!"

And the President looked upon the product, and saw that it was very good.

-- attr. to Mike Andrews

Re:well, the economy does suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28273963)

You must be new here...

Re:well, the economy does suck (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#28274003)

"Or this is just speculation and/or distorted information as the result of a long game of telephone, like the content of most articles you find posted on slashdot these days."

Nah, it's just kdawson week.

Nothing to worry about (5, Insightful)

lyinhart (1352173) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273439)

Assuming Pixar's "competition" will continue to be such "gems" as Madagascar 2, Ice Age 2 or whatever Shrek sequel is coming down the pipeline, there's nothing to worry about. Now if John Lasseter leaves, then we might be able to talk about Pixar going downhill.

Re:Nothing to worry about (5, Interesting)

piojo (995934) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273451)

Now if John Lasseter leaves, then we might be able to talk about Pixar going downhill.

And that's not even a sure thing, considering how much he cares about mentoring younger directors.

Re:Nothing to worry about (4, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273667)

Well the larger problem here is what the sequels indicate: Disney is getting its way.

Disney has been churning out utter dreck for years. Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)? I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago. It's common knowledge that Disney had been pressuring Pixar to do sequels to all their hits because Disney can't think of or even appreciate new ideas. The big question a few years back was, "When Disney buys Pixar, will Pixar be able to maintain their independence, or will Disney's 'creative' minds start steering the ship?"

I don't know if we really have a complete and definitive answer, since Pixar may have enough talent to make these sequels good. What's more it might be that these sequels are a blip, and after them we'll get a rash of original characters and story-lines. On the other hand, this doesn't seem like a good sign.

Re:Nothing to worry about (1)

lessthan (977374) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273843)

Does Enchanted count?

Re:Nothing to worry about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28273989)

You're right. Who has ever watched Cinderella, Anastasia, Lion King, or Alladin?

Re:Nothing to worry about (4, Insightful)

gbarules2999 (1440265) | more than 5 years ago | (#28274001)

Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)? I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago.

I'd say Mulan, but that might be pushing it for some people. Maybe Tarzan, if you don't mind Phil Collins. The unarguable one is The Hunchback of Notre Dame, without a doubt, in 1996.

Regardless, far less than twenty years.

Besides, all Disney has been doing is trying non-sequels. Chicken Little, Bolt, Enchanted, and the new, not-white princess that all of the news outlets tittered over for a few months. All original. So if Disney was working Pixar, I'm sure they'd be pushing the same way.

Re:Nothing to worry about (3, Interesting)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 5 years ago | (#28274039)

Well the larger problem here is what the sequels indicate: Disney is getting its way

Well, they do own them after all... All of the original Pixar principals have made millions over the sale to DIS, and have been handsome rewarded for the operation up thru Incredibles. It's up to Disney to make the operation work after this point.

Disney has been churning out utter dreck for years. [...] It's common knowledge that Disney had been pressuring Pixar to do sequels to all their hits because Disney can't think of or even appreciate new ideas.

I would say it's common knowledge that Disney has been turning out product that most /.ers would consider utter dreck but make just gobs of money in the market, selling happy, safe entertainment to parents who want something for their tweens that won't bore them -- face it, Up is a superb movie but it does miss the "worry-free entertainment" mark.

FD. I've worked on several Disney films and was the sound co-supervisor of High School Musical 3, so I'm a bit sensitive to the whole "dreck" business... But we good, we good! :)

Bullshit (5, Informative)

piojo (995934) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273443)

The next three films are likely to be sequels? The article doesn't even make that claim. The person who wrote the summary likely thinks tha Pixar just "pops out" these films. In fact, they usually take about 4 years.

Re:Bullshit (1)

SEGT (880610) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273599)

FTFA

And now? Work has started on a sequel to 2001's Monsters, Inc, another film that's proven to be a continual success for Pixar. There's no release date as of yet, but it's a fair assumption to expect it in 2012, which would make Pixar's next three big summer movies sequels.

So the article is assuming 3 years since the announcement of the project to completion and working that in with information already available for the other sequels and non-sequels alike. TFS however does seem to play a bit of the telephone game.

Re:Bullshit (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273713)

The person who wrote the summary likely thinks tha Pixar just "pops out" these films. In fact, they usually take about 4 years.

The interesting thing here is that Disney's classic animated features were just as long in production.

The wonderous new tech hasn't really changed things all that much.

There is a lesson in that for that for the geek who thinks that the free tool - or the sophisticated tool - makes every man an artist, a significant creative talent.

       

Who didn't see this coming? (3, Insightful)

peektwice (726616) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273447)

This is Disney's modus operandi. The differences are that Pixar films have great story lines and aren't musicals. Other than that, I for one totally expected that Disney would start making sequels. Guess what's next...limited re-releases.

Re:Who didn't see this coming? (1)

Snowspinner (627098) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273589)

I'm trying very hard to think of a theatrically released Disney sequel.

Ah yes. The Rescuers Down Under.

I do not believe there is a second. So theatrically released sequels are in fact pretty un-Disney.

I also don't think Disney has done a limited re-release in about 20 years.

Re:Who didn't see this coming? (1)

dargon (105684) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273653)

lion king 2 was also theatrcal

Re:Who didn't see this coming? (1)

sharkey (16670) | more than 5 years ago | (#28274033)

As was Toy Story 2.

Re:Who didn't see this coming? (1)

Golddess (1361003) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273863)

I also don't think Disney has done a limited re-release in about 20 years.

A quick Amazon search shows that you [amazon.com] might [amazon.com] be [amazon.com] wrong [amazon.com] .

To be fair, there are more [amazon.com] than [amazon.com] I [amazon.com] thought [amazon.com] that are still available, but I clearly remember seeing commercials for some of those claiming that they'd be "locked away" in the Disney Vault [wikipedia.org] "soon".

Disney sequels that came to a theater near you (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28274051)

I'm trying very hard to think of a theatrically released Disney sequel.

I think these were all released to theaters by Disney:

  • Air Bud: Golden Receiver
  • High School Musical 3 (Does a theatrical sequel to a Disney Channel Original Movie count?)
  • Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit
  • Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
  • Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
  • The Santa Clause 2
  • The Santa Clause 3
  • Kill Bill Volume 2 (Disney owns Miramax.)
  • Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (Ditto.)

Sequels are not always bad (1)

bakes (87194) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273455)

Sequels are not necessarily bad. Empire Strikes Back, anyone? Rocky 2 was a brilliant sequel (although they did go downhill after that) and more recently the Shrek 2 and 3 sequels have been, well, adequately good. Toy Story 2 wasn't too bad, and I think there is capacity in some of the Pixar films to do good sequels. I think it's only a problem if the driving force to do a sequel is because the original did well, whereas it should be because they have a decent story to tell.

As long as Pixar's people are doing the creative work, and Disney is only doing the promotion/distribution, I am hopeful that the quality will remain high.

Re:Sequels are not always bad (3, Interesting)

MarcoAtWork (28889) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273501)

I would not put Shrek 3 in any sort of comment talking about how sequels can be good...

Re:Sequels are not always bad (1)

cowscows (103644) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273955)

I agree, the knee-jerk reaction where everybody hears the word "sequel" and immediately jumps to "half-assed money grab" isn't necessarily fair, especially to an organization like Pixar which did really well on their previous sequel.

They've created some characters and worlds that have lots of potential, and it'd be a shame to limit the exploration of all of that to only 90 minutes or so just because that's the useful length of a movie. Like you said, there needs to be a real story there, but with the amount of creative people that Pixar has, it shouldn't be too difficult for them to come up with some quality stuff. In fact, I'd imagine that for each of their previous movies, there were tons of good ideas or story arcs that didn't make it into film, not because it wasn't a good idea, but because they only had so much time to fill.

Now if disney starts farming out pixar characters offshore for quick straight-to-DVD release, then you should start worrying about them.

"Commercial pressures" (1)

Petrushka (815171) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273541)

Are commercial pressures catching up with one of our most inventive movie companies?

No. Disney has caught up with them.

Baseless Speculation (5, Informative)

jarbrewer (1254662) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273557)

A quick google search of Pixar's production schedule [blogspot.com] might have told the poster, or even the editor, that 2 of Pixar's next 3 movies are in fact new franchises.

Sigh.

Re:Baseless Speculation (1)

Tokerat (150341) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273751)

kdawson doesn't even read the whole summary - if the headline will cause outrage, it'll get posted. Slashdot pays a troll.

We can only hope! (1)

NormHome (99305) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273563)

Without a doubt Monsters Inc. has to be one of the most funny movies I've ever seen ("2319! We've got a 2319!") and we can only hope that they keep the formula and that we get "More of the same" rather than the studio trying to do something different and ruining it.

Good (1)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273565)

Hopefully they'll start making good movies for young children again.

There are about five or six quality movies made over the past twenty years that I can feel good about showing to my 2 and 4 year old without worrying about them picking up extremely bad behaviors, being scared to death by the obligatory and unnecessary "scary part", or being bored to tears. Other than Curious George and Charlotte's Web, they're all Pixar movies.

They love Cars, Monsters, Inc., The Incredibles, and both Toy Story movies, and I don't mind watching those more than once either. But lately it seems like Pixar is making movies to impress themselves while forgetting who their audience is.

Re:Good (1)

saiha (665337) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273663)

2 is still pretty much a baby, not even a kid. Anyway you kids will keep getting older as pixar keeps releasing movies so I doubt you will have to worry for too long. Their audience is people who enjoy their movies, I for one like the fact that they can be enjoyed at 10, 20 and 50 years old.

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273763)

But lately it seems like Pixar is making movies to impress themselves while forgetting who their audience is.

It appears to me that you are assuming Pixar's audience is exclusively children. I don't think that's ever been the case. Just because a film has been created using animation techniques it does not necessarily mean it's a a kid's movie--not everyone who enjoys animated features is a kid (or has one).

Pixar makes sophisticated computer-animated movies that appeal to a wide audience and, for the most part, they can be appreciated on several levels. This was the case with the original Toy Story and it continues to be the right through UP.

Re:Good (-1, Flamebait)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 5 years ago | (#28274101)

I know their audience isn't exclusively kids. That's obvious. However, it would be nice if they made a bit of effort toward that direction, because frankly, the less kid-friendly aspects of their newer movies are crap.

The folks at Pixar should be commended for their (mostly) quality work, but the whole "we're not making kids' movies" line is a steaming pile of shit when you're making movies featuring cute talking animals and selling the toys with happy meals.

I mean, really, how adult is a movie about a cute talking rat that wants to learn to cook? Is this the kind of cinema we all crave? When was the last time you got an Anthony Hopkins figure with a cheeseburger and fries?

And while I'm bashing Pixar, would it have killed them to shave about twenty minutes of scenes from Cars, Wall-E, and Ratatouille that don't serve the story at all? Finding Nemo has so many "peril" scenes I want to shoot myself by the end of the fiftieth act, and they're all scary for kids. That movie in particular would lose nothing if the violence were toned down and edited by someone who's not in love with every scene.

Be that as it may, there is an overall dearth of quality movies for families, and Pixar is the best it gets for now. What makes the situation really odd is that when anyone makes a movie for kids that's even close to being good, it's inevitably one of the highest grossing movies of the year. You'd think we'd be flooded with these things.

Flatly Untrue (5, Informative)

Snowspinner (627098) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273571)

First of all, Pixar has two announced films not mentioned here - The Bear and the Bow and Newt - both of which are original properties. Bear and the Bow is slated to share 2011 with Cars 2, and Newt is set for 2012.

Second of all, the suggestion that the "most likely" date for Monsters Inc 2 is 2012 is tenuous at best. The only time in the last decade Pixar has had a director do two films with only three years in between is when Brad Bird did Ratatouille three years after The Incredibles, and that was him coming on a film in mid-production. If Docter is directing it, it would be surprising to see it before 2013.

This story, in other words, is nonsense - the only actual content to it is that there's a sequel to Monsters Inc.

Meh (1)

Micge (1392839) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273579)

It's like Pixar said themselves: For inspiration we watch what Studio Ghibli has made. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_Ghibli) At any rate it cant be worse than what disney next "classic" is going to be.

Inaccurate Headline (3, Informative)

Blackeagle_Falcon (784253) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273583)

Pixar's next three films won't all be sequels. Toy Story 3 and Cars 2 will be followed by two original films: The Bear and the Bow, and Newt. Since it was just announced, Monsters Inc. 2 will presumably be sometime after that.

DISNEY"S fault! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28273587)

Don't for one minute blame Pixar, All this is because Disney want to make a quick buck. Look at Lion King, Aladdin, etc... Sequels, ...

Disney, before buying Pixar, threaten with cheap non CG sequels to Toy story, Monsters INC, Cars. Because Disney had the rights to do so.

So these sequels were going to happen either way.

Still, it's sad that now Pixar is left to do sequels, and thus, in my opinion is going to stunt the vision and drive within the company.

I love Pixar, but I believe it's the beginning of the end for Pixar as a leader in Animation.

the next three, if you skip one (1)

geoff2 (579628) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273597)

Yes, the next three Pixar films will be sequels, if you ignore Newt, which is the next movie after Toy Story 3 and is coming out in 2011. and the Bear and the Bow, which is coming out Christmas 2011. Other than that, the original post is exactly correct.

TFA is... (2, Informative)

dr00g911 (531736) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273619)

Both incorrect itself (or couldn't even be bothered with IMDB) and its assumptions are misquoted blogspam.

So, let's see, confirmed on Pixar's future agenda (as we know now);

Toy Story 3 (2010) [imdb.com]

John Carter of Mars (2012) [imdb.com]

1906 [imdb.com]

Plus speculation in Variety from several days ago about Monsters, Inc 2 possibly being Docter's next film that has suffered a little in the blogspam reporting (ie accuracy), resulting in the OMG SEQUALZ?!? meme we're soaking in today...

Also speculation: various rumored Mater spin-off movies from Cars. Yes, Larry the Cable Guy might get his own... vehicle (ouch). God help us all, but it'd be a goldmine.

Re:TFA is... (2, Informative)

dr00g911 (531736) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273735)

Oy, I hit submit before I added all the confirmed films:

The Bear and the Bow (2011) [wikia.com]

Newt (2012) [wikia.com]

Also worth noting is that the last I checked, Andrew Stanton was attached to John Carter of Mars, however it wasn't confirmed that Pixar/Disney would be distributing. There has been conflicting info on the matter, and it's ambiguous at the moment.

fairly well insulated (4, Insightful)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273645)

I get the impression that they're fairly well insulated from Disney's pressure. I think Disney realizes that they were digging themselves into a big hole with their own crummy animated movies leading up to the time when they bought Pixar. "Wall-E" took a lot of commercial risks, with the long, no-dialog intro and the overt political satire. "Up" dismayed the marketing types by having almost no merchandising opportunities (want to buy action figures of an old guy or a chubby boy scout?). Basically they've been putting the story first, and it's actually been a real winning strategy for them in commercial terms. Making some sequels doesn't necessarily equate to being commercial sell-outs; it depends entirely on whether the sequels are good, which we have no way of knowing about right now.

I'd watch for the big pressure toward commercialism to happen if and when Pixar makes its first big box-office flop.

By the way, Pixar-style CG movies are kind of a unique and interesting example of a purely digital form of entertainment that absolutely can't exist without copyright laws. If copyright was abolished tomorrow, we'd still have garage bands, we'd still have (low-budget) movies, and we'd still have novels (which most novelists don't make enough profit from to live on anyway). But a CG movie is an art form that by its nature requires a very large budget. It's not the render farm, it's the incredible number of hours of labor that go into those movies.

Sonny Bono owns you (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28274077)

Pixar-style CG movies are kind of a unique and interesting example of a purely digital form of entertainment that absolutely can't exist without copyright laws.

But do Pixar-style CG films require a 95-year copyright term?

Get it over with. Do them all in one shot (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28273673)

"Bugs and Rats drive Nemo's Incredible Toy Car Up the Monsters' Wall"

Wrath Of Khan ring a bell? (4, Insightful)

UttBuggly (871776) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273701)

I'm OK with sequels as some do indeed surpass the original.

And while I don't love every Pixar movie, their worst effort is still much better than everyone else. I will admit that Kung Fu Panda was a pleasant surprise from DreamWorks, but I trust them less with the sequel.

Monsters, Inc. is my 2nd favorite Pixar film behind The Incredibles, so I'm jazzed.

depends on who's doing the sequels (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273729)

If it's Disney doing a sequel to a Pixar movie, that's probably bad. If it's Pixar doing a sequel, (ala Toy Story 2, which I much prefer to Toy Story), then it's probably okay.

Don't be hatin'!

Ideas slowly ran out.. for now (2, Insightful)

eamonman (567383) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273757)

It was bound to happen. Wall-E was the last of the original ideas that were developed at that famous brainstorming session that came up with things like Toy Story, Monsters, and Nemo. And even though Wall-E was cool and amazing, it still seemed like they were running out of ideas. IF you just went by initial premises, Wall-E and UP are pretty different compared to before: Cars (anthropomorphizing gang of cars adventure), Nemo (anthropomorphizing buddy fish adventure), Toy Story (anthropomorphizing gang of toys adventure), Monsters Inc (anthropomorphizing buddy monster adventure).

I'm not saying different isn't bad, but it's hard to get the overwhelming masses to go see weirder and weirder premised movies. So I'm worried. I wouldn't say that it's not looking good, but it will be a great challenge to come up with some memorable movies after this.

Incredibles 2 (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273855)

I'm not that worried since Pixar does seem very committed to quality, as Up has demonstrated once again. What I don't understand is why Incredibles, the film that I think lends itself most to a sequel isn't getting the sequel treatment.

Blame Disney (3, Interesting)

dFaust (546790) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273897)

I seem to remember seeing an interview with one of the big guys at Pixar years ago talking about how much they regretted doing Toy Story 2 and how they would never do another sequel like that again, etc., etc. And so long as they were calling the shots, they didn't. Being that Disney is calling the shots these days, this shouldn't be a big surprise and while I can't be 100% I'm inclined to believe that's where the responsibility lies. The upshot is that Lasseter is now directly involved in non-Pixar Disney films as well. Take Bolt, for instance. It was a new franchise that, while not up to Pixar standards, I felt was noticeably better than what we've (sadly) become accustomed to from Disney. (full disclosure: Disney owns my soul)

I tried to read the article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28273913)

but the poorly written sentences make for a hard time at best.

No. (2, Informative)

stonecypher (118140) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273921)

Pixar's first twenty seven paying jobs were commercials; the only two you remember are the packs of life savers doing a conga line and the listerine bottle Tarzanning around to Hooked on a Feeling.

Pixar's first three movies were Disney contracts for things they didn't write; one of them is a sequel, Toy Story 2 (to their Toy Story 1, with A Bug's Life inbetween).

Of their next three films, only two are sequels; they are Toy Story 3 and Cars 2. The story linked thinks that Monsters Inc. 2 is among the next three; it is not. It will be preceded by The Bear And The Bow, as well as by Newt.

Indeed, more worrying than that they're sequels is that one of the three isn't in-house written; that's Toy Story 3, and we all know what a pile TS2 was.

The vast bulk of Pixar's work is commercial in nature. None of their films are art films; they're all carefully concocted, demographically targetted Disney style family fun factory output.

Can't imagine why anyone would think that Pixar is just now becoming money oriented. You don't shell out for Tom Hanks as a cartoon voice actor if you're not looking for wallet padding; they hired him for his name, not the quality of his work (he's a fine actor, but doesn't have nearly the range of some of the well established voice actors out there, the same of which can be said for most of Pixar's other voice staff.)

These are sequels that people actually want (3, Interesting)

leamanc (961376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28273957)

When Steve Jobs sold Pixar to Disney (and became Disney's largest shareholder in the process), he said (paraphrasing here) that Disney should stop pissing on its legacy and cranking out direct-to-DVD sequels of decades-old classics. Believe me, he is not a fan of sequels just as a cash-grab.

But, these planned Pixar sequels are films that people actually want to see. They have been demanding them. I'm surprised to not see an Incredibles sequel on the list, because there are a lot of folks that want that one too.

I am not disappointed by this news. All of these will be great movies. I wish they could squeeze in some original flicks among the sequels, but I'm not worried about it. They are giving the fans what they want, and will blow us away with the next original Pixar movie when it comes out.

BTW, Up was great; better than Ratatouille and WALL-E, in my opinion. Mad props to Pixar for giving a great actor like Ed Asner a starring role in a high-budget blockbuster film at the age of 76. The man's earned the right to rake in some serious royalty cash for himself and his heirs.

The Sequal To "UP" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28274057)

Down

My 2 cents (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28274105)

I normally don't care about news of this nature. I like film to a point but what normally qualifies as geek film does little for me. Anyway, from the blurb...

Are commercial pressures catching up with one of our most inventive movie companies?

Please. As much as I understand that Pixar is a beloved entity around here let's be honest. The way that this is stated acts like "commercial pressures" are exterior and actively destroying Pixar. Pixar has a choice in the way their company goes and what it does and does not put out. If Pixar bows to the fast buck that's their decision and if it lowers the to the same level as whomever is putting out these god awful Saturday morning cartoons I see anymore than so be it. I just hate to see people act like some mysterious force is at play here. If Pixar sells out they should get the same respect as Disney seems to get around here.

Luxo Jr., Grow Up Would Ya (1)

d'baba (1134261) | more than 5 years ago | (#28274135)

Personally I kept hoping the Pixar-Disney marriage would sour. I really wanted Pixar to take on some adult themes. Their current work is Good, even Great sometimes, but there is so much more possible in animation than the Disney Playbook.
---
Free The Mouse

Toy Story 1, 2, 3 (1)

xbytor (215790) | more than 5 years ago | (#28274147)

The next three releases are apparently Toy Story 1 & 2 (in 3D) and 3.

That's more than enough for me.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?