Slashdot Mirror
Toy Story 3 Scrapped
Snap E Tom writes "The Independent Online is reporting that Toy Story 3 has been scrapped. This is a strong clue that the Pixar guys are firmly in control at Disney. The ground-breaking films were being milked into almost as many movies as The Sims has expansion packs. John Lasseter, Pixar's creative head, was strongly against the idea of third and forth movies, while the old Disney regime pushed forward with it. Now with Pixar and Steve Jobs on the board, Lasseter has taken the necessary steps to prevent the franchise from being diluted."
I think they should have released it and called it
Toy Story 3 : The cashening
Laugh It Off
According to talk in Hollywood, Disney was struggling with a script in which Buzz Lightyear, one of the two stars, developed a fault and had to be recalled to Taiwan for repairs.
That sounds like a reasonably good premise, actually.
This space intentionally left blank.
We do not need another sequal factory. My recommendation? Disney should leave Pixar alone. They seem to be doing just fine managing their own assets and continued box office success stories. Something disney can't claim with their own movies. So let pixar do what pixar does best and let the money flow without interference. Let disney start claiming more of that success and have stock prices go up.
I fear if they start meddling with it we're going to start ending up with a lot of straight to DVD releases that no one will really want to see.
"If I were bound by all laws everywhere I'm sure I would have committed a capital crime somewhere."
It was too much, no film franchise could resist a fourth release without a big hit on quality. I hope this marks a trend on the industry.
I find also interesting the Cringely's take on the adquisition, as he says it's only a way for Jobs to diversify his income.
Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
I am likewise firmly against movies being created with FORTH.
.sig
"Lasseter has taken the necessary steps to prevent the franchise from being diluted"
So instead he's stagnating it?
Eventually this spells the end of Debian. They will run out of toys.
At the current release rate, we should be able to predict the date of Debian's demise.
So in other words, they disagreed with Disney on how to make the most money, rather than artistic or moral grounds. If they thought Toy Story 3 would "enhance the franchise" there would have been no objection.
Of course, that's what companies do, and just because Jobs has some input doesn't change the fact.
At least someone in the entertainment industry knows when to say "its been agood run" and move along to new things. The problem with entertainment today is that the industry has gotten so big that they have forgotten the first rule of showbiz, always leve 'em wanting more.
Hey--at least they wouldn't dream of doing it in LISP--although some of the characters might have one...
Trying to do entertainment in the venture capital style has been the main reason for the flood of dreck we've been seeing from hollywood for decades. Sequels, repackaging of Shakespeare and the Bronte sisters, butchering great books, etc.. Disney's going to be making movies with decent story lines, and the rest of Hollywood is going to have to hire some writers. I can't wait.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Is it just me or did Disney delibertly insist on a TS3 just to get Steve Jobs more involved at Disney? Luring him in and tying him down?
Maybe Disney is afraid he would dump their stock and take his profit and go.
We need him at Apple, not to be going off and trying to revive a dead corporations image.
Does this herald the rise of creativity in Disney's output? If so, it'll be a difficult one to sell to the accountants and the more conservative shareholders: re-runs are provably successful; improving the brand is more nebulous. Ultimately, you can never know the real cause for higher sales across the board.
Wikileaks, no DNS
Well - Disney animation, at least.
John Lasseter and Ed Catmull truly understand how to make good, original films -- and with Jobs riding shotgun upstairs as the biggest shareholder, they can actually get things done. This decision is proof that they are firmly in control. I think Lasseter, Catmull, and the terrific artists over in Burnbank are going to create some great films - and I'm sure some of them will be 2D as well (Brad Bird - here's your chance)
There's some great quotes from Disney artists about the managements change over at Cartoon Brew ( http://www.cartoonbrew.com/ ) Here's one from Floyd Norman (story artist who started at Disney in the 50's and has worked at many other places as well)
Not too many guys can say they've worked for both Walt Disney and John Lasseter, so I can offer a unique perspective.
Different cultures at Disney and Pixar? Naw, it's the same culture. Eisner's managers simply choked all the creative life out of Disney. The Disney culture is finally returning to Disney. Ed Catmull, Steve Jobs and John Lasseter will be returning it shortly. This is good news for all of us who love animation, and the Disney legacy in particular.
I got a better idea:
How about Pixar guts Disney...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The first Air Bud was a pretty good movie, IMO.
Now how many crappy sequels are there?
I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel to The Incredibles. I think they left an excellent door open for that. I see it based around the family learning to function as a team.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Disney pays 7 billion for Pixar. As a result, Pixar is calling the shots at Disney.
Who owns who?
I guess it never occurred to anyone at Disney that milking these franchises to the point of nearly destroying them not only ruins the value of the first few good ones for future generations (like what the Matrix sequels did to the first one) and the exploitation of old stories instead of creating new ones tends to make a company look washed up to its customers.
When are they gonna do Toy Story Vs captain Nemo?
After Toy Story v17?
That's what I really want to know!
Good. Next!
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Who owns who?
Disney still owns Congress until January 1, 2019.
(But seriously, parallels run to how Apple hired NeXT as new management.)
Can we hope to see this sort of thing spread? Can we hope to see the creative arts industries wake up and kick the coke addled, bromidic MBAs out of the animation studios and film sets, and into their little offices so they can work on their little spreadsheets like they are supposed to?
Very similar to how Apple 'bought' Next... and AOL 'bought' Time Warner.
The next few years should be very interesting.
Toy Story 2 was something very unusual for Disney--a sequel that was actually good. Their usual practice is to follow up a great animated film with an utterly crappy direct-to-video release. Perhaps they fell into this habit as a result of their fairy tale films; there's not much chance of making a good sequel to "Beauty & the Beast" or "The Little Mermaid." But Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote dozens of sequels to Tarzan, all of them pretty good; there was no reason why Tarzan 2 had to be crap. Nor was there any reason why Casper the Friendly Ghost 2 had to be crap. Either one of these could have had a strong sequel. Running strong properties into the ground like this is simply bad business.
All the names of the Debian releases so far have been based on characters from Toy Story. If there's no more Toy Story movies made, Debian will soon run out of characters, and will be forced to give up on making systems! :)
"But we're rolling in money, so who cares what they think of us?"
It's short-term profit-taking thinking at work here. Give them the golden goose, tell them there's only one, tell them they need to wait for the eggs, and their first thought will still be what kind of stuffing to serve it with.
If we search, I'm sure we can come up with historical parallels, to other groups who didn't understand how to manage something and ultimately died out for lack of it.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
Pixar is one of, if not the, finest film studios around right now. I was really worried about Disney ruining everything that makes Pixar great, and I was also worried about the Jobs reality distortion field making things worse.
Instead of my fears of Disney corrupting Pixar it looks like Pixar is going to help Disney get back to where they used to be and that would be an excellent thing. I wonder what the minds at Pixar could do with the Muppet franchise.
My fingers are crossed.
sig.
For example, they just released Bambi 2 direct to video! "Plot Outline: Bambi's austere father raises him after his mother is killed by hunters, teaching the fawn how to survive in the wild."
The only thing that is yours, is your soul; everything else is borrowed.
Its much easier to have integrity when you already have a billion dollars and :)
full control of production than when you dont!
It's misreported in this article that Pixar and John Lasseter didn't want to make another Toy Story sequel. In fact, they do. They just don't want to make the sequel that Disney had planned. Evidently John has a better story in his head, and wants to make it with that story. With Pixar's track record vs. Disney's track record, thank goodness they're going to get a chance to scrap the current story and do it themselves. I saw Robert Iger was quoted somewhere as saying he felt like the people at Pixar, who were really involved with these characters from the beginning, should be making the sequels. Woah! A corporate executive who sounds like he understands the artistic side of things? That's amazing.
Ignoring all of the possible positive potential this might have on the creative process at Disney, this isn't the only effect the merger might have.
Keep in mind that until the Sony rootkit, Disney has historically been one of the worst offenders as far as pushing DRM. (If I recall correctly, they were one of the most solid backers of DIVX - no, not DivX, DIVX. There's a big difference. I'm also pretty sure they were also one of the only backers of DIVX that apparently intended not to ever allow customers to "silver" a disc - paying a one time flat fee for unlimited viewing, you would only ever be able to view your Disney DIVX discs as pay-per-view.)
Jobs, on the other hand (well, at least Apple with him at the helm), has had a much more lenient approach with DRM. Apple's DRM has typically been described as "the bare minimum to keep content providers happy", and Apple has actively resisted attempts to force increases in the restrictions of their DRM. Keep in mind that throughout this all, Jobs was also a content provider, since he also ran Pixar.
Could Jobs calling the shots at Disney mean a more consumer-friendly Disney? I hope so.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
... I saw it just last week at a video store in the Adults section.
Rest in peace Jim 'Ernest P. Worrell' Varney....
P.S. If they do the 3rd film, perhaps they'll have Slinky Dog in it
featured prominently (yet silently) in the background of various scenes.
Or maybe the other toys will mourn his passing in the film -- going to
that 'great junkheap in the sky'....
To get a 'soundalike' to do Slinky Dog for a 3rd film would be wrong and besmirch
Varney's memory and his memorable characterization of Slinky Dog.
This is somewhat similar to Steve Whitmire doing Kermit The Frog -- taking over for
the late, great James Maury Henson when he passed away back in 1991. Steve (now) does Kermit practically as good as Jim did but I know it is just not the same any more....
Food for thought.
I think Toy Story 3 was Eisner's attempt to use Pixar's characters as a leverage point in the distribution negotiations. Before Pixar walked, it was the stick, in that Disney kept character rights and said we could do sequels without you. After Pixar did walk it was revenge for defying the mighty Michael (who had pissed Jobs off by saying to Congress that Apple owners were stealing music). Once it became clear that Michael was on his way out (partly for pushing out Roy Disney, partly for Pixar, and partly for poor results from the animation, parks, and ABC units), I would guess that there wasn't a whole lot of serious work done on Toy Story 3. I'd be surprised if development even went as far as animatics from story boards.
I don't get why so many people seem to think that endless sequels are some phenomenon that Hollywood recently invented.
Lord of the Rings was a sequel that Tolkien was encouraged to write to cash in on the success of The Hobbit.
Ditto Huckleberry Finn as a sequel to Tom Sawyer.
Ditto Bride of Frankenstein as a sequel to Frankenstein.
All of these are pretty widely considered to be superior to their originals.
Then there are the endless Pink Panther series, the "Thin Man" movies, the multiple history plays by Shakespeare, various sequels built into the books of the Hebrew Bible, and even the Aeneid and the Odyssey, both of which are sequels to the Iliad.
Sure, most sequels don't approach the level of artistry of many of the above. But a sequel per se, even one motivated by the desire to cash in on the original, is not a priori a bad thing. The judgment cannot be made till after the sequel is made.
I refer you to Sturgeon's Law (more accurately called Sturgeon's Revelation).
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
Originality:
Pixar has it.
Disney needs it.
Disney got it wether they wanted it or not or even know it.
When you wish upon a star be careful what you wish for; you might just get it.
Disney pays 7 billion for Pixar. As a result, Pixar is calling the shots at Disney.
That's what happens when you have a brain transplant. The brain calls the shots.
It's the same thing that happened when Apple bought NeXT.
I visited a local video rental shop just recently, I haven't been there for a year probably.
I noticed ALOT of straight to DVD sequels to various successful movies. It seems the Hollywood machinery today is all about squeezing blood out of turnips.
Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
Bambi is quite possibly one of my favorite Disney movies if for no other reason than the amount of emotion it's able to draw out of me even today.
And they're destroying it with a sequel as well.
Seems to me like what really happened was Steve Jobs traded Pixar for ownership of Disney.
This space available.
the QOTD at the bottom of this page was:
s prigman.html- rules-in-winniethepooh-case.htmlm l. eisner/
Destroy the most important thing.
In my opinion, Disney was just about to do this. They have been saved from this mistake. Maybe Disney can now go forth and innovate, rather than taking the tired Hollywood path of cranking out sequel after dismal sequel.
However, there may be a few other things they have to give up:
1. They might have to stop purchasing legislation to guarantee income from ancient work:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_
2. They might have to give up a little of the endless profits that they make to the creators (or their heirs) of the very thing that makes them so much:
http://www.svmedialaw.com/content-219-9th-circuit
3. They might have to stop the entire culture of cronyism at the highest levels that pays out huge amounts of money for no better reason than "friends":
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1117/p01s01-ussc.ht
4. Speaking of the highest levels, they might have to clean house... oh wait! they already started:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/03/03/disney
Could Jobs calling the shots at Disney mean a more consumer-friendly Disney? I hope so.
We'll see in 2019 whether Disney lets the U.S. Congress let the public domain drought end.
I wonder if Disney will go from a three fingered to a one fingered mouse.
Anyone see Jon Stewart address this?
He said something to the effect of, "Pixar will make sure Disney won't water-down the Toy Story franchise, which Includes such movies as:
Toy Story
Toy Story 2
Toy Story with Insects (A Bugs Life)
Toy Story with Fuzzy Monsters (Monsters, Inc.)
Toy Story Underwater (Nemo)
and of course,
Toy Story with Superheroes (The Incredibles)"
His writers were dead on: all of these films are the same franchised rehashed crap, ready for toy and videogame tie-ins from day 1. (To inject my opinion: Just look at the lengthy chase high-speed chase scene with the son in The Incredibles: it was shot from the vidoegame camera angle, I felt like I was watching someone play the game rather than a movie.)
People love to fawn over Pixar's writing, and yes, it is better than Disneys, but the films are remarkable bland plots, that numb us with eye candy.
Not that I'm against good eye candy...
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
They were all planned together in one big story, sorta like the Star Wars series. You can tell because the first Matrix was pretty weak by itself, but with the other two movies, it was more coherent and became stronger.
They'll never put out another Matrix movie, because, the story was said.
Microsoft would buy out Disney . . . .
Adult Disney fans, particularly the devout ones, should be rounded up a la Douglas Adams and sent on an important interstellar mission.
This will take care of fans of the films of Hayao Miyazaki, Quentin Tarantino, M. Night Shyamalan, and Kevin Smith, as their films are distributed in the United States by Disney. And speaking of Douglas Adams, even the movie adaptation of The Hitchhiker's Guide is a Disney movie.
They're there affecting their effect.
It makes you wonder though, how many hits in a row can you produce. Pixar's had an awesome streak so far.
Generally, the only movies that ever have good sequels are based on a tv show, or a line of open-ended books. Such stories are designed for later "episodes." I wish I could elaborate more on why it seems this way to me; the same reasons that make normal movie sequels suck play the same integral part in making the "based on tv" sequel actually work.
Either way, John Q Public will eventually get bored with Star Trek as a concept, and move on to Sex and the City or something else. I suspect pretty much anybody on slashdot could point out numerous cases of Star Trek jumping the shark.
I think you just broke my sarcasm meter!
Initially I was worried about this buyout. Pixar is responsible for my personal favorite film (The Incredibles, narrowly edging out Serenity).
But I was talking with some people about this last night and I realized something. First, Steve Jobs has had a lot of experience with the media industry thank to iTunes and his experience at Apple. Granted, that's more music than movies but I think the same basic forces are in play. I think he has a clear view of how both industries are, and the quality problems that Disney has, and the inevitable financial consequences that will eventually follow.
Second, Steve Jobs is an excellent businessman. I don't think he would trade 50+% of Pixar for 7% of Disney, unless he had some good reason to believe that Disney was going to be able to grow more than Pixar. The only way that would be true is if the merger deal included a lot of control over Disney by the Pixar crew, because clearly Business As Usual at Disney wasn't going to get it done.
I haven't heard about the specifics of the deal; maybe it's been covered, but the only clue I have is basically TFA (which I saw earlier). But it gives me a lot of hope. Still not convinced, but "hopeful" is a major improvement from when I figured that Disney would just kill the golden goose.
The Pixar mantra has been "It's all about the story". If Lasseter says the "Disneyfied" TS3 is scrapped for now, then the developed story "stunk". It's not possible to start with crap and turn it into honey. More power to PIXAR-isney.
Another option is that since Lasseter is so protective of his Toy Story franchise, he cancelled Disney's TS3 project so he could make it from scratch himself, the way he originally imagined.
I've heard he's had at least four movies on the TS theme in mind from the very beginning, and the fact that Disney wouldn't follow his direction for TS2 was one of the contributing factors to the (now resolved) Pixar-Disney rift.
It's not a franchise until it's been diluted....
[Neil is crying softly]
Rick: Shut up, Neil, shut up! What's the matter?
Neil: I'm sorry, everybody. I'm sorry, Bambi. I'm just remembering, like, that bit when you got lost in the snow, and the rabbit found you, it was so beautiful...
Vyvyan: Yeah, I liked the bit where you shoved the drill in the virgin otter's face.
Neil: That wasn't in "Bambi", Vyvyan!
Vyvyan: It was in the sequel, Neil. "Bambi Goes Crazy Ape Bonkers with His Drill and Set".
Neil: [gravely] Is that true, Bambi? Did you do a Disney nasty?
Bambi: So what if I did? I'm not apologizing. My life collapsed after "Bambi". I was a lovable fawn alright, unusable for anything else. I took the Babycham stuff, sure, thanks to Mike here, but I was finished. When the porn "Bambi" came along, well, I thought, this is where I get something back...If it hadn't been for the chance to present University Challenge and start a new life, I'd be giving executive relief to woodland creatures to this very day.
c&p source
David Stainton, who was running Disney Feature Animation, came up via DisneyToons. He's out, apparently.
Incidentally, if you want to track what's going on in the animation industry, read The Animation Guild newsletter, The Pegboard, published by Local 839, IATSE. 85% of the film and TV industry is unionized, and they're working on organizing the video game industry.
Thunderball, which was the fourth Bond film (well fifth if you want to count the TV Casino Royale as the first), was one of the best of the franchise. As far as im concerned the only time the bond series took a real hit in quality was in during films 11 through 14 (Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy and A View to a Kill). I would argue as a Bond fan that Licence to Kill (#16) and Die Another Day (#20) were also rubbish, but only because they both catered to the film climate of the time and did not feel like bond films.
So the old pixar Shareholders are now Disney shareholders. And since the Disney original stock was rather diluted, the new stockholders from Pixar hold a lot of power.
It's probably also why "Cars" was looking to be a piece of crap - since the movie was simply being done to fulfill a contractual obligation, Pixar would phoen it in, and Disney could choke on their contract. I wouldn't be surprised if "Cars" goes into turnaround now that there's a real reason to make it.
I can't believe nonsense like this gets to be modded to +5.
John Lasseter is directing this film, personally. Doing a bad job on a film just to fulfill a contractual obligation would do incredible damage to the Pixar brand. No one with any position of authority would tolerate any trash going out under the Pixar name at all, let alone deliberately out of spite for one's business partner. And it's not like ALL the profits from the 5 (or, rather 6) films went to Disney, there was a somewhat even split, so Pixar has a lot on the line with each title.
The teaser trailer for Cars wasn't that great, sure. To get a better idea of what the film will be, check out the little-circulated international trailer.
IIRC, Disney wanted to release Toy Story 2 as their usual crap straight-to-video fare (Disney had sequel rights on all the movies). Pixar decided to make a real move out of it in order to ensure quality, even though it didn't count towards their six-movie deal with Disney.
Now with Pixar and Steve Jobs on the board, Lasseter has taken the necessary steps to prevent the franchise from being diluted.
The day they started refering to a movie as a franchise is the day Hollywood officially started to suck.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
let's keep in mind Jobs is known for his block buster *products*. I'd say he has a good argument to become CEO if your reasoning is true.
Toy Story 2 surprisingly managed to be even better than Toy Story 1. If they could make a third movie that was again even better then I say go for it. The reason Toy Story is so good isn't because of it's plot or how it's rendered - it's the personalities and relationships of the characters. The movies have a plot simple enough for children to follow but a depth that will keep adults interested. It's just good movie making. We really learned to care about the characters. That is really the important part about any movie.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
I've been working with franchise movie memes for the past couple of weeks. Although they often show equal or higher sales, their actual audience interaction declines steadily with each successive movie.
y =movie_madness_threedux
http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme?entr
Essentially, I believe that the original movie sets a cultural context that successive movies play upon, and that each sequel is attractive to audiences BECAUSE it requires less thinking. It's interesting that sales often remain the same, even though there's less expressed interest.
That's a reworking of the idea of marginal utility in economics. Because the sequel costs less, it's equally desirable as its marginal utility falls.
Very interesting stuff that you can derive a lot of conjectures from.
I think what you are trying to say is that the first one seems to be a better movie due to the fact that the sequels sucked donkey balls.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off &num=10&q=%22b-movies%22&safe=off&qt_s=Search&as_d rrb=b&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=29& as_maxm=1&as_maxy=1997
e _thread/thread/984b5872f76f0a07/3e1e491b36bbed31?l nk=st&q=%22b-movies%22&rnum=1&hl=en#3e1e491b36bbed 31
+ here's the oldest available, from 1981
http://groups.google.com/group/fa.sf-lovers/brows
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I thought they already made Toy Story 3: Monster Edition? Followed by Toy Story 4 Underwater, and Toy Story 5 Supertoys.
(This joke shamelessly stolen from The Daily Show).
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Toy Story 3 was already doomed from the start. Sequels are not profitable, BUT they retain the current organization, i.e. it's a personnel strategy to keep 'your' team employed. Disney has a history of retaining their old-timers, whether talented or not. Disney and Pixar know that the true cash is expanding the brands into the theme parks, product licensing (think lucasfilm). In-theater based movies have gone away of the dinosaur (unless it's IMAX or a theme park movie) from the age of DVD, HDTV, 5.1 sound and the future home formats.
'Job' rule...
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
That was funny.
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
You're all insane. Toy Story 2 was better than 1 by far. 3 could have been just as good.
In the specific case of Disney's direct-to-video sequels, these films were never intended to be of theatrical-release quality. These films are mostly assembled with a formulaic storyline, second-rate voice talent, and a bare minimum of animation artistry, all on a shoestring budget. The management at Disney never intended for these to be comparable to the originals in any capacity. They never even had a chance to be great.
I haven't seen Bambi II yet, but I guarantee you it won't come close to the quality of the original. I can make that judgement without having seen it, because of the manner in which it was conceived.
Plenty of Hollywood sequels (Godfather II, Empire Strikes Back, and yes, even Toy Story 2) have been acclaimed more highly than their predecessors. In most cases, this was because they were guided by the same director and/or creative team, who in turn were allowed their freedom by the studio. Too often, the studio management elects to make a sequel without the input of the first film's creators, and often there is an artificial pressure to do it quickly, while the first film is still "fresh." Most importantly, film studios are notoriously risk-averse, which is not usually a creative asset. Disney's animation department, of late, has exemplified these traits, and so I can say without hesitation that Toy Story 3 would have sucked.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
Just saw the ads for Babmi II, is this trip really necessary?
If only George Lucas had thought as you do.
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
If this means Disney can go back to making films as good as The Lion King and The Little Mermaid, I will be VERY happy.
Finding Nemo & Monsters Inc are both up there with the best of Disney and if the people that made those films happen are in charge at disney, that HAS to bode well for the future of Disney animated films.
I heard that a Monsters Inc 2 was well on the way. It dealt with Monsters Inc and Fairies LLC merging and the resulting corporate chaos and infighting that ensues. Tinkerbell emerges as a strong female character as managing partner at Fairies LLC.
Meanwhile, Boogeymen international tries to take advantage of the chaos to increase their market share and subsequently force a hostile takeover of Monsters Inc.
It's a real thriller.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
In other news, there will be a sequel to Sex Toy Story 2.
It's about as reasonable a premise as the computer virus assault against the aliens in Independence Day.
BUZZ IS A [b]TOY. TEEE OOOOW WHYYYYYY. TTTOOOOOOOYYYYYYY.[/b] He is not a computer or a speak and spell.
What, maybe Buzz's voice box goes out? That's already been covered. He'll go up on the shelf with squeaky and Mom will buy him another deluded Buzz Lightyear doll.
I think they will do a Toy Story 3 when the right story comes along. And eventually they will have to deal with all the toys when Andy gets older. Kinda like the last episode of Mash.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
I dunno about Skater and Surfer kids these days, but when I was a teen they were the most mellow bunch. Most of us had our headphones on and kept to our close friends and didn't bother anyone else.
Now days I'm not much different, only instead of a AM/FM radio and big headphones I have an iPod and earbuds.
hah.
Star Trek: TMP
Star Trek II: TWK
'nuff said.
Willie...
Bambi would be getting a bit tough by now.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
You would move forward a few years.
I think you would have Violet in college. Violet's (or PhaseForce (think of some other hero name)) relationship with her mother would be very strained as most of them are. This would be right before Violet goes off to college where some of her new classmates are actually part of a new super-hero team.
Violet has to find her way in this new world. She would see her forging a new relationship with Edna, and we would see Edna pushing her buttons to do things and actually getting her to rebel even more against her mother.
At the same time, the Incredibles would be hosting a new youngin' and training them. This would set up mixed mixed emotions of jealously for the attention that Helen is giving on her new protege. At the same time, the tension between mother and daughter are still there.
Violet's team would be let by one of the few supers that Syndrome didn't find. This person would be someone that Helen NEVER liked and doesn't approve of. He will be somewhat of a nare-do-well and frankly, somewhat of a lech.
Dash (he needs a Hero name to (say Double Time)), will be experiencing the pain of comparing to his younger and obviously more talented little brother. He will be acting out even more and getting the group into trouble.
We will find out that Mirage isn't just a name. She always had the power to affect people's perceptions. She is an excellent manipulator. And given her turning against Syndrome and her experience tracking down supers, she will be with the Super agency and possibly even vying to replace Carl (or whatever the old guys name is). Mirage is inherintely good had heart but still capable of mischief. Mirage's presence in the Super Hero agency bugs Helen to no end.
Bob's challenge will be his role as the "uber-hero" in this new era. He will find out that there are too many demands on his time. Even more than in the "good ole days". Bob will be moving around coaching the new super-hero squads, and of course Mirage will be involved with all those introductions.
The resolution to all this comes when the new "threat emerges" as a super-powerfu l new super. Mr Incredible must lead the Incredibles and two other new teams to face this new threat. He (maybe she) will be a hotshot with extra-ordinary powers and friends in high places.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Star Trek lost it's purpose after Gene died. What was that purpose??? Why, it was thinly veiled liberal ideology acted out between humans and aliens.
I don't think the suits ever GOT the notion that Star Trek was sociology, not science fiction. The moment they tried to explain some bit of techno-babble was the moment they started losing me.
Voyager and Enterprise was a complete waste of film. I stand proudly by my fondness of DS9. Man that Quark was FUNNY!!!!
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
It depends if the sequel is written because the makers have a story they want to tell (in addition to making money) or if they want to wring some more bucks out of a popular story. Two good Disney examples: the movie Aladdin and it's two sequels. Return of Jafar was an out and out crapfest. Aladdin and the King of Thieves had an actuall plot, a bunch of back story and better voice acting.
It seems that half the movies produced in the past three or four years have been (crappy)remakes, or (crappy)sequels. I found a whole friggin site on Sequels and remakes. http://www.sequelogue.com/ seems to not have any trouble finding content to place on their site. I heard that there is a new law coming out preventing crappy remakes of good movies. Just Kidding. I don't know why producers think that these movies will fly, but it's just unbelieveable that they think they will make a significant amount of money off of Stuart Little 3.
At least it seems obvious to me. When faced with the loss of Pixar, Disney decided they would need their own 3d animation team. It would be impossible for a new team to immediately match the quality that Pixar has honed over the years, so they decided to do a warm up movie. Toy Story came out in 1995, that means that Disney's in house 3d animation would only have to match the quality of an 11 year old movie in order to be visually acceptable to an audience. TS3 would have given Disney much needed practice in putting together a 3d animated movie all on their own, a familiar ground so to speak. With Pixar now back in the fold Disney has no reason to push a hasty TS3 out the door. I suspect we will eventually see a TS3 movie come out, but it will be a quality movie, not a training feature.
how long before the entire contents of the disney vault are available on itunes?
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Well, I'd have to say that EVERY Cardassian on screen had a serious Obsessive Compulsive problem. The ferengi were obvious
The whole Dominion thing was interesting because it was a caste society that was quite deliberate in assigning species to roles. The Vorta were the beuracrats. The Founders were the aristocratic liesure class. The Jem-Ha'Dar weren't even warriors. They were programmed biological weapons with no value besides self sacrifice (Klingons have greed and a nasty independent streak).
The trills were interesting as a source of OLD, DEEP wisdom contrasted with the avarice of youth.
So yeah, I think that DS9 had something to offer.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
"But I have learned that they don't stick with what they were going for when they made the teasers, they adapt and fiddle and tweak in the production until they make a masterpeice"
It's not even that -- the Pixar teasers are always made first in the animation process. But since that means most of the sets and models and rendering haven't been done yet, the "first teaser" ends up being some sort of gag that's tossed together with whatever is available at the moment. For instance, the teaser for The Incredibles featured Bob in his "den" because those were the only models they had ready at the time.
Knowing this, it puts the Pixar teasers into a new perspective. The sheer difficulty of trying to put together a teaser for a movie that's still 98% non-existent yet is not something I'd like to try...
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
Wow. I made it this far down the list of posts and came across the exact same sentiment I was getting ready to post about. Maybe Pixar/Disney could license sound clips from various "Ernest" movies to add to the Toy Story 3 voiceovers. With so many "Ernest" movies to sample from, there shouldn't be any problem piecing together relevant Slinky Dog conversational interjection. Such as Ernest's famous "Ewwweweweeweew!" when seeing or smelling something gross.
I was in Futureshop here in Toronto the other day...came face to face with an advertisement for "Bambi 2"... BAMBI 2??!?!? They're making a sequel to a 50 year old movie for crying out loud...
So... is this set before or after 'Bambi meets Godzilla' http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064064/
Despite all the bashing, I am sorry to hear this. The first two movies were nothing short of masterful, and we could do (and have already seen) a lot worse for sequels to have another one from this line. Kids all over the world (and me) are going to be very disappointed.
For the folks at Debian anyways - what are they going to call upcoming distros if they quite making Toy Story movies? - they probably thought they latched onto something that would last forever. Perhaps the next distro could come from Bambi2...
It may have been a bargaining chip that TS3 be pulled from Disney's immediate plans in order to entice Pixar back into the fold. Perhaps they will give Pixar the suggestion of control for a few years, but once the revenue engines are back in full swing at Pixar (and once Disney starts to restaff key members there), there WILL be sequels of Toy Story along with all other previous Pixar released (barring Cars which looks like crap anyways). Whether its a full fledged movie release, or a made-for DVD sequel remains to be seen, but I think anyone believing Pixar has any control now they are owned by Disney is simply delusional.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
In the second movie, didn't Andy's mom say that Woody was a family heirloom? In other words, Woody is older than Andy (especially judging by the old TV show he had). Wouldn't this mean that it's possible that at least Woody would be passed on to the next generation of the family (if not Andy's kid, maybe a younger relative)?
That actually brings up an idea. How about the story of Woody's past (from when he was bought to when he was passed into Andy's care)? Don't know how they would explain Woody's amnesia, though. It's not worth making it into a full-blown theatre movie, but a direct-to-DVD movie may be feasible.
Just rename "The Land Before Time 3" to "The Land Before Time 12" and sell it again. That oughtta hold those S.O.B.'s. Hey, it worked for the rest of the series.
Hasn't anybody here ever heard of Buzz Lightyear of Star Command? It was released on video, but spawned a pretty clever animated TV show that ran for 60 episodes or so. Not Pixar, but it was Disney.
Have you read my blog lately?
The right to produce derivatives based on the characters and story of "Steamboat Willie" and only "Steamboat Willie."
And "Plane Crazy" and "Gallopin' Gaucho" which were first published before "Steamboat Willie". Particularly, "Plane Crazy" was the work in which the original Mickey Mouse character design was first published. And the four classic Pooh books, which are potentially more valuable than classic Mickey.
The character designs are trademarked.
Which likely buys Disney nothing if the derivative work's author adequately disclaims any sponsorship or endorsement by The Walt Disney Company. (See "nominative use".) I don't remember the name of the court case involving misuse of a trademark as a copyright, but I do know of an analogous case, Sega Enterprises v. Accolade, which was decided against a company that tried to misuse a trademark as a patent.
That'd be 'ghoulish'. There was an outcry using footage of dead actors (such as Humphery Bogart) in Coke (cola) commercials if I remember rightly.
Nah, let the dead rest in peace and let us remeber their contribution(s) to the world whether for good or for ill....