Get ready sequels, Here comes Toy Story 3, BY DISNEY

jerbl · 2004-11-17 10:02:57

Leaving Pixar in the dust, Disney is striking out on its own in an effort to milk money off of their preexisiting relationsip with Pixar. All right world, get ready for Toy Story 3, from the makers of Golden Hits like Atlantis 2, Pocohontas 2, Cinderella 2, Lion King 2,3,1.5 comes a wonderful addition to stupidity and dumbness. Ladies and Gentlemen, Disney.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/ … index.html

'Toy Story 3' in the works
Making of film could further damage Disney-Pixar union

LOS ANGELES, California (Hollywood Reporter) -- Walt Disney Studios is actively proceeding with a second sequel to Pixar Animation's "Toy Story" franchise, a move that could make it more difficult for the two companies to extend their rocky relationship.
Disney is in the process of setting up a digital animation facility in Glendale -- not far from the digs of its bitter rival DreamWorks Animation -- that will be used for the production of "Toy Story 3."
While Disney has the rights to do sequels to "Toy Story," it has held off from doing so in the past, in part in deference to Pixar CEO Steve Jobs and executive VP John Lasseter, both of whom haven't wanted to lose control of the characters.
But with Pixar announcing earlier this year that it would end its distribution relationship with Disney following the 2005 release of the Lasseter-directed "Cars," Disney CEO Michael Eisner and studio head Dick Cook have signaled their determination to bring Woody, Buzz Lightyear and the gang back to the big screen.
The project falls under the aegis of David Stainton, president of Walt Disney Feature Animation. Andrew Millstein, who headed the company's now-shuttered animation facility in Orlando, also is involved and has begun the process of recruiting animation heavyweights from rival animation studios and effects shops.
Neither Disney nor Pixar would comment.

jerbl · 2004-11-17 10:04:42

Oh and for those that weren't aware...

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/29/news/co … ar_disney/

Pixar dumps Disney
Studio headed by Steve Jobs says it will seek other distributors for its films starting in 2006.
January 30, 2004: 10:39 AM EST
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Pixar Animation Studios Inc. said Thursday it ended talks with Walt Disney Co. to extend a five-picture deal for Disney to distribute Pixar films.
Pixar, the computer animation pioneer founded by Apple Computer Inc.'s Steve Jobs -- and the maker of the hit "Finding Nemo" -- said it would begin talks with other companies to distribute its films starting in 2006.
"After ten months of trying to strike a deal with Disney, we're moving on," Pixar CEO Steve Jobs said in a statement. "We've had a great run together -- one of the most successful in Hollywood history -- and it's a shame that Disney won't be participating in Pixar's future successes."
The move was a clear setback to Disney, which reaped a financial and critical bonanza from the partnership and has struggled with its own strategy for animation.
Disney said Pixar's final offer would have cost Disney hundreds of millions of dollars from the existing distribution deal and was not sweet enough going forward.
"Although we would have enjoyed continuing our successful collaboration under mutually acceptable terms, Pixar understandably has chosen to go its own way to grow as an independent company," Disney Chairman and CEO Michael Eisner said in a statement.
Pixar (PIXR: Research, Estimates) stock rose initially in after-hours trading but later fell back, while Disney (DIS: Research, Estimates) stock tumbled about 6 percent.
Other studios are already expressing interest in forging a relationship with Pixar. A Warner Bros. spokesperson told CNN, "We would love to be in business with Pixar. They are a great company." Warner Bros. has not yet engaged in formal talks with the animator.
Pixar said its five films so far -- including "Toy Story", "Monsters Inc." and "Finding Nemo" -- have taken in $2.5 billion at the worldwide box office and sold more than 150 million DVDs and videos. "Finding Nemo" was the highest grossing animated film of all time.
Pixar had complained that the terms of the distribution deal were tilted too heavily in Disney's favor. Under the deal, Pixar was responsible for content, while Disney handled distribution and marketing.
In exchange, Pixar has split profits with Disney and pays the studio a distribution fee of between 10 percent to 15 percent of revenue. Based on its blockbuster success, Pixar has argued that it should keep the profit itself and cut the fees its studio partner charges.
Many observers had expected Pixar and Disney to keep talking at least until the middle of this year and to eventually reach a deal since both had gained so much from their partnership.
"It makes it look like Eisner did something wrong again, but we shouldn't jump to conclusions. This could be a negotiating tactic by Pixar as well," Patrick McKeigue, an analyst at Independence Investment, which holds Disney shares, told Reuters.
Roy Disney and ally Stanley Gold, who both resigned from the Disney board late last year and called for Eisner to step down, placed the blame squarely on the Disney CEO.
"More than a year ago, we warned the Disney board that we believed Michael Eisner was mismanaging the Pixar partnership and expressed our concern that the relationship was in jeopardy," they said in a statement issued late Thursday.
Disney noted in its statement that it owns rights to all the Pixar movies, as well as two more animated features yet to be delivered -- "The Incredibles" due this year and "Cars", expected in 2005.
Disney will distribute those two films with Pixar getting its share of the profits. In addition, Disney probably will be able to make the sequels to all the Pixar films made under the current agreement, paying Pixar only limited royalties.
While Pixar has the right of first refusal to make the sequels, under the current agreement it would have to put up half the money and get only 35 percent of the profit, which makes it extremely unlikely Pixar will make the sequels, said Jeffrey Logsdon, analyst with Harris, Nesbitt and Gerard.
Disney said Thursday it's working on "Toy Story 3" as part of a new push to do its own computer-generated animated features, though it did not give a release date.

jerbl · 2004-11-17 10:09:00

And to top it all off from something about why Disney is like it is, I have also seen somewhere that the people that were truly innovative were closed down, I guess Mulan and some others came from that studio and Eisner chose to shut it down.

http://www.savedisney.com/vision/editor … 2604.1.asp

Why Pixar's films are more "Disney" than Disney's...
By Merlin Jones
Colorful characters with unique abilities. Indelible personalities with unusual perspectives and expressive attitudes. Inventive visual comedy. Unreal and exaggerated situations made accessible and recognizable. A simple, visual plot hook. Caricature. A sense of humor and heart. A childlike discovery of wonder. Timeless truths of humanity and myth. The innocent drama of desire, determination, and choice. Romance. Terrors tamed, demons conquered. A lighthearted outlook on life and living. The love of laughter and music. A sincere suspension of disbelief. The common man triumphs. A cartoonist's observation of a crazy world's details. The ultimate eye candy. The odd notions of an artist's imagination. The whimsical, fanciful and dreamlike brought to an illusion of life. An impossible perspective made real.
The traditional virtues of the Walt Disney film are familiar to children of all ages. But today, those very same attributes are far more likely to be found in the latest Pixar release.
Why have Pixar's pixies been so fabulously successful with these proven elements while Disney's most recent features have fallen flat?
Is it the novelty of computer graphics animation or the illusion of "three-dimensional" imagery that makes the difference? Has hand-drawn art become irrelevant in an age of technology? Has the audience lost its love for cartoons?
Disney management obviously thinks so, and that is...ridiculous.
Story Land
Cartoon or computer, there is no replacement for a good story.
The key to any successful film hinges on memorable characters, relatable themes and an engaging, well told tale with plenty of surprises. But an animated film has its own set of needs. The story must be primarily visual in nature. It must take you places that the camera can't, an increasingly rare frontier in the digital age.
A successful film story is alchemy of course. Hard to plan...like catching lightning in a bottle. Easy to say, hard to achieve.
And yet...the consistency by which Pixar's creatives are able to meet the goal, while Disney's miss the target in recent years, gives one pause. The Doctor's analysis: there are underlying differences in approach and taste at work here.
The simple premise: Pixar is making "Disney" movies, while Disney is not.
Disney has tried to redefine their work, abandoning the world of the traditional cartoon, while Pixar has embraced and enhanced it. Pixar's films evoke a childlike, dreamlike, interpretive perspective while Disney's increasingly come from a more literal viewpoint.
Contrary to popular executive opinion, Pixar's wild success proves audiences still want a Walt Disney-style movie that speaks happily from the inner child, infused with a glorious joie-de-vivre, humor, and caricature (Toy Story, Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo).
Disney audiences don't seem to respond to a heavy-handed lecture from a parental voice, a message laden with political correctness (Pocahontas, Hunchback, Atlantis), or a self-aware, self-mocking smugness (Hercules, Emperor's New Groove).
They want honesty and "corn," not cynicism and social engineering. They want the unbridled invention of the cartoonist, not the stale template of the creative executive. They want to escape into a timeless, believable otherworld, not be pummeled with the politics of our own.
Where they once wanted Disney, they now want Pixar.
This is not a war of computer vs. pencil, but a battle of points-of-view.
Last Night in the Nursery
Audiences still want to believe in the fantasy, in the triumph of eternal truths, as they did when Disney produced massive hits like The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King.
These "modern classics" were chips off the old Disney block: fanciful fairy tales or animal fables filled with impossibilities, allegory, fun and wonder. Made more contemporary through the dressing of modern theatre and humor, they were still first and foremost "cartoons."
But the nature of Disney storytelling changed abruptly after The Lion King, and the studio's fortunes along with it.
Clearly, it was a definite choice of management to change direction in the types of stories that would define "Disney." Beginning with Pocahontas, Disney's animation unit left Neverland for the world of the "sophisticated," serious, strident, and sassy. These new works would be closer to animated children's theatre or live-action films than cartoons at heart. The intent: to be more "grown up", diverse, "relevant."
Meanwhile, Pixar came on the scene with immediate success. Not unlike modern Silly Symphonies, Pixar's toys, bugs, and monsters came to life in a playful, fanciful manner. Despite the computers (and a dose of modern psycho-analysis), these were old fashioned cartoons at heart.
The Pixar creative braintrust (John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Joe Ranft, Brad Bird, et al.) are all graduates of the Cal Arts Character Animation Program and are all career animation storytellers. The company is run from that perspective, just as Disney was in the Golden Age. At Pixar, cartoonists are King.
The work of Walt Disney, the Nine Old Men and their immediate successors was dominated by personality humor, expressive acting and inventive visual situations. The movements of their characters were honed from sharp-eyed observation, a sense of humor and humanity. We recognized traits and mannerisms in those characters and laughed and cried and held them dear. Each character was different and unique. The men behind those stories, such as Bill Peet, Joe Grant and Dan DaGradi, were cartoonist storymen, different in their skills from the acting based animators, but sharing the same youthful and imaginative worldview. Together with Walt, they created what we all think of as the Disney movie.
When Walt ventured into live-action, cartoon invention followed. Wildly inventive visual storytelling is found in such pictures as Mary Poppins, Swiss Family Robinson and Absent-Minded Professor. These were also films influenced heavily by cartoonists... that's what Disney was all about.
But down in Burbank, literalists now rule the roost. Since the early '90s (following The Lion King), the Disney story directives have mostly come down through a system of "creative" executives, few of whom have an animation background or seem to particularly like cartoons. These tastemakers come from live-action, theatre, marketing, technology, MBA programs?but seldom animation. Here characters look and act the same and stories are derived from templates. Messaging is stressed over entertainment values.
Show Don't Tell
Some say it's just an emphasis on "script, script, script" that makes the difference. While a solid story structure is essential, the method for arriving at the final cartoon story is nowhere near as simple as a "locked screenplay."
In the world of animation, a delicate balance of elements must be brewed together to achieve success, as the storyboard reinterprets verbal concepts into the visual.
An art-centered piece must by nature be interpretive, not realistic. The animator's oeuvre is observation and caricature and exaggerated personality quirks, the unreal and anthropomorphic. If it can be done in live-action, why animate it?
This seemingly irrelevant afterthought?visual vs. verbal storytelling?is the prime difference between animation narrative form and live-action. In live filming, a storyboard is largely used just to "stage" the action. In animation, a storyboard invents the action itself. Cartoon business can't be scripted. The storyboard is not a follow-up process, but the essence of creation.
The visual invention, observation, and satire that drives a cartoon is not just acting business and gags, and can't be peppered on top of a "straight" script like special effects. These elements are intrinsic to the very conception of a successful cartoon. Pantomime film moments like Pink Elephants on Parade, a deer on ice, and mice building dresses (the studio gravy with audiences), don't read well in script form. Without visual storytellers at the helm, the development of ideas is limited to those that can be easily visualized or communicated through words.
Not every story is good for animation. It must have a certain visual conceit in its very core to make an animation concept ideal (a girl must transform Beast back into a Prince, a boy gets three wishes from a Genie).
But not everyone thinks in visual terms. Screenwriters generally specialize in dialogue and dramatic interaction. How can they craft a script that will have dogs falling in love while eating spaghetti and pull it off? They don't as easily see it in their mind's eye, or don't know how to execute it. Not their fault, simply a different skill.
It's no accident that the executive mantra is that animators make bad storytellers. Executives who can't "visualize" have no patience for storyboards or reels.
But when board artists simply illustrate a script as instructed, vision fades. The work becomes flat and literal. More dialogue must be added to make it interesting.
Animators have been accused by critics of giving too much prominence to their specialty?sequential storytelling. Rather than paying attention to structure, character arc, and thematic subtext, they create clever character studies and gag material via self-contained entertainment sequences. Indeed, plot thrust and story structure suffered in the years after Walt's death (in such films as The Fox and the Hound, The Rescuers and Robin Hood) for this very reason.
So, in the late '80s and early '90s, it was decided that Hollywood writers and story structure experts were needed to help Disney artists write the stories.
Writers were initially brought in to support?not supplant?the traditional storyboarding process. And it helped immensely to overcome the "sequential syndrome." Outsiders brought structure and arc to the proceedings and infused some fresh ideas. But as the writers began to dominate the cartoonists, this happy balance (evident in such pictures as Beauty and the Beast) began to shift.
Pixar's guys, on the other hand, are not literal writers (though they do write); they are visual storytellers/cartoonists in their every chromosome. If you look at Finding Nemo, it really is built much like The Aristocats, The Jungle Book and other animator-driven films in that it has a rather skimpy narrative fleshed out through entertaining personality sequences. There is more subtext, character arc, and drive than those films had...but the film's charm is rooted in personality development and visual invention.
Oh, sure, the new CGI medium is a stunner, but more importantly, Pixar's content is right from a cartoonist's heart. Whimsical, clever, observant, sincere...cartoons?like the old, profitable Disney films used to be.
Unsung Hero
In Walt's day, fresh perspectives, fine artists and expansive thinkers were often sought to raise the cartoonist profile and enrich the works with new ideas. But their fine art was always filtered through a cartoonist's eye (with Walt a cartoonist and big-kid himself, it couldn't be otherwise). "Disney" became a caricature of fine art and high modernist design... a populist vision of art for the masses. But the bread-and-butter of these films was always pure "corn" and "heart", not intellectualism.
Sometimes an outsider gets this and the collaboration becomes electric. Hot off the cartoonish musical remake of Little Shop of Horrors, Howard Ashman really liked campy humor and Disney movies and emotional resonance. As lyricist and co-producer of The Little Mermaid, Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast, he was able to use his skills to paint a contemporary slant on the traditional Disney fairy tale without breaking the mold.
Howard understood this was all about cartoons.
While he had a deeper sense of subtext than the traditional Disney storyteller, Howard knew it was simplicity, exaggeration and visual invention that made things work in the medium. He wanted household objects to sing and dance. His Broadway stylings were to color and inform the medium in new ways?to stretch the Disney genre, not rebuke it. He embraced the past and projected it into the future.
That's why these three films feel like cartoons, like Disney classics, not just proscenium stage shows (like the later Pocahontas or Hunchback, made after his untimely death). Howard backed the cartoonist storymen/directors and the results were wonderful.
It was A Whole New World for Disney animation then, and the hits were sure to keep coming.
But there was a flaw in the plan...Disney stopped making Disney movies.
The Long Slide
A "gold rush" of new Feature Animation managers, fresh to the medium, descended on the revitalized animation studio. They decided it was the theatre-style elements of Mermaid, Beauty and Aladdin that had made this batch of films more popular. Most of the executives had been caught off-guard with Mermaid's success. They had thought the fairy tale and the Disney genre film was dead. There had to be some other reason this had worked?thus, animation was deemed the New Broadway!
Consequently, cartoonist storytellers fell from grace as their work was increasingly given over to management-friendly outsiders. Theatre stage managers became producers... literature majors and MBA's became creative executives. Though novices in the medium, they were suddenly?Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo!?the experts on animation and audiences. Experience or love for the form no longer mattered so much.
A glass-ceiling developed with animation folk in decidedly second class status. Unlike Howard Ashman, many of the newcomers had little enthusiasm for cartoons or the Disney tradition, and tried to remake the business in their own image. Pocahontas and Hunchback (and the development project Aida, initially targeted for animation) seemed more appropriate for the stage than for the cartoon screen. Racism, intolerance, genocide, and sexual repression became appropriate subtext for this new breed of charming children's musical films.
If anyone wanted a new Dumbo, they would be out-of-luck.
Starting with the very stagy Pocahontas, the box-office grosses subsequently declined with each picture, even as Pixar came on the scene and made a fortune taking the mantle of the Disney-style heartwarming, funny, whimsical cartoon.
To keep favor at Disney, many artists began to parrot the company line about marketing priorities, statistics, and growing/redefining the brand. Development drifted further from the (now deemed embarrassing by management) cartoonist instinct in hopes of making animation "relevant" to teen movie goers (something it had rarely, if ever, been?even in successful times). Some directors had dreams of live-action success and hit the seminar circuit to study the latest Hollywood trends and formulas.
The childish sense of fun and wonder was lost.
Since the attempt to make the slate more "tasteful and intellectual" failed to draw a crowd, the spurned executives decided audiences didn't know any better. Under pressure to change formulas, they began to drift from their own preference for musical theatre into unknown waters for all. The development slate became increasingly ecclectic and difficult to define.
Audiences wanted more Mermaid?classic Disney-style fairy tales and animal fables with modern punch. But the company stubbornly refused to make them (except as cheap, formula franchise-extension TV specials or videos, reflecting the disdain executives had for traditional Disney material).
From now on it was decreed by execs that Disney animation was "made for people who shop at Wal-Mart" and that "no one can tell the difference anyway" (concerning artistic integrity or quality). The only thing executives still cared about was putting the right political subtext into these oft-watched learning tools (particularly in the direct-to-video sequels, which abandoned the cartoonist perspective entirely, and so bear little resemblance to their forebears in tone, texture, humor, or substance).
Storytelling emphasis was now geared to "marketing-for-mommies." Assuming that video and multiplex ticket sales were driven by mom's choices instead of child's interests, stories were increasingly slanted to a parental point of view?not unlike an educational children's library book. Rock acts from Mom's Junior High School days were trotted out to compose the soundtracks. The videos began to sell as convenient babysitters, validating this approach, but ultimately weakening the once-boutique Disney animated feature.
They tried everything but making a Disney cartoon. This POV was verboten as "retro."
And yet, Pixar was appealing to all ages for the very reasons Disney was trying to avoid. Through their mirth and merriment and earnestness, Pixar's films have long-surpassed Disney's own take at the box-office.
A vestige of the old Disney-style cartoon thinking survived away from the politics in the recently closed Florida Studio. Under the guidance of longtime cartoonist storyman Chris Sanders (Mulan, Lilo and Stitch), magic and money were minted.
Still, the message was not received by Disney management.
Clone Wars
There have always been talented visual storytellers at Disney but, except in rare cases, they have not had the power needed to survive the system in recent years.
At Disney, The System is King; Management Theory is tantamount. Those who can't play the game or obey the rules can't survive. Cartoonist storytellers or directors with unbridled passion or opinion are quickly labeled too "difficult" to handle in a system now geared to the manager, not the talent.
At Pixar, these types of talents have been praised and encouraged to shine.
The very nature of the outside contract (and Steve Jobs) created a firewall that protected the Pixar talents from Disney's micromanagers. Outside Burbank, they were allowed their unusual methods of developing stories and cartoonist tastes.
Disney, unable to control Pixar's development process, had to develop respect for the same sorts of creative wild horses that would have been "broken" internally.
If Disney owned Pixar, those films surely would have taken the same tone as the in-house animated productions. Disney's CGI project Dinosaur is a good example of what the Studio's computer animation?sans Pixar?would be like. In terms of storytelling, it feels just like all those other post-Lion King duds.
So Michael's desire to find the "clones of John Lasseter" can't possibly succeed under the current scenario, as the Disney executives will eat them for breakfast. Pixar-type films can't be made by committee.
By severely curtailing in-house animation operations, Eisner and his managers have put all their eggs in the outsourcing basket. They seem to believe that simply making movies by computer will solve all their problems. That a script reworked by the right writers will make the difference. That cartoonists aren't necessary to the process.
But the only "clones' empowered to make these films will be more executive apparatchiks.
Prediction: These films will be "emotional." They will be "relevant," They will imitate Shrek's sarcasm. They will have wall-to-wall smartass dialogue. They will be loudly marketed. They will be sequels and remakes and franchise extensions. They will be "3-D."
But they won't be Pixar. They won't be cartoons.
They won't be Disney.
And the audience will know.
"Fun and wonder are the important elements, in addition to quality in production and performance, which are most responsible for the success of Disney productions. Fun in the sense of cheerful reaction? the appeal to love and laughter. Wonder in that we appeal to the constant wonder in men's minds, which is stimulated by imagination."
?Walt Disney

Reythak · 2004-11-17 18:21:23

yeah, took too long to read all the last one and it was getting repetative, but it's very true in most points, there are some that I disagree with, like Emporer's New Groove being not good. But tis sad when you have a ceo with the power going straight to the head, and people see the company go down but there is nothing you can do about it. cause you seem to be the only one seeing it.

caramel-cashew · 2004-11-17 21:32:26

I understand your feelings from your point of view. But.... now think of it from my point of view. Frankly, I'm thankful for both companies. I'm thankful they are both putting out movies. For years we parents had NOTHING to take our children to. The only movies were PG-13 and R. Most were rated R. There was NOTHING for the kids!!! Now you see lots of movies for kids to see. I'm so thankful for all the wonderful animated movies that are out there. So.... please see both sides before knocking down something that I think is good. I'm sorry for the "Office Politics". It is everywhere. It is prophesied that this will be everywhere. Ummmmm ... what is that scripture mastery about people in the last days being lovers of their own selves etc. Tis true -- we are.

Just my two bits and now ........... ta da!!!! I'll step down off my soap box!!!

jerbl · 2004-11-18 01:37:10

I think my main point was not the negative, but the incredibly stupid sequels that Disney puts their name on. Complete foolishness, and now they are going to pervert Toy Story 3, I just can't stand it!

Monisawa · 2004-12-03 09:55:06

Found this information at: http://www.thezreview.co.uk/comingsoon/t/toystory3.shtm

Monday 30th September 2002: Toy Story 3 Update:
Pixar have announced that Toy Story 3 will be released in the summer of 2006. But with good news comes bad, it's to try and get them out of their deal with Disney quicker. The plot of Toy Story 3 is rumoured to be about what would happen when Andy grows up and the toy's end up in the best place for them, somehere they will be loved and played with - a pre school nursery.

Wednesday 6th October 2004: Toy Story 3 & 4 update:
Michael Eisner has stated Disney are working on two Toy Story sequels at the same time. Original makers Pixar won't be involved having handed the rights over to Disney.

Tuesday 16th November 2004: Toy Story 3 update:
Disney Studios are moving forward with their sequel to Pixar's Toy Story 3. David Stainton and Andrew Millstein are developing the project and are looking to rival animation firms.

OK....Toy story 4????
RIVAL ANIMATION FIRMS???? How could a Disney sequel RIVAL Pixar? That would be funny.

More from: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=256808

Disney is in the process of setting up a digital animation facility in Glendale ? not far from the digs of its bitter rival DreamWorks Animation ? that will be used for the production of "Toy Story 3."

The project falls under the aegis of David Stainton, president of Walt Disney Feature Animation. Andrew Millstein, who headed the company's now-shuttered animation facility in Orlando, also is involved and has begun the process of recruiting animation heavyweights from rival animation studios and effects shops.

Neither Disney nor Pixar would comment.

jerbl · 2004-12-03 11:58:05

YES!! Pixar picked up the ball and realized that Disney is EVIL! At least they will show Disney how it should be done, and then I hope Pixar will do better after. Disney is in a monotonous rut, I believe that they still can do good, but I don't think they can do what Pixar can do, unless they shape up really fast!

Talduras · 2004-12-03 14:08:49

I think sometimes executives have a lot of influence into the direction a company goes. Disney was good at one time, but they've taken a somewhat sour turn. Acclaim was at least respectable, but then they had a double whammy of mediocrity and controversial/bad content (which eventually led to their downfall). Square-Enix is starting to get worse and worse by the day in content (as gameplay is still subjective, depending on who you talk to). 3DO had some pathetic business practices, and, sadly, they took a very good developer down with them when they went bankrupt.

The same thing that's happening to Disney could happen to Pixar. Most of that depends on what happens to the heads of the company, and what people are working under the Pixar name. If they should ever slide into horrible mediocrity, I sure hope another company arises that carries on the practices that said companies had in their golden years.

Monisawa · 2004-12-03 22:17:56

Actually, Jeremy you didn't read all the way through....Pixar is NOT doing it...that was first stated in Septeber of 2002....I was throwing in several things that were building up to the evil monstrousity...disney has a new studio close to Dreamworks and they are underway hiring the best from other companies....at least thats what I got from it.

Monisawa · 2004-12-03 22:42:35

http://actionadventure.about.com/od/news/a/aa111304.htm

Tim Allen and Joe Roth talk Toy Story 3

Disney to proceed without Pixar
Weeks after Tom Hanks said he would consider doing Toy Story 3 for Disney without Pixar depending on the creative team, Tim Allen came right out and said he absolutely would do Toy Story 3 under those circumstances, assuming Disney finds a replacement as good as the Pixar team. Should Disney and Pixar split, Disney would own the franchises Pixar created under their distribution deal, including Toy Story and The Incredibles.

?I think I?m totally reliant on whether they have a script, because I?m not really beholden to anybody on that [issue],? Allen said. ?I would trust them to do it mechanically, they can recreate those characters. But if they can get the magic that Pixar had, then I don't think anybody?s going to complain about it.?

Pixar board of directors member, and Allen?s Christmas with the Kranks director Joe Roth does not think it?s possible to maintain the integrity of Toy Story without Pixar. ?They don?t have people that are nearly talented enough to do them,? Roth said. ?I wouldn?t call that compromise. If I put you up against a 300 lb. Lineman from the New York Giants, I wouldn?t call that compromise, I?d call that slaughter. So comparing John Lasseter, Brad Bird and Pete Doctor to somebody being farmed out of Toronto doing a made for video? these are things that are not made by legions of people. These things are made by artists. Four or five people at Pixar up there who are the creative heads are Picasso to Wal Mart. So I think it?s more than an accident that these movies are as good as they are and as successful as they are. So no, I don't think a machine shop can do work on the Cistene Chapel.?

And Roth is not alone in this assessment. ?I think they?re suggesting it,? he continued. ?Didn?t Bob Eiger say in an interview in London that Disney was a difficult place for creative people to come to and for creative works to come to the surface? This is not an anti-Disney conversation. This is simply recognizing what Pixar really is, which sometimes it takes people distance to see it. But John Lasseter is as talented as anybody in the storytelling business right now.?

But neither Allen nor Roth have ruled out a reconciliation between Disney and Pixar. ?I wouldn?t throw out the reunification of those companies though,? Allen said, ?From where I sit, it?s a really good marriage that had a rocky period. I don't think there?s anybody that?s better suited for each other. All the people I still love at Disney, love and admire the bright people of [Pixar]. There?s so much attraction and affection between those two companies.?

Roth concurred. ?I wouldn?t rule it out either. Just wait and see who the magic is.? However, Roth implied that Warner Brothers is a strong contender to take over the deal, despite Steve Jobs? antagonistic comments about The Incredibles beating Warners? The Polar Express at the box office. ?Believe me, I think if Warner Brothers had the opportunity to be the distributor of Pixar in the future, they would probably forgive the statement,? Roth said. ?I think they?re considering everything, but I think it?s fair to say Warner Brothers is certainly one of the studios in the forefront.?

jerbl · 2004-12-04 12:52:29

Ok, but where did Toy Story 4 come from? I'm confused then, what I understood is that Pixar had one more file after Cars, which I guess isn't the case, I thought they were going to do another Toy Story to get them out of their 6 (?) movie deal faster, but I guess I misunderstood. Hmm, I wonder what will happen?

Jerbl.com Forums

#1 2004-11-17 10:02:57

Get ready sequels, Here comes Toy Story 3, BY DISNEY

#2 2004-11-17 10:04:42

Re: Get ready sequels, Here comes Toy Story 3, BY DISNEY

#3 2004-11-17 10:09:00

Re: Get ready sequels, Here comes Toy Story 3, BY DISNEY

#4 2004-11-17 18:21:23

Re: Get ready sequels, Here comes Toy Story 3, BY DISNEY

#5 2004-11-17 21:32:26

Re: Get ready sequels, Here comes Toy Story 3, BY DISNEY

#6 2004-11-18 01:37:10

Re: Get ready sequels, Here comes Toy Story 3, BY DISNEY

#7 2004-12-03 09:55:06

Re: Get ready sequels, Here comes Toy Story 3, BY DISNEY

#8 2004-12-03 11:58:05

Re: Get ready sequels, Here comes Toy Story 3, BY DISNEY

#9 2004-12-03 14:08:49

Re: Get ready sequels, Here comes Toy Story 3, BY DISNEY

#10 2004-12-03 22:17:56

Re: Get ready sequels, Here comes Toy Story 3, BY DISNEY

#11 2004-12-03 22:42:35

Re: Get ready sequels, Here comes Toy Story 3, BY DISNEY

#12 2004-12-04 12:52:29

Re: Get ready sequels, Here comes Toy Story 3, BY DISNEY

Board footer