Pixar's Next Three Films Will Be Sequels 379
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?"
No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like Disney to me.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:No (Score:5, Funny)
Steve Jobs becoming majority share holder of Disney
No, no, no! He is the *largest* (single) shareholder! A stake of around 7% from what I last heard...a majority shareholder would have > 50%+1!
How can you fudge numbers up like that - this is slashdot dammit!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
a majority shareholder would have > 50%+1!
An unacceptable one off error, please test boundary cases before checking in your comments ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cars, the only movie I didn't like. Not looking forward to Cars 2.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:already happening (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re:already happening (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But the trend is there (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But the trend is there (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But the trend is there (Score:5, Insightful)
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? :)
Re:already happening (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... but most of the merch revenue went to Disney.
Re:already happening (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 in
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:already happening (Score:4, Informative)
Hollywood Accounting [wikipedia.org] nuff said
Re:already happening (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pixar never released the actual cost of the movies they make. Please don't trust the "budget" figures from boxofficemojo; they're pretty much made up.
Ya! Finally.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
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'.
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
Toy Story 2 was a great movie. And seriously, how cool would a second Incredibles movie be?
Nowehere near as cool? (Score:3, Interesting)
The main villain in the movie is an incredibly intelligent kid, capable of dreaming up and engineering devices that give him superpowers. This isn't good enough though- you have to be *born* with the powers to be of any value. Never mind that Buddy/Syndrome was fully capable of being a superhero, and indeed wanted desperately to be one- Mr. Incredible dismisses him with disgus
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
The Incredibles was the only Fantastic Four movie to do the Fantastic Four justice. Funny old world, isn't it?
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Except of course their powers were chosen as metaphors:
The mom, stretched in every direction (literally) trying to hold things together.
The archetypal husband; the big strong provider.
The invisible older sister.
Dash, who runs around so fast that the parents have a hard time keeping him contained.
Ok except Jack Jack....his powers were chosen for humorous reasons I suppose.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice observations! The Incredibles is my favourite Pixar film, but I hope they don't do a sequel. The main problem with these sequels (Ice Age is another that should have been left well alone) is that the circumstances which bring the characters to where they are by the end is what makes them appealing, and what makes the story work. When the curtain rises on the sequel, they've already arrived, and - unless you get Joss Whedon to write your script* - no further character development seems possible or even
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
BTW tidbit most folks may not know: Joss Whedon worked on the screenplay for Toy Story (go check imdb).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, The Incredibles is definitely in my top 3 Pixar movies, and a sequel w
Aren't all films these days... (Score:5, Insightful)
...either sequels or remakes?
Re: (Score:2)
So what else is new?
Stories and characters that have proven enduringly popular in film and other reappear often. Batman first appeared in the comics around 1940 and has obvious links to The Shadow and The Mark of Zorro.
Re:Aren't all films these days... (Score:5, Insightful)
and the above two replies are exactly why this old, old commentary ("it's all been done before anyway") should cease to be modded up. It's not insightful at all - it's no more insightful than commenting that ice melts above 0C.
Yes, every movie's been done before. Either as a movie, or a play, or a novel, or whatever. Just look at the number of "boy meets girl, boy engages bet that he can get the girl, he gets the girl and is cray about her, girl finds out about bet and thins the boy's just been acting, boy has to prove that he really is crazy about her"-movies. Heck, "Yes Man" fits that category, and so does "She's the Man".
Yet only an idiot would argue that the two movies are the same and that if you've seen one, you've seen the other.
It's never about whether or not the story is completely original (when it comes down to it, every movie is either a comedy or a tragedy), but about how the story is told, and about the finer details of that story.
But to those who still think "meh.. there's nothing original anymore".. please, by all means, swear off movies, tv, radio, books, etc. Go hiking, have your own unique experiences doing so. But keep in mind that odds are somebody hiked that path before you did, and your taking a hike is hardly original.
Sequels don't have to be bad. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sequels don't have to be bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
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..
well, the economy does suck (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:well, the economy does suck (Score:5, Insightful)
The headline is wrong, by the way. There will be non-sequels in between.
Re: (Score:2)
Cars?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Possibly commercially, but Cars was actually an entertaining movie. I've seen it a couple dozen times (I have two young kids), and it is fun to watch over again.
Re:well, the economy does suck (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:well, the economy does suck (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Cars
The one certainty is that the Pixar feature is going to make a strong showing at the box office and do exceptionally well in home video.
It may not not deliver the numbers of Finding Nemo - but it will never quite disappear from view, either.
If 3D or the ultra-HDTV video display ever becomes mass market in the home, the Pixar back list will be pure gold.
Re:well, the economy does suck (Score:5, Informative)
* 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. For another perspective on this telephone-game, I offer:
Nothing to worry about (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to worry about (Score:5, Interesting)
Now if John Lasseter leaves, then we might be able to talk about Pixar going downhill.
And that's not even a sure thing, considering how much he cares about mentoring younger directors.
Re:Nothing to worry about (Score:5, Interesting)
Well the larger problem here is what the sequels indicate: Disney is getting its way.
Disney has been churning out utter dreck for years. Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)? I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago. It's common knowledge that Disney had been pressuring Pixar to do sequels to all their hits because Disney can't think of or even appreciate new ideas. The big question a few years back was, "When Disney buys Pixar, will Pixar be able to maintain their independence, or will Disney's 'creative' minds start steering the ship?"
I don't know if we really have a complete and definitive answer, since Pixar may have enough talent to make these sequels good. What's more it might be that these sequels are a blip, and after them we'll get a rash of original characters and story-lines. On the other hand, this doesn't seem like a good sign.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nothing to worry about (Score:5, Insightful)
Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)? I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago.
I'd say Mulan, but that might be pushing it for some people. Maybe Tarzan, if you don't mind Phil Collins. The unarguable one is The Hunchback of Notre Dame, without a doubt, in 1996.
Regardless, far less than twenty years.
Besides, all Disney has been doing is trying non-sequels. Chicken Little, Bolt, Enchanted, and the new, not-white princess that all of the news outlets tittered over for a few months. All original. So if Disney was working Pixar, I'm sure they'd be pushing the same way.
Re:Nothing to worry about (Score:4, Interesting)
Well the larger problem here is what the sequels indicate: Disney is getting its way
Well, they do own them after all... All of the original Pixar principals have made millions over the sale to DIS, and have been handsome rewarded for the operation up thru Incredibles. It's up to Disney to make the operation work after this point.
Disney has been churning out utter dreck for years. [...] It's common knowledge that Disney had been pressuring Pixar to do sequels to all their hits because Disney can't think of or even appreciate new ideas.
I would say it's common knowledge that Disney has been turning out product that most /.ers would consider utter dreck but make just gobs of money in the market, selling happy, safe entertainment to parents who want something for their tweens that won't bore them -- face it, Up is a superb movie but it does miss the "worry-free entertainment" mark.
FD. I've worked on several Disney films and was the sound co-supervisor of High School Musical 3, so I'm a bit sensitive to the whole "dreck" business... But we good, we good! :)
Re:Nothing to worry about (Score:5, Insightful)
Go ahead, what was the last good original animated Disney movie (not counting those made by Pixar)? I don't know, but I'm estimating something like 20 years ago.
Lilo and Stich?
Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The person who wrote the summary likely thinks tha Pixar just "pops out" these films. In fact, they usually take about 4 years.
The interesting thing here is that Disney's classic animated features were just as long in production.
The wonderous new tech hasn't really changed things all that much.
There is a lesson in that for that for the geek who thinks that the free tool - or the sophisticated tool - makes every man an artist, a significant creative talent.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying very hard to think of a theatrically released Disney sequel.
Ah yes. The Rescuers Down Under.
I do not believe there is a second. So theatrically released sequels are in fact pretty un-Disney.
I also don't think Disney has done a limited re-release in about 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
I also don't think Disney has done a limited re-release in about 20 years.
A quick Amazon search shows that you [amazon.com] might [amazon.com] be [amazon.com] wrong [amazon.com].
To be fair, there are more [amazon.com] than [amazon.com] I [amazon.com] thought [amazon.com] that are still available, but I clearly remember seeing commercials for some of those claiming that they'd be "locked away" in the Disney Vault [wikipedia.org] "soon".
Sequels are not always bad (Score:2)
Sequels are not necessarily bad. Empire Strikes Back, anyone? Rocky 2 was a brilliant sequel (although they did go downhill after that) and more recently the Shrek 2 and 3 sequels have been, well, adequately good. Toy Story 2 wasn't too bad, and I think there is capacity in some of the Pixar films to do good sequels. I think it's only a problem if the driving force to do a sequel is because the original did well, whereas it should be because they have a decent story to tell.
As long as Pixar's people are
Re:Sequels are not always bad (Score:4, Interesting)
I would not put Shrek 3 in any sort of comment talking about how sequels can be good...
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, the knee-jerk reaction where everybody hears the word "sequel" and immediately jumps to "half-assed money grab" isn't necessarily fair, especially to an organization like Pixar which did really well on their previous sequel.
They've created some characters and worlds that have lots of potential, and it'd be a shame to limit the exploration of all of that to only 90 minutes or so just because that's the useful length of a movie. Like you said, there needs to be a real story there, but with the amount
"Commercial pressures" (Score:2)
Are commercial pressures catching up with one of our most inventive movie companies?
No. Disney has caught up with them.
Baseless Speculation (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
kdawson doesn't even read the whole summary - if the headline will cause outrage, it'll get posted. Slashdot pays a troll.
We can only hope! (Score:2)
Without a doubt Monsters Inc. has to be one of the most funny movies I've ever seen ("2319! We've got a 2319!") and we can only hope that they keep the formula and that we get "More of the same" rather than the studio trying to do something different and ruining it.
Good (Score:2)
Hopefully they'll start making good movies for young children again.
There are about five or six quality movies made over the past twenty years that I can feel good about showing to my 2 and 4 year old without worrying about them picking up extremely bad behaviors, being scared to death by the obligatory and unnecessary "scary part", or being bored to tears. Other than Curious George and Charlotte's Web, they're all Pixar movies.
They love Cars, Monsters, Inc., The Incredibles, and both Toy Story movies, and
Re: (Score:2)
2 is still pretty much a baby, not even a kid. Anyway you kids will keep getting older as pixar keeps releasing movies so I doubt you will have to worry for too long. Their audience is people who enjoy their movies, I for one like the fact that they can be enjoyed at 10, 20 and 50 years old.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
When was the last time you got an Anthony Hopkins figure with a cheeseburger and fries?
I'd expect an Anthony Hopkins figure to be served with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
Flatly Untrue (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Inaccurate Headline (Score:4, Informative)
TFA is... (Score:3, Informative)
Both incorrect itself (or couldn't even be bothered with IMDB) and its assumptions are misquoted blogspam.
So, let's see, confirmed on Pixar's future agenda (as we know now);
Toy Story 3 (2010) [imdb.com]
John Carter of Mars (2012) [imdb.com]
1906 [imdb.com]
Plus speculation in Variety from several days ago about Monsters, Inc 2 possibly being Docter's next film that has suffered a little in the blogspam reporting (ie accuracy), resulting in the OMG SEQUALZ?!? meme we're soaking in today...
Also speculation: various rumored Mater spin-off movies from Cars. Yes, Larry the Cable Guy might get his own... vehicle (ouch). God help us all, but it'd be a goldmine.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oy, I hit submit before I added all the confirmed films:
The Bear and the Bow (2011) [wikia.com]
Newt (2012) [wikia.com]
Also worth noting is that the last I checked, Andrew Stanton was attached to John Carter of Mars, however it wasn't confirmed that Pixar/Disney would be distributing. There has been conflicting info on the matter, and it's ambiguous at the moment.
fairly well insulated (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Sonny Bono owns you (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Get it over with. Do them all in one shot (Score:2, Funny)
"Bugs and Rats drive Nemo's Incredible Toy Car Up the Monsters' Wall"
Wrath Of Khan ring a bell? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
depends on who's doing the sequels (Score:2)
If it's Disney doing a sequel to a Pixar movie, that's probably bad. If it's Pixar doing a sequel, (ala Toy Story 2, which I much prefer to Toy Story), then it's probably okay.
Don't be hatin'!
Ideas slowly ran out.. for now (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Incredibles 2 (Score:2)
I'm not that worried since Pixar does seem very committed to quality, as Up has demonstrated once again. What I don't understand is why Incredibles, the film that I think lends itself most to a sequel isn't getting the sequel treatment.
Blame Disney (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Blame Disney (Score:5, Informative)
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.
No. (Score:3, Informative)
Pixar's first twenty seven paying jobs were commercials; the only two you remember are the packs of life savers doing a conga line and the listerine bottle Tarzanning around to Hooked on a Feeling.
Pixar's first three movies were Disney contracts for things they didn't write; one of them is a sequel, Toy Story 2 (to their Toy Story 1, with A Bug's Life inbetween).
Of their next three films, only two are sequels; they are Toy Story 3 and Cars 2. The story linked thinks that Monsters Inc. 2 is among the next three; it is not. It will be preceded by The Bear And The Bow, as well as by Newt.
Indeed, more worrying than that they're sequels is that one of the three isn't in-house written; that's Toy Story 3, and we all know what a pile TS2 was.
The vast bulk of Pixar's work is commercial in nature. None of their films are art films; they're all carefully concocted, demographically targetted Disney style family fun factory output.
Can't imagine why anyone would think that Pixar is just now becoming money oriented. You don't shell out for Tom Hanks as a cartoon voice actor if you're not looking for wallet padding; they hired him for his name, not the quality of his work (he's a fine actor, but doesn't have nearly the range of some of the well established voice actors out there, the same of which can be said for most of Pixar's other voice staff.)
These are sequels that people actually want (Score:4, Interesting)
When Steve Jobs sold Pixar to Disney (and became Disney's largest shareholder in the process), he said (paraphrasing here) that Disney should stop pissing on its legacy and cranking out direct-to-DVD sequels of decades-old classics. Believe me, he is not a fan of sequels just as a cash-grab.
But, these planned Pixar sequels are films that people actually want to see. They have been demanding them. I'm surprised to not see an Incredibles sequel on the list, because there are a lot of folks that want that one too.
I am not disappointed by this news. All of these will be great movies. I wish they could squeeze in some original flicks among the sequels, but I'm not worried about it. They are giving the fans what they want, and will blow us away with the next original Pixar movie when it comes out.
BTW, Up was great; better than Ratatouille and WALL-E, in my opinion. Mad props to Pixar for giving a great actor like Ed Asner a starring role in a high-budget blockbuster film at the age of 76. The man's earned the right to rake in some serious royalty cash for himself and his heirs.
The Revenge of Disneytoons (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
What on earth is wrong with sequels? (Score:3, Interesting)
Off the top of my head, they already made one with Toy Story 2 - which in my and most people's opinion was better than the original.
As to the comment below about falling returns, these films are going to be generating money for decades (think of the Disney back-catalogue that's getting continuously re-released to much fan-fare every few years).
Re:First Comment! Sequels Follow! (Score:4, Funny)
Looks like they already made prequels as well
Titles (Score:2)
Down
Left
Right
Titles-Clearing a row. (Score:2)
Down
Left
Right
Pixar makes a movie involving Tetris?
Would it look like this? (Score:2)
Pixar makes a movie involving Tetris?
If so, would the setup look anything like this [tetrisconcept.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Left
Right
B
A
Select
Start
Re:Titles (Score:5, Funny)
I'm waiting for "Charm" and "Strange".
Re: (Score:2)
Plus all the molds to make the toys are ready. As Yogurt said in Spaceballs "Merchandising!"
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually a problem with sequels. One people have one buzz lightyear or woody toy, it's very unlikely they'll buy another one when a new film comes out.
The cost in designing and tooling up for the merchandising is tiny compared to the income from it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I would welcome... (Score:4, Funny)