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.
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.
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.
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...
You clearly have not seen Up.
Or Wall-E or Ratatouille, for that matter.
Yes, my thought too. It's much easier to see a trend over time when you ignore the last three data points, isn't it? :)
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.
Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back [...]
Well, yes, but it's slightly different.
Star Trek and Star Wars were essentially about the stories. The characters don't grow and change and learn much during the stories--they are who they are. But they're fun characters and we want to see their further adventures.
Oh Lord, now I have to don my SCI-FI nerdery hat.
I disagree! I think that the characters grow and change quite a bit through both movies.
In Star Trek II, Kirk confronts his feeling about aging; how giving up the captain's seat and directing StarFleet Operations left him just feeling old (Shatner was 51 at this point) and eventually only commanding the Enterprise is where he feels young again. His mid-life crisis is to leave the admiralcy that he worked for the sit in the captain's chair again, something that Spock is all too willing to allow. At the end he loses his best friend and constant companion, and in the sequel he destroys his career in StarFleet (at the time he expected a long jail sentence) to find a way to save Spock.
Let's take the character of Han Solo from Empire Strikes Back. At the start he's simply a mercenary -- tagging along with the rebels for awhile, but really the only reason he sticks around is that he's infatuated with Leia. By the end of the film he falls in love with Leia, chooses to sacrifice himself entirely, joining his friends and the rebels instead of taking the bounty that Jabba put over his head (which is why he gets shipped back to Jabba's palace instead of staying with Lando). Luke spends pretty much the entire Empire Strikes Back learning the ways of the force, finding out his relation to Vader.. he's a much much different character at the start of Return of the Jedi than he is at the end of Star Wars.
Those two movies are about stories, but some characters go through profound changes along the way..