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?"
You shouldn't worry. Shut up and get a life.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
...either sequels or remakes?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Toy Story 2 and GoodFather 2 where good examples. I have to admit that I liked cars more than Toy Story 2 but I loved Monsters Inc so I am actually looking forward to these.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
And sequels are safer bets.
Or this is just speculation and/or distorted information as the result of a long game of telephone, like the content of most articles you find posted on slashdot these days.
Assuming Pixar's "competition" will continue to be such "gems" as Madagascar 2, Ice Age 2 or whatever Shrek sequel is coming down the pipeline, there's nothing to worry about. Now if John Lasseter leaves, then we might be able to talk about Pixar going downhill.
Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
This is Disney's modus operandi. The differences are that Pixar films have great story lines and aren't musicals. Other than that, I for one totally expected that Disney would start making sequels. Guess what's next...limited re-releases.
Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
I get the impression that they're fairly well insulated from Disney's pressure. I think Disney realizes that they were digging themselves into a big hole with their own crummy animated movies leading up to the time when they bought Pixar. "Wall-E" took a lot of commercial risks, with the long, no-dialog intro and the overt political satire. "Up" dismayed the marketing types by having almost no merchandising opportunities (want to buy action figures of an old guy or a chubby boy scout?). Basically they've been putting the story first, and it's actually been a real winning strategy for them in commercial terms. Making some sequels doesn't necessarily equate to being commercial sell-outs; it depends entirely on whether the sequels are good, which we have no way of knowing about right now.
I'd watch for the big pressure toward commercialism to happen if and when Pixar makes its first big box-office flop.
By the way, Pixar-style CG movies are kind of a unique and interesting example of a purely digital form of entertainment that absolutely can't exist without copyright laws. If copyright was abolished tomorrow, we'd still have garage bands, we'd still have (low-budget) movies, and we'd still have novels (which most novelists don't make enough profit from to live on anyway). But a CG movie is an art form that by its nature requires a very large budget. It's not the render farm, it's the incredible number of hours of labor that go into those movies.
Find free books.
I'm OK with sequels as some do indeed surpass the original.
And while I don't love every Pixar movie, their worst effort is still much better than everyone else. I will admit that Kung Fu Panda was a pleasant surprise from DreamWorks, but I trust them less with the sequel.
Monsters, Inc. is my 2nd favorite Pixar film behind The Incredibles, so I'm jazzed.
I am my own gestalt.
It was bound to happen. Wall-E was the last of the original ideas that were developed at that famous brainstorming session that came up with things like Toy Story, Monsters, and Nemo. And even though Wall-E was cool and amazing, it still seemed like they were running out of ideas. IF you just went by initial premises, Wall-E and UP are pretty different compared to before: Cars (anthropomorphizing gang of cars adventure), Nemo (anthropomorphizing buddy fish adventure), Toy Story (anthropomorphizing gang of toys adventure), Monsters Inc (anthropomorphizing buddy monster adventure).
I'm not saying different isn't bad, but it's hard to get the overwhelming masses to go see weirder and weirder premised movies. So I'm worried. I wouldn't say that it's not looking good, but it will be a great challenge to come up with some memorable movies after this.
0- Eamonman Proud member of DNRC
It appears to me that you are assuming Pixar's audience is exclusively children. I don't think that's ever been the case. Just because a film has been created using animation techniques it does not necessarily mean it's a a kid's movie--not everyone who enjoys animated features is a kid (or has one).
Pixar makes sophisticated computer-animated movies that appeal to a wide audience and, for the most part, they can be appreciated on several levels. This was the case with the original Toy Story and it continues to be the right through UP.
This ain't rocket surgery.
Pixar-style CG movies are kind of a unique and interesting example of a purely digital form of entertainment that absolutely can't exist without copyright laws.
But do Pixar-style CG films require a 95-year copyright term?
See the trend? (and including the world releases follows the same trend). And I'm not including marketing costs, which can be nearing the cost of the movie.
.
Hell, Fast and Furious released outside of summer timeframe and has hit 154mil with a 80mil cost, that's a 74mil US profit and still growing and it's definitely not oscar winning material. Now you know why crappy movies continue to dominate the scene. Show some T&A (thrill and action? ;) ) and the crowd forms.
.
Yeah, don't worry, cause Dreamworks is in the same boat, as they discovered sequels cost more (just look at the Shrek series), Pixar will obviously come to the same conclusion. 3D (and real 3D) animation has just become just too expensive. Why? cause their employees think like IT: you need to constantly upgrade: cooler tools, faster computers, more editing, more realism, more challenges for the sake of keeping things fresh and innovative, like technology itself. Perfection is the motto of the tower of Babel. Which is ironic in a business where a simple, ingenious story can do wonders [with low-tech]. And some T&A doesn't hurt too (\tongue out\>
.
I'd be interested to see how Princess and the Frog turn out...
It sounds frankly like you just don't like Pixar movies. I think depth of story is hugely important to what makes their movies special. Also Sid from Toy Story one scared the crap out of me and that is very old Pixar. This is nothing new.
They may still be profitable, but the trend is definitely there: they aren't making as much money on each movie as they used to.
Personally I blame the movies themselves. They've been written to a more and more simplistic audience as time has gone on, while their earlier films almost told different stories on the surface (children) and if you got the references (adults.) Lately they've been forgetting to cater to the adults that buy the movie tickets and DVDs.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Up! is an amazing, amazing movie. What they were able to do with that movie, which as far as I'm concerned is a legitimate piece of quality cinema, is simply fabulous. And how can you not like Doug, and Kevin, and an awesome airship?!
Before that there was this little movie called WALLâE you may have heard of -- I understand it was kind of successful, and well-received...
Yeah.... I'm not too worried based on the last several flicks. They've had a few movies I wasn't as hot on, but the recent trend seems to indicate higher quality than ever before, not lower.
...creative integrity. These movies stand a great chance of being awesome because the back-story has already been told. A movie spends a fair amount of time establishing context and character... they get to get straight into it, which is what helped ToyStory 2. Sequels can be great when they've been done properly with the right amount of creative integrity.
Ratatouille was just about complete and it wasn't what they were after. They brought in Brad Bird who re-wrote it and did it right. If they have the creative integrity to do things like this, then I'm fully looking forward to these movies.
Pixar really do deserve people giving their projects the benefit of the doubt at least until they make a dud. Their creativity and originality have been amazing; a step above of any other studio in the industry.
Disney used to have an official "crap sequels division", called "Disneytoons". Disneytoons was responsible for Sleeping Beauty 2, Mulan 2, Jungle Book 2, etc., direct-to DVD efforts designed to wring the last dollar out of each franchise. When Disney bought Pixar, Disneytoons was shut down. This was just as well. Sequels from Disneytoons were far, far worse than the originals.
It looks like Pixar is being given Disneytoons' job. "Cars 2" is being made because about $5 billion in "Cars" merchandise has been sold, and with another Cars movie, another few million tons of injection-molded plastic can be shipped out. There's no other reason for another "Cars" movie; the story was complete in itself.
Apparently they're not doing another "Incredibles" movie. That concept has more franchise potential than "Cars". But it wouldn't move the injection-molded plastic.
First of all, you can't ignore foreign box office totals. These days, foreign gross can be 60-70% of a movie's total take, especially for animated movies.
Second, DVD sales dummy! DVD sales for Pixar movies are always relatively higher than other types of movies, because they're intended to be enjoyed by children. A family with a bunch of kids might not plop down $50-60 bucks to take the brood to the theater, but they'll spend $18 bucks on a kid's DVD to get the little bastards to shut up for 90 minutes.
Pixar is not in trouble, in fact they're one of the most consistently profitable studios in history. Dreamworks is somewhat in trouble, but not because of Shrek 3. Seriously? That movie will probably bring in over $1 billion in its lifetime, if it hasn't already.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
Could someone please explain to me why Wall-E was a good movie? The graphics were good, the plot was rather cliched - and not even as good as most cliches because the robot was apparently developed with feelings rather than somehow developing them after an accident like in Short Circuit, which is still silly, but at least there is some kind of reason. I enjoyed Short Circuit much better than Wall-E. Perhaps my expectations were just far too high after them having adverts out for months in advance though.. I said to myself I'd probably never watch it again, but I might enjoy it better if I did. With Transformers 1 I didn't enjoy it much at the cinema either, but after I decided just to ignore some of the more stupid parts and get it on DVD, it makes a decent action/comedy kind of movie.
which is totally what she said
Could someone please explain to me why Wall-E was a good movie? ... the plot was rather cliched
Yeah, just one of the half-dozen "robot cleans up trash on abandoned earth and meets a probe robot who he falls in love with and follows her back into space and eventually leads all of mankind back to repopulate the earth" movies I watched last year.
Also, I like how you complain about the cliche, then say that it's not even a good cliche because it doesn't follow the cliche like you expected. Here's a news flash for you: 100% original movies that don't borrow from a previous story concept at all are incredibly rare, so if you see any movies at all, you're probably seeing cliches, judging by what your definition of cliche seems to be. And if Wall-E isn't borrowing concepts from any movie more recent than 1986, then I'd say it's doing better that 99.9% of Hollywood movies.
But the point of the movie wasn't so much the story... it's that it had a lot of heart, and that Wall-E himself was incredibly lovable. The scene where Eve thinks that Wall-E got blown up, then they dance around in space was pretty amazingly well done. Also, I took my kids to see it (ages 4 & 6 at the time), and they were absolutely enchanted by the whole movie, and laughed and giggled the whole time. Seeing movies with kids puts things in a whole new perspective.
... but most of the merch revenue went to Disney.