FISH ARE FRIENDS, NOT FOOD: A Finding Nemo sequel? Really? I mean, it could be Toy Story 2 (or 3), but it could also be Cars 2. I'd rather see them try something new with mixed results like Brave than go back to this ... ocean.
The apparent dynamic here is that Andrew Stanton really really wants to make another live action movie, but Disney is very reluctant after the flop that was John Carter. (Though it remains unclear how fault for that should really be apportioned between Stanton and Disney's marketing people doing things like demanding that the word "Mars" not appear in the title.) If Pixar/Stanton agreed to do a Nemo sequel, Disney agreed to give him another live action movie (though presumably at a lower budget than Carter was).
My default position with Pixar is that I'd rather see them try something new than make a sequel to ANYTHING. I wonder if, in 10 years, we'll look back on Ratatouille / Wall-E / Up as the last great Pixar period.
I know I'm in the minority on this one, but each Toy Story movie has been less satisfying than the last, basically repeating the same formula while upping the stakes. ("I have an identity crisis as a toy! Oh no, now we're lost! We have to get home to Andy!") Neither of the Toy Story sequels added anything new of significance to the story - and I worry that's the trend that we'll see in the other sequels.
I just want to note something cool about Pixar: I have a friend who worked at Pixar on some very early stuff on Brave -- perhaps ten years ago, the story has been cooking around the office so long. She left Pixar about six years ago, but when she went to see Brave, she found herself still with a credit.
Now, I don't know what the rules are, but I think it's kinda cool that they remembered to do it.
Considering John Carter was a perfectly fine movie, I'm going to blame everyone involved in the marketing, whether it was Stanton, just the marketing department or everyone.
You mean other than a totally awesome female character? That is in my mind why 2 is the best one: Jessie the Cowgirl! I also loved LOVED Brave, well and Tangled (yes I know that is not Pixar).
I kinda liked John Carter, and thought, if marketed correctly, it could have made a pretty good franchise. It's also weird that we consider it to be an epic flop even though it made nearly $300 million at the box office.
As the the sequel, I remember hearing a story like that about Christopher Nolan and Warner Brothers, specifically that he'd make a third Batman movie (timely!) if they funded Inception.
I shall dissent from your dissents as to John Carter. But we've already gone through that. (I also think that a healthy chunk of that $300 million was foreign box office, which the studio gets to keep less of.)
The thing is, some of the marketing was apparently driven by Stanton. He apparently really pushed the action light first trailer and the use of very dark/heavy music in the advertisements.
Heather, I agree. I thought Jessie the Cowgirl (a cowgirl! not a Barbie!) was even more progressive than Brave (I really wish gender had been left out of it). And Tangled, my God, what a wonderful film.
But Randy, you're not alone. I HATED Toy Story 3. I left the theatre thinking, "Really? Who greenlit THAT ending?!"
Loved Brave...so sad to see them going back to the sequel well AGAIN...I could understand all the Toy Stories (only because they came up with such good places to take them), but most of the Pixar movies are such well-crafted stories in and of themselves that all the sequel action feels silly and unecessary.
The one Pixar movie that I wouldn't mind seeing would be The Incredibles. It doesn't need a sequel, but I wouldn't mind revisiting that world if there's a good story.
My understanding is that Lasseter had a non-trivial role in Tangled. It may not be Pixar, but it was Pixar-affected. Also, my own opinion is that TS2 and TS3 were both better than TS.
As for Nemo 2: like Cars 2, TS3, and the Monsters prequel, it was always going to get made. Having Pixar make it was part of the point of Disney's acquisition of Pixar (Disney even threatened to make those sequels without Pixar, which is a scary thought that greased the skids for the acquisition). The fact that Stanton is doing it is the best possible scenario, and there's no reason to believe that he will fail the characters, who he clearly loves.
Lassiter (I think) has said the same thing, but they've never come up with a story that needed to be told. Though to be honest, more than any other Pixar film it would work to just show us "the next adventure."
The apparent dynamic here is that Andrew Stanton really really wants to make another live action movie, but Disney is very reluctant after the flop that was John Carter. (Though it remains unclear how fault for that should really be apportioned between Stanton and Disney's marketing people doing things like demanding that the word "Mars" not appear in the title.) If Pixar/Stanton agreed to do a Nemo sequel, Disney agreed to give him another live action movie (though presumably at a lower budget than Carter was).
ReplyDeleteMy default position with Pixar is that I'd rather see them try something new than make a sequel to ANYTHING. I wonder if, in 10 years, we'll look back on Ratatouille / Wall-E / Up as the last great Pixar period.
ReplyDeleteI know I'm in the minority on this one, but each Toy Story movie has been less satisfying than the last, basically repeating the same formula while upping the stakes. ("I have an identity crisis as a toy! Oh no, now we're lost! We have to get home to Andy!") Neither of the Toy Story sequels added anything new of significance to the story - and I worry that's the trend that we'll see in the other sequels.
I just want to note something cool about Pixar: I have a friend who worked at Pixar on some very early stuff on Brave -- perhaps ten years ago, the story has been cooking around the office so long. She left Pixar about six years ago, but when she went to see Brave, she found herself still with a credit.
ReplyDeleteNow, I don't know what the rules are, but I think it's kinda cool that they remembered to do it.
Considering John Carter was a perfectly fine movie, I'm going to blame everyone involved in the marketing, whether it was Stanton, just the marketing department or everyone.
ReplyDeleteI always appreciated that Pixar movies had "Technical Writer" credits.
ReplyDeleteYou mean other than a totally awesome female character? That is in my mind why 2 is the best one: Jessie the Cowgirl! I also loved LOVED Brave, well and Tangled (yes I know that is not Pixar).
ReplyDeleteI kinda liked John Carter, and thought, if marketed correctly, it could have made a pretty good franchise. It's also weird that we consider it to be an epic flop even though it made nearly $300 million at the box office.
ReplyDeleteAs the the sequel, I remember hearing a story like that about Christopher Nolan and Warner Brothers, specifically that he'd make a third Batman movie (timely!) if they funded Inception.
Security guards! Cafeteria staff! Children born during production! I like that if you work at Pixar during the production, you're getting a credit.
ReplyDeleteI shall dissent from your dissents as to John Carter. But we've already gone through that. (I also think that a healthy chunk of that $300 million was foreign box office, which the studio gets to keep less of.)
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, some of the marketing was apparently driven by Stanton. He apparently really pushed the action light first trailer and the use of very dark/heavy music in the advertisements.
ReplyDeleteI was "Guest" above. Y'all.
ReplyDeleteHeather, I agree. I thought Jessie the Cowgirl (a cowgirl! not a Barbie!) was even more progressive than Brave (I really wish gender had been left out of it). And Tangled, my God, what a wonderful film.
ReplyDeleteBut Randy, you're not alone. I HATED Toy Story 3. I left the theatre thinking, "Really? Who greenlit THAT ending?!"
Loved Brave...so sad to see them going back to the sequel well AGAIN...I could understand all the Toy Stories (only because they came up with such good places to take them), but most of the Pixar movies are such well-crafted stories in and of themselves that all the sequel action feels silly and unecessary.
ReplyDeleteThe one Pixar movie that I wouldn't mind seeing would be The Incredibles. It doesn't need a sequel, but I wouldn't mind revisiting that world if there's a good story.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that Lasseter had a non-trivial role in Tangled. It may not be Pixar, but it was Pixar-affected. Also, my own opinion is that TS2 and TS3 were both better than TS.
ReplyDeleteAs for Nemo 2: like Cars 2, TS3, and the Monsters prequel, it was always going to get made. Having Pixar make it was part of the point of Disney's acquisition of Pixar (Disney even threatened to make those sequels without Pixar, which is a scary thought that greased the skids for the acquisition). The fact that Stanton is doing it is the best possible scenario, and there's no reason to believe that he will fail the characters, who he clearly loves.
Yeah, so you get people like "Archivist" and "Dean of Pixar University" getting credits -- it's nice.
ReplyDeleteLassiter (I think) has said the same thing, but they've never come up with a story that needed to be told. Though to be honest, more than any other Pixar film it would work to just show us "the next adventure."
ReplyDeleteI loved Tangled! What a great movie.
ReplyDelete