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.
Further, the new season of Family Guy will be written by the folks from "Will and Grace."
Just a couple more changes that will bring you sequels just as good as the originals.
P.S. - Disney hasn't done anything original on their own in YEARS (nay, DECADES).
God Bless America. Why? Did it sneeze?
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
Pixar's realized it doesn't need Disney (all they've done lately is act as distributers). Disney killed their golden goose in an effort to grab a little more profit for themselved.
and that it quickly becomes a direct to video failure. C'mon Disney, is mining existing properties all that you have left in you? What happened to creativity anyhow?
Lasers Controlled Games!
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.
I'm sure it'll be a heart-warming family story, with both Buzz AND Woody having 2 funny sidekicks each!
(The story will actually just be a recycled Hansel and Gretel story)
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
*Sigh*. Disney will ruin it--I don't think anything decent has come out of Disney in the past five or ten years, aside from the Pixar stuff. Does anyone know if Disney owns the rights to The Incredibles sequel? That would be really unfortunate...
Perhaps Pixar can buy the rights back.
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.
With Eisner intending to step down, Disney may have a chance to get back to the role they played of wholesome fun. Right now they are cliched and trite. They went from inspiring imagination to the poster children of proving that trademarks don't spark innovation.
I don't recall Walt ever drawing Mickey Mouse as a dirty dirty whore, but that's what he's become, pimped out around the world.
Never confuse volume with power.
Pixar will go on to do great things. Disney should have stuck with them. Pixar was fresh blood for Disney and they just gave that up. What were they thinking.
I am Lord Snowbeam. Heed my call!
without having to keep their stuff as purely kid-friendly and cutesy as Disney requires. The Incredibles was a step in the more-adult direction, but without Disney, they could do whatever their creative minds come up with, even if it is far edgier than a Disney cartoon.
Of course, I speak as an adult fan of their work, not as a stockholder, nor as a 5 year old hoping for stuff my prudish parents will take me to.
As Skinner would say, though, "Prove me wrong, kids! Prove me wrong."
Do not touch -Willie
I really don't care if Pixar or Disney get along.
But I beg of You, please, PLEASE!
Don't let the same people who brought us Cinderella II: Now it's just for 2 year olds, Little Mermaid II: The Sea Shells got Bigger and the Story got Dumber, Lion King 1 1/2: The Pointless Version, and Pocohontas II: We Just Can't Take Historical Innacuracy with a Native American Pamela Anderson Clone Far Enough make "Toy Story 3".
I don't think it if I had to suffer my children asking me for another movie where Andy loses his Woody again, and the kids take a trip to Neverland Ranch to find it.
Oh, and thanks for Metroid Prime II.
Amen.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
The interesting question for the next 5 years: Now that PIXR is free from the creative and financial shackles of DIS, will they be able to get their movies shown?
Or will DIS be able to use its distribution muscle to keep it out of theaters long enough to starve PIXR of revenue, and to serve as a warning to current "partners" that You Don't Fuck With The Mouse.
Can Pixar survive without Disney? Absolutely, their movies pretty much market themselves these days. Can Disney movies survive without Pixar? Only if they get out of their post-95 crap slump.
If you have to ask, you'll never know.
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
Will Disney be getting back into 2D animation again? After the debacle with Treasure Planet it seems to me that they have decided to forgo the idea of continuing the 2D flms. If they are going to focus their efforts on 3D it does make sense to sever ties with Pixar. If their future is in 3D then they need to increase their in-house experience in this realm. It seems a shame to stop the 2D stuff, but kids obviously prefer the 3D stuff. Disney is not about making art, and they know it, they are an entertainment company that churns out the stuff that sells. I don't think the Toy Story 3 will be any less of a hit without Pixar. 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.
which is actually a surprisingly good metaphor for the Disney/Pixar relationship. Hey, AC you're pretty smart!
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
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.
I am hoping that, with Disney out of the picture Pixar may create more mature movies. I love what they have done so far but, I feel Pixar has so much more potential.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
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.
Pixar does NOT need Disney. Maybe they're not really equipped to distribute their own movies, but they could certainly either become equipped or find somebody else who is. They have enough name recognition of their own that they don't need Disney anymore.
Disney, on the other hand ... what's the last movie they did by themselves? Operation Dumbo Drop? Pocahantas II?
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
Ok, now I'm convinced. There *is* a website for everything.
I wouldn't say I'm a bad gambler but the last time I went to Vegas I even lost a buck on the soda machine.
I wonder how much of Toy Story Disney owns. Do they own all of the software Pixar developed to make the movie? Can they insist that Pixar hand over all of their models, animations, etc.? Admittedly, even with all that it would be hard for a new team to develop, but I just wonder how far Disney's ownership of all things Toy Story-related extends.
Honor Among Slackers. A veri
The Pixar exec to the Disney exec:
"The Almightly says I'll get through this one, but he's pretty sure, you're f**ked."
You were a good act, but the new management will not know how to make proper use of you.
I see great ugliness in your future. Bad songs, adorable kid side-kicks, B-list actors supplying your voices, and TOY STORY 2 1/2, in which your badly rendered future selves travel back in time and bastardize your second adventure in the interest of reviving flagging DVD sales.
We should have known the franchise was in trouble when Disney allowed images of the valiant space ranger to be stamped on disposable training pants.
Farewell.
Stefan
Sure they're just different medium, but how long has it been since we've seen a 2-D blockbuster?
The Iron Giant is an awesome movie, and Lilo & Stitch was pretty good, but I don't think either of them has the status that Pixar's movies, or Shrek, or the upcoming one about robots hold.
I guess we just have to wait for Netcraft to confirm it, but I think that the days of blockbuster 2-D animation are over.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
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..."
So now we know. Steve Jobs secretly posts to /. as Zebbers.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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 hope you are trying to be funny, but for the benefit of those who may not get it, Disney was formed by brothers Walter E. and Roy O. Disney. One of whom would be the "father" (Roy) and the other the "uncle" (Walt) of Roy E. Disney.
"What happened to creativity anyhow"
The name's Eisner, Michael Eisner.
I used to work for Disney. I called it creative purgatory. The company is so inbred that there is little hope for change without a radical shake up. I think realistically the only way of fixing the company is for a hostile take over that would allow for changing most of the executive staff and eventually most of the surpervisers. The inbreding goes all the way from top to bottom. We used to call them second and third generation as in the family had worked for Disney that many generations. Even worse now is it's all Eisner's cronies and their friends. Most have no creative ability. Creative people are often seen as a threat and tend not to do well. Personally I quit and you couldn't pay me enough to go back. The joke is if Walt were alive I'd have stayed with the company for life. They're ruined the best company in Hollywood and the box office reflects the disaster it's become.
On the positive side, at least Debian will have some new names from which to select :)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
As far as a "bricks and mortar" studio, they've been down this road before...
Anybody remember this (pretty cool-looking) Disney flick?
Dinosaur
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0130623/
No, it wasn't a Pixar film...
The Secret Lab was credited at the end... But that's not the whole story...
Disney has had a CG team at Feature Animation for some time.... But Disney proper has also farmed a lot of work out (around the world) for their various needs, and as such, has relationships with studios and individual artists, making an endeavor such as a divorce from Pixar a viable proposition.
I hate to cite AICN, but this is a pretty good read, and it jives with what I'd heard at the time:
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=12700
Dinosaur credits:
http://www.dinosaur.org/disneydinosaur.htm
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0130623/fullcredits
Anyone out there closer to the source care to shed more light?
There's an old saying in animation:
"Everyone works for Disney at least once."
Keanu Reeves announced today that he himself will write, direct, produce, film and star in the Matrix Reloaded 2: Electric Boogaloo, despite legal threats from the Wachowski brothers. All roles will be played by him and will feature another hot scene between Neo (Reeves) and Trinity (Reeves) in a cave (Reeves). There will be no stunt or special effects work, everything you see will be real, or will it?, except the spoons.
R(k)
You're right there...if we're going to have the movie playing over and over in the house, then we show a bit more discrimination. Pixar is a sure thing, but none of the crappy sequels have ever made it under the Christmas tree.
-aiabx
Just this guy, you know?
You heard very wrong.
I worked for Pixar a few years ago and I can say that the pay was nothing to laugh at. Infact they pay quite well and provide a very comfotable place to work. Hell the place breeds creativity.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Weren't we flooded with marketing hype some time ago about video cards that could render Toy Story in real-time? Goodbye, Pixar, hello $10/hour high-school student with a GeForce 6800 Ultra.
(Yes, that's a joke.)
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Pixar was in the middle of developing a shoddy direct-to-video Toy Story 2 when they realized such a thing would damage their reputation. John Lasseter specifically said, "We didn't want to be known as a studio that did great stuff and crap -- we want it all to be great."
They pushed to make Toy Story 2 a theatrical release, tossed out the stuff they had done so far, retooled the story from the beginning, worked themselves to deliver a quality product, and the rest is history.
Too bad any Disney-produced Toy Story 3 won't have half the love and care that Pixar gave to their movies.
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
They had a top-notch 3D shop. The Secret Lab. You know, the people that did Dinosaur, the digital dogs in 102 Dalmatians, and lots of other VFX and animation for Disney's features. They shut the division down a couple of years ago. Now they're starting over again.
"1) Disney has been (and still is) a good partner for us. They bring a HEAP of talent to the table. Not to mention unparalleled experience in marketing animated features. (If Pixar hadn't teamed up with disney, no one would have even seen Toy Story.)
2) The main reason for the disagreement is Pixar's desire to own the rights to it's characters. Disney currently owns the rights and is loathe to give 'em up. Thus, the standoff."
I know that part of the bad blood is about Toy Story 2. Disney would not allow them to include this in their original 6 picture deal, since it was a sequel. Eisner is leaving Disney at the end of 2006. I have heard/read before that both companies are waiting for this to see if a deal can be struck, it seems Jobs and Eisner don't get along too well.
US Forest Service Travel Warning
The last two years have seen unprecedented growth in bear populations in the Rocky Mountain region. As Spring approaches, tourists are advised to wear small bells attached to their clothing, as this will frighten away most bears.
Tourists are also cautioned to watch the ground on the trail for bear droppings. Be particularly alert for the presence of Grizzly bear droppings, which are easily recognized because they usually contain small bells.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
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.
Nope. Eisner has already announced his intent to leave Disney in 2006.
Endut! Hoch Hech!