Slashdot Mirror
Pixar's Next Three Films Will Be Sequels
brumgrunt writes "Should we be worried? As Pixar, with Up, once more proves itself to be home to some of the most original and daring blockbusters on the planet, the news that its next three films are likely to be sequels — with the confirmation of Monsters, Inc. 2 — gives cause for concern. Are commercial pressures catching up with one of our most inventive movie companies?"
The next three films are likely to be sequels? The article doesn't even make that claim. The person who wrote the summary likely thinks tha Pixar just "pops out" these films. In fact, they usually take about 4 years.
A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
Sigh.
First of all, Pixar has two announced films not mentioned here - The Bear and the Bow and Newt - both of which are original properties. Bear and the Bow is slated to share 2011 with Cars 2, and Newt is set for 2012.
Second of all, the suggestion that the "most likely" date for Monsters Inc 2 is 2012 is tenuous at best. The only time in the last decade Pixar has had a director do two films with only three years in between is when Brad Bird did Ratatouille three years after The Incredibles, and that was him coming on a film in mid-production. If Docter is directing it, it would be surprising to see it before 2013.
This story, in other words, is nonsense - the only actual content to it is that there's a sequel to Monsters Inc.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
The current slate of Pixar features in development are:
* Toy Story 3 (summer 2010)
* Cars 2 (summer 2011)
* The Bear and the Bow (xmas 2011, a princess wants to be an archer instead)
* Newt (summer 2012, the last two members of their species are a mismatched couple)
* Monsters Inc 2 (201?)
At least the movies they're making sequels to are ones where you can make a decent rationale for following the character to further adventures (Incredibles would be another). I can't see a sequel to Nemo, Rat, Wall, or Up - each of which told the by-far-most-important events of the protagonist's life - working as a story.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
But first they should read the damn article. The article clearly says there will be new content by the time Monsters Inc 2 is out, so that's not 'the next 3' that's just 'some 3'.
Your numbers are swapped for Finding Nemo. Also the profits aren't as slim as they seem.. Finding Nemo made $864 million worldwide. Yeah their profits are falling (coincidence probably) but those are profits. If you're making money ahead of inflation then you're alive.
Disney isn't calling the shots. Part of the deal between Disney and Pixar was junking the low-quality Toy Story 3 that Disney had in production. Pixar said regardless of how much money was already invested in it, they wanted it thrown out the window. In turn, Pixar agreed to make their own version up to their standards. And you know what, the Toy Story 3 teaser definitely has Pixar charm. Disney sequels are terrible. All Pixar has done is CONSISTENTLY put out high quality films.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Finding Nemo worldwide revenue $864 mil.
Cars worldwide revenue $461 mil.
Monsters, Inc worldwide revenue $525 mil.
The Incredibles worldwide revenue $631 mil.
Ratatouille worldwide revenue $621 mil.
Wall-E worldwide revenue $534 mil.
Up worldwide revenue (not launched internationally) 149 mil.
I don't see Pixar being in trouble at all, this is very solid business and seems to me very predictable above $500mil. per movie business. All figures from wikipedia.
If I remember correctly, Pixar would have made more sequels, sooner, but due to their former contract with Disney, and Disney's policies on sequels, which was video release only. Though since Toy Story 2 was good enough for the theater, they were fine with distributing it, but refused to let that release count towards their X number of films left until their contract expired. Pixar was itching to complete that contract they had made, considering Disney got a large chunk of the ticket sales, along with keeping all merchandising profits (this may have included video sales too). Disney viewed Pixar deal with them too profitable to let that film count, while Pixar made it clear that they would only focus on the end game for a new and far better distributing and merchandising contract with someone. End game ended up with a shake-up at Disney, Steve Jobs becoming majority share holder of Disney via a Pixar buyout and Pixar taking over the direction of Disney's digital films, along with guiding them in restarting hand drawn films. Pixar, always planned on making sequels, they just needed time to get to a better place... now that they are controlling Disney is ways, maybe that is not a bad thing.
Personally, I would have hoped that besides another Toy Story film (which was part of the buyout deal with Pixar doing it and Disney pulling the plug on the one they were working on), they would next create another tale in the universe of The Incredibles for a sequel.
US box office gross is an afterthought. Cars, for example, grossed over $461million worldwide, made a fortune in DVD sales, and made over $5 billion in merchandising, according to the article. Disney's $120 million investment returned over $5.5 billion, I doubt they're losing any sleep over The Fast and the Furious' $80 million budget.
I give Disney/Pixar credit for releasing imaginative films like WALL-E and Up knowing they'd make far less in merchandising and DVD sales. They would be crazy (incompetent in the eyes of their investors) if they failed to produce films capable of generating billions in revenue. And who's to say the sequels will be any worse than the originals? Toy Story 2 was one of Pixar's better films.