Slashdot Mirror
Disney to Make Toy Story 3 Without Pixar
rdurell writes "CNN is reporting that Disney has begun the process of setting up a new CGI studio with the goal of making Toy Story 3. Pixar has balked at the idea of another sequel thus far though Disney does own the rights to the franchise. Does this truly spell the end of the Disney-Pixar relationship? Can both Disney and Pixar live without the other?" We covered the Disney/Pixar breakup in January.
Disney has repeatedly fucked Pixar over. A toy story 3 without Pixar will suck, though it may not flop with Disneys brand recognition. Ive been waiting years for Pixar to sever ties with Disney.
Pixar has outgrown Disney. The question is, can Disney survive without Pixar? I hearby predict the quality of the storyline for Toy Story 3 will be vastly inferior to the first two Toy Story movies.
Pixar films have a very unique style to them that IMO Disney won't be able to copy. Between having some of the best artists and best programmers in the world I think Disney is SOL. They just got too greedy and now Pixar going to hammer them.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
there's no way that people will really sit for this. I figure by the time this is released, there will be a big stink in the public (read: non-geek) sector about Pixar going solo, and people will just see this as more Disney Sequel-itis (see Little Mermaid 2, Cinderella 2, Lion King 2).
somewhere, right now, Roy Disney is laughing.
Toy Story 1 and 2 are my favourite Full CG Cartoons.
On one hand, I would love to see another iteration of the story. On the other hand, Disney has the habit (since about 95) of turning everything to crud.
I don't think they can pull off what made the first two so magical and special.
Karma: Can only be portioned out by the Cosmos.
Disney's old movies were such a success, though it does bring back bad memories of watching the Little Mermaid without end for weeks at a time...but now the market's moved on. Pixar's got the bases covered as far as audience goes, and Disney's only hope is to completely reinvent itself...good luck...
As Skinner would say, though, "Prove me wrong, kids! Prove me wrong."
Do not touch -Willie
P.S. - Disney hasn't done anything original on their own in YEARS (nay, DECADES).
I must respectfully disagree. Lilo and Stitch was wonderful and not the stock issue Disney movie. (Admittedly, what they've done with the characters since then is truly sad.)
Disney could hire a great crew, and make a great "looking" film, but it would lack the substance and all the Pixary goodness that makes their films, well, a Pixar film.
"This is you left and that's your left. This is your right and that's your right. You're gonna die!
Then, after Toy Story 3, they will launch Toy Story: The Series, daily on the Disney Channel. Of course, it will be hastily put together and have completely flat graphics created as cheaply as possibly. They'll also be releasing direct-to-video sequals until people are so tired of it that the brand is useless. Then they'll wait 5 years and "rerelease" the original toy story to theaters, and come up with a "new" DVD set containing the original and all sequals. Of course, they'll do this just in time for the holidays and get all new Toy Story toys, books, ice cream, cereal, shoes, clothing, etc. Only then, after this dies down, will they consider the franchise "milked." If you don't like the way Disney operates, you're not alone
My guess is that the writers are given much more freedom and control at Pixar than at Disney. So maybe if Disney learned something from the experience, they can do it. But most likely not.
Disney, though... I don't know. Their homegrown films haven't been so great lately. They can reissue DVDs of their back catalogue, they can keep milking the Mouse [2], but with Pixar and Dreamworks producing material as good as they have been, Disney have got to raise the bar. Toy Story 3 is a risky move. Obviously, Marketing will insist on it, but if Toy Story 3 sucks, Disney have a big problem. Toy Story 3 has to be better than either of the first two if Disney want to stay in this game.
[1]: in case you're wondering: IMHO the best in the world is still Miyazaki. I haven't yet seen The Incredibles or Hauru no Ugoku Shiro, thougo.
[2]: did anyone ever actually find Mickey Mouse funny? I always preferred Bugs and Daffy. It's a bit like Charlie Chaplin vs Laurel and Hardy, I suppose.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
It is, of course, too early to completely write of Toy Story 3 as crap just yet. Disney has pulled amazing things out of their hat before - just look at "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast" and "The Lion King" after what was a very serious slump indeed. Then again, we really are into seriously derivative work here - spinning a part 3 to what is someone elses work doesn't exactly represent the spark of originality that is often required for "new beginnings".
The reality is, however, that this could be the end of Disney as the great purveyor of animated feature films. They were king for a long time, but there is very serious competition in the field now (Dreamworks SKG, Pixar, Studio Ghibli), and all of Disney's "recent successes" have been acting as a distributor for someone elses film. If Disney is to continue to command any respect in the animated feature film arena it is going to need to produce it's own high quality work very soon (as everyone else is gaining enoug status to not require Disney as a distributor anymore).
Realistically Toy Story 3 would be the last real chance for Disney to prove itself. All their hand animated fare has been drivel of late, and they are deperately in need of a fresh approach. A CGI film might be the way. If Toy Story 3 sinks though, I suspect it will be the end of Disney as a serious player in animated feature films. They may surprise me, but I don't think they have anything else left in them, and the competition is just too strong.
My bet: Goodbye Disney animation.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
pixas doesn't need disney, disney desparately needs pixas. only way for disney to produce a good movie is if they get someone who knows how to make films and care about quality. that means eisner needs to get kicked out along with the other dead wood at disney. until the execs change, disney has no hope of producing any animation worth a lick.
He learned when he was let go from Apple all these years
ago. Eisner will soon learn that lesson. And if not he will when Pixar buys
Disney in 10 years and fires him. Eisner was playing out of his league when dealing with steve.
The funny thing is when Pixar came out everyone thought it
was the animation cgi that made them special. But that is not the case
anyone with the cash can do that now and they do. But pixar actually
seems to have writers come up with interesting characters and stories.
Disney was lampooned years ago buy the WB's Animaniacs with "just the same old heroin" and yet disney has
recycled the same plot since then again, and again, and again.
I hope Pixar doesn't stray into less wholesome content. As an adult myself, I appreciate that their movies are clean AND extremely entertaining for children and adults. It takes great skill to do that and I thank Pixar for that all the time (with my wallet). The last thing we need is another movie studio trying to "push the envelope" of what's allowed to make up for lack of a creative story.
Will the original voice talent stand for this? Could you see Tom Hanks voicing Woody again if the script sucked? I don't think so. In fact, I would be willing to bet that most of those actors will hold out.
It sure would suck for disney to find other vocals here...
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Err, how about Dinosaur? The effects were done by Disney, totally CG (friend of a friend worked on it). Story was so-so but I thought the CG was good (ok lemurs and dinosaurs co-existing was stupid but eh). That said, Pixar is being sucked dry by Disney, and I am sadsadsad that Disney will probably be involved in any additional Incredibles sequel.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Pixar is now in the same position Lucas is in at Lucasfilm. Does Lucas have trouble finding anyone to distribute "Star Wars" films, no, 20th Century Fox is happy to do it, they know they will make lots of money. The same with Pixar, I would be AMAZED if they had any trouble finding a distributor.
As for Eisner stepping down, that would be wonderful news. After the bit with ousting Roy Disney, who is apparently going to start up a new shop, Disney the company may have put itself between a rock and a hard place. Disney themselves haven't done much in the name of decent "traditional" animation films for quite some time, save Lilo & Stitch. They've also been killing their legacy with crappy sequels. And even their legacy is largely ideas stolen from others.
On the 3D computer graphics front there's Pixar as the power player, now firmly established as the talent behind the Disney/Pixar efforts. Dreamworks has demonstrated solid CG distribution with Shrek and Shrek 2. Now Disney Co. thinks it can become the new player, make a sequel to a hit (which they always mess up), and displace the actual talent in the field? Dream on.
My advice to Disney: Get a writer or two. Come up with a halfway interesting and unique story of your own for once. Make it something that will capture an audience on the merits of a story. Pixar has shown us all that CG lets us get closer to characters of our imaginations, and to use the CG to back the story, rather than just for pretty effects.
It figures that the first CG style film Disney will do without Pixar ends in the number 3.
If not now, when?
This is a key point: even steamboat willie (AKA Mickey) was borrowed from Buster Keaton. Nothing wrong with that per se, as Larry Lessig points out in Free Culture , that's just the nature of cultural production, and should be encouraged.
However, what Disney's been particularly guilty of last few decades, excepting Lilo and a few others, is regurgitation, not simply borrowing or being inspired by other stories. Their stories are sappy, flat, and smell bad, and, as a parent of culturally vulnerable cartoon consumers, demonically cross-marketed. They exploit the audience, who are mostly kids.
Damn those pesky terrorists
Consider for a moment; they have a tremendous amount of catch-up to do, in terms of software and 3D animation know-how. Would they be able to produce something straight from cold that was a barnstorming success? I doubt it.
So instead they are starting off by attempting to reverse engineer an animated movie that was state of the art 10 years ago (probably 11 years by the time they make it).
They can tool-up, do their homework and create an apprentice-piece that people will pay to watch - it probably won't be great, but it will pay for itself, and the Disney R&D.
Without question Pixar can do fine on their own without Disney's help distributing. The real question is, can Disney survive without Pixar? As my magic-8 ball says, "Outlook not so good."
Pixar's done enough impressive work over the course of the last 5 or 6 years to estabilish a firm role as #1 in the animated film niche. Their track record is near flawless, with each film building on and improving the underlying technologies used to create each flick. Honestly, who here doesn't dream of running through Pixar's renderfarms like a kid in a candystore? Point is, every movie pretty much kicks ass at the box office. And that's what counts from a business perspective.
Disney, on the otherhand, might take a huge hit. Their only real role with these movies has been to distribute the films, and each time Pixar releases a new feature they become less and less dependent on Disney's reputation as a backer to ensure success. What else has Disney done lately? Yeah they pull in boatloads of money through merchandising via Disneyworld, toys, and shit like that. Depending on Mickey Mouse dolls for income though isn't a strong business model. And with each crappy film that tanks, I bet Michael Eisner's feeling better and better about jumping ship in a year.
But then again, I'm too lazy to quote numbers and statistics to back up anything I've said. In reality I've just never been impressed with Disney, even as a child, and wouldn't mind seeing them sweat a bit when Pixar high tails it.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."
I, for one, do not understand why Pixar is given such a vaunted status. The origibal Toy Story was something new and they deserved praise, but ever since they have just been re-jigging the formula
Ever since? As in, you mean Toy Story 2 which was nothing like the first Toy Story? Finding Nemo? The Incredibles? I don't think that's re-jiggling the formula. What Disney's been doing with their unnecessary sequels is re-jiggling the formula. Without Pixar, they will most DEFINITELY re-jiggle the formula. Pixar is the original company, and Disney is not. That is why Pixar has a "vaunted status".
Al Qaeda has ninjas!
Here's a funny thing to think about . . .
So Disney owns the characters in Toy Story - their likeness, etc.
Did Disney buy the models?
Are they able to get the wireframe models with all animation handles, etc and just drop em into their modeling program?
Or does Disney actually have to re-model the characters??
I'll bet you that Pixar retain ownership of the models and that Disney has to re-create them.
How hard is that to do?
Is Disney gonna end up with some bizarre Frankenstein model of Buzz Lightyear?
Plus Disney's gotta re-create shaders, cloth and hair systems, etc.
Haha!
If it sucks, Disney will pull the theatrical release and just make it a direct-to-video release, where parents will buy it by the millions and it will mostly avoid the sting of the critics.
Disney has a history of follwing up acclaimed movies by releasing horrible animated sequels direct to video (e.g., Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin), so nobody will really pay it any mind if it blows chunks.
Pixar, on the other hand, doesn't have that same luxury. The public expects Pixar films to rock our world, and a misstep by Pixar could be devestating. And based on the trailer, it looks like Cars is going to be the first bomb to come out of their studios. It sucks for Pixar that they are going to exit the Disney relationship on such a low note.
I'm afraid Disney films are now flopping, due to name recognition. Disney has laid some real goose-eggs in the past few years:
Need examples? How about "Treasure Planet"? "80 Days"? "The Alamo"? "The Ladykillers"? "Raising Helen"?
Oh, you want animated movies that were flops? There sure were those as well...
Or do you mean the brand recognition of Toy Story, which is probably better than Disney right now?
Pixar doesn't need Disney. Disney needs to keep Pixar, but can't continue to squander resources on fat executive salaries and dumb decisions and still let Pixar keep what they are due.
Maybe Disney will make a direct-to-video movie, like they did for The Lion King, Lilo & Stitch, etc... I rate that as highly likely. They'll make the movie on a budget, it'll suck, test audiences will tell them so, and it'll end up being a big direct-to-DVD money maker for them, but hardly ever see the light of a theater, if at all.
That's my half-assed prediction, anyway. I'm going to do my best to avoid letting my son see any Disney-only Toy Story movie, lest the first two be ruined for him.
Disney will undoubtably produce very a very lackluster TS3. Artwork is only one component, the writing and fresh perspective within Pixar is what has made these films one hit after another.
My major gripe with Disney is all the characters are identifiable, recycled from all their other films. It's tired, so very tired and this is why even the finest animation artists can't save them. Disney needs to clean out their writers and start again. Scary? Certainly, but they're not raking in enough at the box office to afford going in the current direction much longer. Most of their profit is coming from the theme parks. Not ecouraging, considering their considerable assets.
When I went to see Incredibles, I was assaulted with the trailers for the next several Disney films coming up. Not one looked interesting, aside from the trailer from Cars (Pixar's last contractual obligation.)
Dreamworks and Pixar are kicking butt while Disney withers away, afraid to change and dying because of that fear.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
If you count the fact that Stitch was evil and had to learn to stand up to himself, then yeah, pretty much the same story that every movie has ever told.
If you want to over-simplify it that much, then it could be said that "The Incredibles" is a story of a character who must look deep within himself to find that special thing that allows him to stand up to evil/father-figure/society and become a hero.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
Ok, so we're basically all in agreement that pixar is what's keeping disney afloat, but honestly, what sets them apart from any other highend studio, other than that amazing name recognition that came from being spawned from Disney in the first place? I think with Disney's assets, they should be able to get top notch production work. The look may differ slightly seeing as renderman, as well as marionette and their 3rd piece of software (the name escaped me) is proprietary software designed by pixar, thus, the liscences are retained by pixar. So in the end, I doubt there will be much mixing and mingling between Disney and Pixar from here on out, but there will be a new "3rd party" if you will, in the big screen 3d wars of Disney, and Dreamworks. Who knows, maybe severing the ties of disney will allow pixar to put their talents to some more adult features (not that kind of adult you pervs) overall, good things will come from all, there's no doubt in my mind.
> ...and before Tezuka, the story was called Hamlet.
I don't know the Tezuka thing, but the Lion King is nothing whatsoever like
Hamlet. In TLK, the protagonist is a bumbling careless child who is forced
to grow up and take responsibility at the end; in Hamlet the protagonist is
a careful schemer from the beginning who feigns madness, uses psychology to
assure himself of the villain's guilt, carefully ponders whether to do what
he's about to do at every step, and survives a plot on his life by cunning,
playing along with it knowingly and turning it against the perpetrators, in
sharp contrast to the Lion King, who is manipulated by the plotters, flees,
and survives only because of the assassins' laziness.
There are similar elements to the story, sure. For example, the villain is
a relative who also killed the protagonist's father -- but that much of the
story goes back *way* before Hamlet. (Numerous times in the history of the
Roman Empire it actually happened, and it wasn't original then.)
> When will people learn that no story is 100% original?
This is true, but the Lion King is more like Aladin than it is like Hamlet.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.