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."
omg Disney is the freaking worst offender. They will make a movie that does good at the box office, and completely ruin it. I can't believe they are dumb enough to keep doing it. For example, Mulan. It was a pretty good success at the box office. So what does Disney do? Come out with an awful sequel that rides on the mulan name that is probably one of the worst Disney movies ever. They've done this at least a good 20-30 times with their box office hits. I don't even think they try anymore. They probably have a formula that a sequel based on a hit will automatically profit x amount riding on the name alone.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
That's not the point. Toy Story 1 was a done with Pixar and Diseny. Toy Story 2 was all Disney trying to make money off the brand. Pixar didn't want a part of it.
What's funny is that days after the buyout of pixar is announced major shake ups are going through Disney. It lends one to wonder who is really buying who out? Is Disney buying Pixar or is Pixar buying out Disney with Disney's own money?
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
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.
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
Hey, FORTH was used for the motion control cameras in the movie, The Right Stuff! I know because I actually worked on those systems. (And got to meet Chuck Yeager, very briefly, but that's another story.) Anyway, I happened to like that movie--and not just because I contributed in a small way. So, while FORTH might not be my first choice these days, even for motion control, I think it's proved that it can be used to make some pretty good movies.
:)
So you and "Snap E Tom" can just go soak your...oh wait. Do you suppose that was a typo, and Tom really meant "fourth"? Nah, this is Slashdot; the editors would never let something like that slip through!
The real rub over Toy Story II was that, after Pixar made it and it was a huge whopping success, Disney pulled out the contract clause that all sequels did NOT contribute to the original Pixar committment to Disney - Disney, in effect, got a freebie.
This was a major reason behind Pixar's attempt to renegotiate the contract with Disney before its termination, and why they were willing to walk away from Disney in the end (or said they were, anyway).
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.
My big fear is that the Disney brass learned their lessons from the Daimler-Chrysler scam: perform a "merger", let the new "partners" have their head for a while, but retain the real power. A year passes, and then there's a purge. I don't think there will be any Pixar people left at Disney after 1 year, and Jobs will leave in 18 months: substantially richer, but disgusted.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
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?
Maybe Disney realizes that Pixar's formula is working, and they ponied up the dough to keep Pixar happy and to make sure they are a part of Pixar's success. Disney is good at promotion and distribution, and Pixar is excellent at delivering great movies. Why would Disney want to lose that business?
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.
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.
Toy Story 2 was meant to be straight-to-video. It turned out so good that they released it at the theatres. That was why it didn't count - according to Disney it was a "straight to video" release that just happened to end up at the movies.
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
I like Jon Stewart, I like The Daily Show, and I even like the movies that I just dissed, but he's the LAST person that should comment on other people's films. At least he makes fun of his own roles in those movies. I don't find the Pixar movies to be rehashed crap at all... I mean, there are no new plots available so the storytelling is what is important. They do a fantastic job with character development. A cartoon is always ready for product tie-in - I don't feel like they really have to compromise the film in order to put the characters on a Burger King box. Remember the feat that these guys have accomplished - making a movie for kids that adults happily watch and enjoy... that is pretty rare.
Finally, I think what you perceive as a "videogame" camera angle is really just the state of current computer technology. When I was a kid, a videogame camera angle would have been strictly 2-D sprites like every cartoon made prior to Toy Story (sorry, I know that is probably not 100% true).
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Yes... sequels (or reworkings) where there's more story to be told and someone who loves the story (either the original author or someone else) tells it, are great. The bad sequels are the ones where you have to reach to extend the story at all and then it tends to be done by either an original author who doesn't really want to or an impostor brought in because he's willing to do the dirty work.
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.
Intersting theory. Mine goes like this:
Cars was first scheduled for release last Fall, at the same time as Chicken Little. Disney, which holds all promotion rights, purposefully held off promoting Cars (which, to me, looks no worse than did The Incredibles, but that's just me), to force it into a poor or even showing against their in house CGI film. That way, when Disney lost Pixar they could assure their stock holders that Pixar was washed up anyway.
So, Pixar calls Disney and says, the film won't be ready for another eight months. Chicken Little bombs (who saw that one coming?), and Pixar still has a chance.
Anyway, just a thought.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
Why should kids watch crap anymore than adults? Letting kids watch crap is how we end up with stupid kids. If a movie has depth and meaning then it will help to shape the audience and kids are especially open to this shaping. If not then it will either have no effect or a negative effect. Movies like Robin Hood and the Sword and the Rose combined with my collection of fantasy and sci fi adventure books certainly helped shape my mindset and morals. I don't want children that have been shaped for nothing other than to be a good consumer and a pacifist.
Okay I have a grudge this week. The other day I was at McDonalds and a bunch (maybe two dozen) of junior high kids came in and literally were having a massive food fight and left without even dumping their trays in the trash. Obviously all brats that have been taught no values or respect for other people at all. Worse, some of their parents were there and let them do it.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Not just the DIVX discs, they also refused to release titles on DVD -- at least until the DIVX format went belly-up and they had no market. Disney was an early adopter of Macrovision on videotape, kept prices higher than other typical movies, and limited the quantities available on the market -- the infamous Disney Vault, where they only release a movie a shorttime every 7-to-10 years. Disney was also involved in designing the "disposable" DVD discs which degraded over a couple days after you open the plastic wrapping.
So, yes. Disney has been involved in DRM, if that's the right term, for many many years now.
{ - Generic Guy - }
This type of acquisition is really quite normal. Do not think of this as Disney buying Pixar - it is more along the lines of Disney, the corporation, hiring the management of Pixar the hard way. Really, what kind of incentive package could Disney have offered that was better than this?
Lord of the Rings was a sequel..to cash in
Not even close.
Tolkien first wrote parts of what is now The Silmarillion, but those were rejected. He spent about 16 years writing LOTR, hardly the act of someone rushing to cash in with a sequel. LOTR itself was only published due to pressure on the publisher by his son. The firm was willing to lose a thousand pounds just to get the book out, and printed only 3000 copies.
It wasn't until ten years later, LOTR caught on and began to sell in profitably numbers.
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.
how long before the entire contents of the disney vault are available on itunes?
Snowden and Manning are heroes.