Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Movies Media Entertainment

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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pixar's Next Three Films Will Be Sequels

Comments Filter:
  • No (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oldhack ( 1037484 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @08:04PM (#28273379)
    You shouldn't worry. Shut up and get a life.
    • Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nomadic ( 141991 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .dlrowcidamon.> on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @08:24PM (#28273547) Homepage
      Definitely, what's the worst thing that happens? They run their franchises into the ground, ruin the good name of their company, and make horrible movies? That's going to cause you personal WORRY? You are waaaay too emotionally invested in this.
      • Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Gerzel ( 240421 ) * <> on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @09:20PM (#28273965) Journal

        Sounds like Disney to me.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Wamellx ( 1518011 )
        I really don't think we have anything to worry about. In my opinion Pixar has never made a bad movie, why would they start now? The upcoming sequels are sequels to some of their most popular franchises, and judging by Toy Story 2, Pixar knows how to do sequels.
        • Re:No (Score:5, Informative)

          by xeoron ( 639412 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @10:58PM (#28274601) Homepage
          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.
          • Re:No (Score:5, Funny)

            by The J Kid ( 266953 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @03:04AM (#28276237) Homepage Journal

            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)

              by spells ( 203251 )

              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)

          by mgblst ( 80109 )

          Cars, the only movie I didn't like. Not looking forward to Cars 2.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Machtyn ( 759119 )
            Cars is the wonder-baby-sitter for 2 - 6 year old boys everywhere! It's got "cool" cars that talk!
      • by recharged95 ( 782975 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @09:40PM (#28274081) Journal
        They're already in trouble.
        • Finding Nemo: $339 mil cost, $94 mil US gross. Profit: $245 mil. US
        • Cars: $120 mil cost, $244 mil US gross. Profit: $124 mil. US
        • Ratatouille: $150 mil cost, $206 mil US gross. Profit: $56 mil. US
        • WALL-E: $180 mil cost, $223 mil US gross. Profit: $43 mil. US
        • Up: $175 mil cost, ??? mil US gross. Profit: ??? mil. US

        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)

          by Brian Gordon ( 987471 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @09:56PM (#28274183)
          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.
        • Re:already happening (Score:5, Informative)

          by Kumiorava ( 95318 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @10:18PM (#28274327)

          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:already happening (Score:5, Informative)

          by carlzum ( 832868 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @11:20PM (#28274759)
          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.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by somersault ( 912633 )

            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)

              by norminator ( 784674 )

              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)

          by scubamage ( 727538 )
          You also are forgetting licensing, toy sales, royalties on kids items, etc. No one has is selling 4fast4furious coloring books, beach towels, bath toys, shampoos... Finding Nemo on the other hand...
        • Re:already happening (Score:4, Informative)

          by Tuoqui ( 1091447 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @01:10AM (#28275563) Journal

          Hollywood Accounting [] nuff said

        • by bogjobber ( 880402 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @03:11AM (#28276275)

          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)

          by Rakarra ( 112805 )

          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.

    • Commenters on /film! ...oh, wait..
    • It'll be time to worry when they can't get financing for anything whatsoever.
    • Re:No (Score:5, Informative)

      by Devout_IPUite ( 1284636 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @09:32PM (#28274041)

      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'.

  • by John Hasler ( 414242 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @08:08PM (#28273397) Homepage

    ...either sequels or remakes?

    • ...either sequels or remakes?

      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.

  • by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @08:09PM (#28273427) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • I actually liked Shrek 2 better than the first, but Ice Age 2? Should have been a straight-to-betamax release
  • by Reality Master 201 ( 578873 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @08:09PM (#28273429) Journal

    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.

    • by antiaktiv ( 848995 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @08:18PM (#28273495)
      As far as safe bets go, a Pixar film is a safer bet than a sequel. Have they ever failed?

      The headline is wrong, by the way. There will be non-sequels in between.
      • by Tokerat ( 150341 )


        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          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.

        • 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.

      • by tverbeek ( 457094 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @09:20PM (#28273959) Homepage
        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.
    • by Nimey ( 114278 )

      Indeed. For another perspective on this telephone-game, I offer:

      In the beginning was the plan, and then the specification; And the plan was without form, and the specification was void.

      And darkness was on the faces of the implementors thereof; And they spake unto their leader, saying: "It is a crock of shit, and smells as of a sewer."

      And the leader took pity on them, and spoke to the project leader: "It is a crock of excrement, and none may abide the odor thereof."

      And the project leader spake unto his sect

  • by lyinhart ( 1352173 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @08:11PM (#28273439)
    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.
    • by piojo ( 995934 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @08:14PM (#28273451)

      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.

    • by nine-times ( 778537 ) <> on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @08:42PM (#28273667) Homepage

      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.

      • Does Enchanted count?
      • by gbarules2999 ( 1440265 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @09:26PM (#28274001)

        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.

      • by iluvcapra ( 782887 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @09:32PM (#28274039)

        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! :)

      • by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @10:02PM (#28274207) Homepage Journal

        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)

    by piojo ( 995934 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @08:12PM (#28273443)

    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.

    • 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.

  • by peektwice ( 726616 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @08:13PM (#28273447)
    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 re-releases.
    • 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.

      • I also don't think Disney has done a limited re-release in about 20 years.

        A quick Amazon search shows that you [] might [] be [] wrong [].

        To be fair, there are more [] than [] I [] thought [] 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 [] "soon".

  • 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

    • by MarcoAtWork ( 28889 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @08:19PM (#28273501)

      I would not put Shrek 3 in any sort of comment talking about how sequels can be good...

    • 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

  • 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)

    by jarbrewer ( 1254662 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @08:24PM (#28273557)
    A quick google search of Pixar's production schedule [] might have told the poster, or even the editor, that 2 of Pixar's next 3 movies are in fact new franchises.


    • by Tokerat ( 150341 )

      kdawson doesn't even read the whole summary - if the headline will cause outrage, it'll get posted. Slashdot pays a troll.

  • 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.

  • 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

    • by saiha ( 665337 )

      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)

      by gyrogeerloose ( 849181 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @08:54PM (#28273763) Journal

      But lately it seems like Pixar is making movies to impress themselves while forgetting who their audience is.

      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.

  • Flatly Untrue (Score:5, Informative)

    by Snowspinner ( 627098 ) * <<philsand> <at> <>> on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @08:27PM (#28273571) Homepage

    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)

    by Blackeagle_Falcon ( 784253 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @08:29PM (#28273583)
    Pixar's next three films won't all be sequels. Toy Story 3 and Cars 2 will be followed by two original films: The Bear and the Bow, and Newt. Since it was just announced, Monsters Inc. 2 will presumably be sometime after that.
  • TFA is... (Score:3, Informative)

    by dr00g911 ( 531736 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @08:33PM (#28273619)

    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) []

    John Carter of Mars (2012) []

    1906 []

    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)

      by dr00g911 ( 531736 )

      Oy, I hit submit before I added all the confirmed films:

      The Bear and the Bow (2011) []

      Newt (2012) []

      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.

  • by bcrowell ( 177657 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @08:38PM (#28273645) Homepage

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    "Bugs and Rats drive Nemo's Incredible Toy Car Up the Monsters' Wall"

  • by UttBuggly ( 871776 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @08:46PM (#28273701)

    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.

  • 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'!

  • 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

  • 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)

    by dFaust ( 546790 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @09:12PM (#28273897)
    I seem to remember seeing an interview with one of the big guys at Pixar years ago talking about how much they regretted doing Toy Story 2 and how they would never do another sequel like that again, etc., etc. And so long as they were calling the shots, they didn't. Being that Disney is calling the shots these days, this shouldn't be a big surprise and while I can't be 100% I'm inclined to believe that's where the responsibility lies. The upshot is that Lasseter is now directly involved in non-Pixar Disney films as well. Take Bolt, for instance. It was a new franchise that, while not up to Pixar standards, I felt was noticeably better than what we've (sadly) become accustomed to from Disney. (full disclosure: Disney owns my soul)
    • Re:Blame Disney (Score:5, Informative)

      by Enderandrew ( 866215 ) <[enderandrew] [at] []> on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @10:03PM (#28274215) Homepage Journal

      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)

    by stonecypher ( 118140 ) <> on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @09:15PM (#28273921) Homepage Journal

    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.)

  • by leamanc ( 961376 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @09:19PM (#28273957) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @11:40PM (#28274883) Homepage

    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.

  • by goldcd ( 587052 ) on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @03:50AM (#28276501) Homepage
    Plenty wrong with 'bad' sequels, made entirely to cash in - but not with sequels per se.
    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).

"Never face facts; if you do, you'll never get up in the morning." -- Marlo Thomas